• cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    I’m not too familiar with the Korean or Greek ones, Russia and mexico are pretty spot on but idr Zapata’s exact politics, I get the revolutionaries mixed up but I think he was kind of a mess?

    The Spanish context might’ve been unwinnable even if Stalin had cooperated fully. Russia was kind of a shit show as far as military and industry, and couldn’t handle all of Germany+Italy’s direct aid from next door while navigating all of it through hostile liberal states. Maybe they could have if they hadn’t spent all their time doing internal purges and being run by a dipshit gangster, but that’s being generally internally shitty, not being a bad ally.

    Like they did fuck it up, sending commissars and shit, but I’m not sure it made the difference.

    • masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      not being a bad ally.

      Stalin was far more interested in Spain’s gold reserves than he was in defeating fascists - that’s just historical record now. But you are correct… the Republican side was hamstrung by factors even larger than Stalin’s psychotic penchant for shooting international socialism in the foot - Britain pressuring France’s (supposedly) “socialist” government into ceasing all logistic support for the Republicans being one of the big ones. You know… the same Britain that flew Franco from the Canaries to Morocco at the start of the coup so that he could take control of the Spanish colonialist military there…

      • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Yeah, just worth remembering that when Russia fought that same enemy on their own soil few years later, they were losing ground for a while. Them being the most loyal friend in the world might not have pulled that one out of the fire.

            • masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              An interesting historical tidbit…

              “Blitzkrieg” is an invention of British propaganda - the Wehrmacht never used that term to describe their method of warfare. The Wehrmacht also never had any such a comprehensive and holistic methodology of combined-arms operations. There was one country, however, that did - the Soviet Union. Soviet military theorists spent the better part of the 30s coming up with some of the most forward thinking ways of actually waging modern warfare. It was called "Glubokaya Operatsiya - “Deep Operation.” It certainly wasn’t perfect or fool proof, but it was years ahead of anything being thought about in Britain, France, and even Germany. These ideas helped the Soviet army inflict the very first defeat on the Axis powers during WW2 - the battles around the Khalkhin Gol river in 1939, where the Soviet Union absolutely trashed the Japanese 6th Army.

              By the time the Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, it was all gone - destroyed by Stalin. One of the main architects of “Deep Operation,” Mikhail Tukhachevsky, was dead - tortured and executed on Stalin’s orders, along with God-knows how many of the Soviet military’s brightest. Even Yakov Smushkevich, who commanded the Soviet air elements at Khalkhin Gol that was so critical to the Soviet victory and was known for his tireless efforts to improve the training of Soviet pilots, wasn’t spared - tortured and executed.

              It wasn’t even limited to the military. Konstantin Chelpan, the lead engineer who designed the engine for the legendary T-34 tank, wasn’t spared - tortured and executed.

              It’s not difficult to see why they got beaten so badly at the start of “Operation Barbarossa” - the Soviet Union had essentially been sabotaged by Stalin.