> which is why the first few years of the war are so extraordinary, yes but the purges and literally everything about it and the german success in barbarossa has been overstudied to the last hair strand. everyone considers ussr to have been defeated on an operational and tactical level in that period. purges rotted the shit out of their army. i agree with you there. the fuck up was bad. horrendous. i would never excuse human lives being thrown away like that. serbs don't reason like this, there's not a lot of us if you haven't noticed. > . the liquidation of the southern front in those retarded counteroffensives is what allowed the axis to march into the caucuses in late 42; aftershocks of barb can't be blamed for marching hundreds of thousands of men into idiotic charges without proper logistical lines in between german pincers. yes, which is why     i added a bit about that. however what i failed to mention was that the command reshuffled too many people into central and northern flanks as well. southern flank wasn't manned properly and not by good generals either. > then there's stuff like the battle of tannenberg line or the second invasion of finland that betrayed high-level idiocy even well into 44. just gonna say i'm not familiar with that. don't know. > which is why the first few years of the war are so extraordinary yes, it was. but let's be honest, everyone said the non-strategic defeats in barbarossa are bad a billion times already. sure, it's true, but i think people miss the fact that war lasted for 4 and some more years after that. are you guys even taught about the eastern front after barbarossa or it's just soviets lost there then won in 1945 though zerg rush?
Serbia