Why were the soviets more successful defending against the Germans than Chinese vs the Japanese?

Deleted member 1487

Ah so whataboutism
Ah so strawmanning on your part. Rather than engaging with my point, which was that other than two famous examples of relentless self promoters who were read by western audiences, there weren't really other famous examples that might have influenced pop military histories from that period and those examples weren't any different from what other generals were doing on the Allied side; instead of providing counter examples or denying anything, you just said 'whataboutism' and sidestepped the entire point. You probably don't have any other examples and are buying into the modern caricature that was sold by pop historians to pretend like they were coming up with something totally new and never before written about WW2 to sell books.

Again your missing the point I'm differentiating between popular myth and what proper historians were saying. You point about NATO and the 50's is exactly the point I was making?
That's the point, what popular 1950's myth? If anything the modern so called iconoclasts built up the myth of the myth to sell books on the idea they were writing something original and all the older stuff got things totally wrong.
Two German generals wrote flawed memoirs, they didn't represent the entire understanding of the Eastern Front for the average person or pop historian in that period.

Right and you reckon all 12m just turned up
That's the point, they came in waves and due to the heavy losses that were being taken they didn't show up all at once within that 6 month period; instead though Soviet superiority in numbers happened relatively quickly, it didn't reach later levels of crushing superiority until after 1941 because of the loss rates. The fact that the Soviets could mobilize such a deep manpower pool kept them from being defeated in 1941, otherwise they'd have lost; that is the benefit of a larger, younger population.

Like I said somewhere in the middle
You haven't actually differentiated the two positions. I'm asking what is the practical difference.

I got 86m vs 168m in 1939, but eieher way 190 vs 80 still not enough to zerg rush
Only if you include the Czechs, who weren't being conscripted. In 1939 that is before the Soviets annexed East Poland, the Baltics, and parts of Romania. A 2:1 strategic manpower advantage is plenty to zerg rush, read the Askey debunk PDF. Plus the German population was older and there was a larger gap due to the WW1 and 1920s low birthrates that the Soviets did not have, I can link the book that analyzes that when I get home and can get the title.

Well what can I tell you take on the world you will be outnumbered, but that doesn't necessarily mean you lose due to being buried in rushing bodies tactics. But OK yeah Germany was failed by Italy :rolleyes:
Check out John Ellis' 'Brute Force'. It wasn't simply manpower, but also industry, access to resources, and global access to the best highway: the various oceans for strategic movements. Germany was failed by Italy quite a bit of course, but that wasn't the only nation or point.
 
Top