Thread: PROFESSIONALISM IN RED ARMY- Comments appreciated

In his book RED COMMANDERS, Roger Reese concluded that there was no professionalism in the Red Army. I argue otherwise. After reading books on how the Soviet or Red Army repulsed the tens of millions German soldiers backed up with Panzer divisions, there is no way one can argue that there was no professionalism in the Red Army. How can they come with a powerful war machine composed of tank divisions and aircraft divisions if there were no professionalism and discipline in the Soviet Army. The Soviets saved the world from the megalomaniac Hitler!!

Originally Posted by heartfelty

In his book RED COMMANDERS, Roger Reese concluded that there was no professionalism in the Red Army.

It is a very strange statement. I am not sure what did he mean exactly as "professionalism" but at the end of WW2 Soviet army definitely was one of the most effective armies in the world (maybe even the most effective one).

Originally Posted by heartfelty

How can they come with a powerful war machine composed of tank divisions and aircraft divisions if there were no professionalism and discipline in the Soviet Army.

Professionalism and discipline are two different things. Most (almost all) Russians who served as soldiers during WWII were not professional soldiers. They were merely ordinary people who were involved in this war. But there was very strict discipline in the Russian army. Every order of major ranks were performed even if the soldier was supposed to be dead.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

at the end of WW2 Soviet army definitely was one of the most effective armies in the word (maybe even the most effective one).

Yes, absolutely. But not in the begin of the WWII. The professionalism of Russian Army grew up during the 4 yeas. The main question is why Russians were able to stop Germans in the begin of the war. I suppose it was done only due to immense human casualties and very strict discipline.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Originally Posted by heartfelty

In his book RED COMMANDERS, Roger Reese concluded that there was no professionalism in the Red Army.

It is a very strange statement. I am not sure what did he mean exactly as "professionalism" but at the end of WW2 Soviet army definitely was one of the most effective armies in the world (maybe even the most effective one).

There are two things to consider here. Professionalism of the generals and professionalism of the soldiers. There were no able higher commanders in the beginning of the WW2 (many able commanders did not survive the cleansing of the army, maybe this had been indeed politically justified but it seriously weakened the army). Well, Voroshilov and Budyonny were generals of calvary and were simply too narrow-minded to include tanks and aviation in their strategies and even if they did, the strategy they used was similar to the strategy of calvary - such things as air superiority and fire support were a bit alien to them. To their defense I should say that there were no books or manuals about how to make war with these things - many things had changed since the WWI and Civil War.
The high command really made many blunders in the beginning of the war and Soviet forces were the ones who took the heaviest casualties (even compared to Germany at the end).
Also, according to many historians and veterans of this war, nobody cared very much about the losses of personnel, soldiers were the cheapest expendable material (even compared to fuel, ammunition and food). Such attitudes towards personnel prevailed till the end of the war, by the way, even in the battle for Berlin. I really don't know whether such squandering of the manpower can be professional or not but I seriously doubt it.

What concerns the professionalism of the lower ranks in the army, I think that their abilities were gradually increasing towards the end of the war and yes, the Red Army in 1945 was probably the best fighting force in the world.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Such attitudes towards personnel prevailed till the end of the war, by the way, even in the battle for Berlin.

С 16 апреля по 8 мая советские войска потеряли 352475 человек, из них безвозвратно — 78291 человек. Потери польских войск за тот же период составили 8892 человек, из них безвозвратно — 2825 человек. Потери противника убитыми составили около 400 тысяч человек, пленными около 380 тысяч человек.

Кажется, сейчас стоит произнести два волшебных слова: "Виктор Суворов" и начнется продолжительное шоу...

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Originally Posted by Ramil

Such attitudes towards personnel prevailed till the end of the war, by the way, even in the battle for Berlin.

С 16 апреля по 8 мая советские войска потеряли 352475 человек, из них безвозвратно — 78291 человек. Потери польских войск за тот же период составили 8892 человек, из них безвозвратно — 2825 человек. Потери противника убитыми составили около 400 тысяч человек, пленными около 380 тысяч человек.

Да не в сравнении дело, а в отношении командования к жизням личного состава, в приказах "любой ценой бла бла бла..." и т. д. К примеру, можно прорвать оборону противника за 1 день ценой 10 тыс. человек или за неделю с потерями около тысячи (я образно говорю, дело в принципе - всегда выбирался первый вариант).
Мой дед мне рассказывал, как за 2 ящика с патронами, оставленными на позиции при отступлении угробили около 40 человек, поочерёдно отправляя их с приказом достать любой ценой. В итоге - так и не достали.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Кажется, сейчас стоит произнести два волшебных слова: "Виктор Суворов" и начнется продолжительное шоу...

Побежал за попкорном.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Кажется, сейчас стоит произнести два волшебных слова: "Виктор Суворов" и начнется продолжительное шоу...

С козырей зашел.

Но здесь, думаю, не прокатит. Уровень ФГМ у здешних обитателей довольно низок для обсуждения таких серьёзных тем.

According to Reese the basis of professionalism must pass Western criteria: responsibilty, expertise and corporateness. The social responsibilty of the army is to use its skill to defend the state. Military expertise included the idea that the military possesses specific knowledge that is alien to civilians, such as mastery of various levels of military operations, technical proficiency with military equipment and weaponry, and the leadership of military units. Corporateness is understood as cohesion within the officer corps based on shared values and loyalty to the profession. He added another criteria which is the voluntary nature of the membership. Another is autonomy. Further, he wrote, Marxist theory, revolutionary ideals, recruiting and manning policies, rapid and large scale expansion, friction between nonparty and party members, and the presence of the Political Administration of Workers' and Peasants' Red Army were the most significant factors that inhibited the attainment of professional attributes among officers.

I reject the Western criteria on the grounds that ideological beliefs and fervour form the core of attributes that lead to officer selection. A social democrat would not had made it in Chile during the time of Pinochet. The large scale expansion of the Soviet tank divisions during the 1940s had discredited the thesis that the Red Army had no mastery of technical proficiency. Assuming some Western criterias were not met, I then quote a leading Republican presidential candidate, John McCain: What are we in power for!!

Originally Posted by Ramil

Но здесь, думаю, не прокатит. Уровень ФГМ у здешних обитателей довольно низок для обсуждения таких серьёзных тем.

Тема хорошая. Но холивар бессмысленен. Аргумены Суворова хорошо известны, аргументы его критиков тоже.

Originally Posted by heartfelty

He added another criteria which is the voluntary nature of the membership.

I think that criteria makes the whole difference. Whenever the compulsry enrollment is in place, you can hardly call anyone a 'professional'. From that standpoint, the officers in the Red Army were the professionals whilst the soldiers were not. The enire Red Army was not a professional army. However, that did not mean the Red Army was fighting any worse whenever the soldiers had strong motivation (like that in the WWII).

Think about it this way: the Israeli Army is not a professional army. However, it does not mean the Israeli Army does not know how to fight.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think that criteria makes the whole difference. Whenever the compulsry enrollment is in place, you can hardly call anyone a 'professional'. From that standpoint, the officers in the Red Army were the professionals whilst the soldiers were not. The enire Red Army was not a professional army. However, that did not mean the Red Army was fighting any worse whenever the soldiers had strong motivation (like that in the WWII).

Think about it this way: the Israeli Army is not a professional army. However, it does not mean the Israeli Army does not know how to fight.

Err... What is this all about? AFAIK all armies in the time of WW2 were based on the draft. There were no "professional" in contemporary meaning armies at all. At least among the major players. Am I wrong?

Now that Russia is a full-blown democratic country, chances are you can reform your Armed Forces. Accountability and autonomy should be matters to be discussed in the Duma or lawmaking body of Russia. I am impressed with Russian democracy. Nobody can take the law in his own hands. If President Putin has really had a hand in those killilngs, the probable cause should have made it possible for an opposition member to file an impeachment case against him. Given the animosity that he causes then there must really be no probable cause. It wouldn't be long until Putin creates oversight committee for the Russian Armed Forces and its intelligence organs. But Putin and constituents should beware of people in the judiciary who can convolute legal arguments to his prejudice. It can happen not only to him but to anybody else. So what I suggest is also a Commission on Appointments to oversee appointees. Of course in things like these the majority party must have the upperhand or else the dictates of justice and democratic rule would be prejudices. Long live Boris Yeltsin!! Long live Putin!! Long live Medvedev!!

Originally Posted by heartfelty

Now that Russia is a full-blown democratic country, chances are you can reform your Armed Forces. Accountability and autonomy should be matters to be discussed in the Duma or lawmaking body of Russia. I am impressed with Russian democracy. Nobody can take the law in his own hands. If President Putin has really had a hand in those killilngs, the probable cause should have made it possible for an opposition member to file an impeachment case against him. Given the animosity that he causes then there must really be no probable cause. It wouldn't be long until Putin creates oversight committee for the Russian Armed Forces and its intelligence organs. But Putin and constituents should beware of people in the judiciary who can convolute legal arguments to his prejudice. It can happen not only to him but to anybody else. So what I suggest is also a Commission on Appointments to oversee appointees. Of course in things like these the majority party must have the upperhand or else the dictates of justice and democratic rule would be prejudices. Long live Boris Yeltsin!! Long live Putin!! Long live Medvedev!!

Have you been smoking pot?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by heartfelty

Now that Russia is a full-blown democratic country, chances are you can reform your Armed Forces. Accountability and autonomy should be matters to be discussed in the Duma or lawmaking body of Russia. I am impressed with Russian democracy. Nobody can take the law in his own hands. If President Putin has really had a hand in those killilngs, the probable cause should have made it possible for an opposition member to file an impeachment case against him. Given the animosity that he causes then there must really be no probable cause. It wouldn't be long until Putin creates oversight committee for the Russian Armed Forces and its intelligence organs. But Putin and constituents should beware of people in the judiciary who can convolute legal arguments to his prejudice. It can happen not only to him but to anybody else. So what I suggest is also a Commission on Appointments to oversee appointees. Of course in things like these the majority party must have the upperhand or else the dictates of justice and democratic rule would be prejudices. Long live Boris Yeltsin!! Long live Putin!! Long live Medvedev!!

Have you been smoking pot?

No, sir Ramil. All I do is to write down what my ex-father in law dictate me to write threatening me with "you can improvise, can't you?; unattended candles cause fires; I can make my daughters single again if I like to; I did not finance your high school studies for nothing. I was diagnosed by my doctor to be a certified moron or Mongoloid. Everything written here by my username are all dictated to me under threat of reprisal...He is now in Langley working as a security guard..While he dictates to me while I am here in Fort Lauderdale..

heartfelty,

you forgot to mention that you've been kidnapped by aliens when you were 13 and they implanted a chip into your brain.

Originally Posted by heartfelty

Red Army repulsed the tens of millions German soldiers

How can anybody take you seriously after such nonsense...? Tens of millions of German soldiers... They were armed with lasers as well, right?

The level of professionalism in the Red Army on June 22nd, 1941 was, indeed, quite low. There are 2 reasons for that: the purges and the enormous expansion of the Soviet Army during the pre-war years. A lot of good commanders were purged in a time when the Soviet Army needed far more, not less, commanders. The Party looking over your shoulder at every step and sending you off to Siberia for vague "crimes" does not create an atmosphere where professionalism can thrive. This led to Soviet commanders following guidelines and orders to the very letter, even if this made little to no sense or, worse, if this in fact would worsen the situation. It is terribly important to note that for the stalinist regime loyalty was considered more important than skill. The regime got what it wanted; a loyal army of mediocre skill. One only needs to look at the Finnish campaign for proof of that.

If anything, this makes the sacrifices and the final victory of the Soviet people even bigger.

Lev Trotsky was the one organizing the former Tsarist military heirarchy. There were defectors from both sides:Tsarist and Bolshevik. Lev was a good organizational manager. He knew if merit is due to a soldier whether former Tsarist, rebellious Tsarist, or inserted Bolshevik. He even offered his resignation which Lenin did not accept. Credit should be given to him.

The Finnish Army of 45 thousand soldiers were on advantageous ground while they fought the 1 million Soviet soldiers. I remember reading about some tough Finns who survived or barely survived frostbites. The Finns were lucky the Soviets do not know the terrain. Nonetheless. Stalin forced them to grant him some concessions. The Soviets still won but for a price.

It was only in 1991 that Russia experimented with free enterprise. Other nations had this kind of system since time immemorial. Hence, you cannot expect miracles to happen right away. The Soviets had no experience with rule of law, accountabilty and autonomy. The former Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship. Stalin thought he knew best. But there are areas where Soviets excel at the expense of consumer goods, food, and other necessities. They were able to achieve military superiority at the expense of the needs of the people. American could have done it too. But you would not see hundreds of millions and millions of 5-bedroom detached homes and cars driven by workers on their way to work. America could have taxed the populace and alloted them to military expenditures. But they know that taxes discourage investments. China should had been as stimulated in commerce and trade like Taiwan if she did not allot its resources to military expenditures. They became military superior at the expense of peasants who were driven away by fences and gates erected in city boundaries when they decide to migrate in the cities. Not only is there no right to migrate to cities but also to other countries.They should have invested their resources to highways and roads to function as stimulants to commerce and trade. So if Russia masters economic principles it wouldn't be long until they attain commercial superiority over USA, Britain and Australia. These countries I have mentioned were free markets since time immemorial. As I said, Russia embraced feemarket only in 1991. So Russian communists should not expect economic miracles to happen overnight. When Russia attains commercial superiority, then reform of its military will follow and become a professional army. But for now, there should be peace and order so as not to drive investors away. So the military should devote its time in fighting terrorism and communist subversion.