They werent agriculturaly prepared in that sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
What I meant "economically" was in terms of agriculturally, enough , self sufficient, nourished country which Russia was not yet. Industrially, well they were Industrialized because of the "Five Year Plan".
I can't tell you everything about how economy and war connects, but do you think someone in this planet history could keep big army without food? You remember the most valuable discovery that was made right behind WW1? Railroads and trains, that make possibly to supply big amount of soldiers with food and ammo. You think SU forces did eat holy air or they were plants that eating only sun rays and water? Main rule that work for all: you can keep so big army, that your economy could hold. Just fun fact: right before the war quantity SU divisions increased more that 2 times, you think it possible without effective food base?
I did not say this treaty alone helped Soviet Union. I said they were economically behind. Not Industrially behind. There had been occurences of famine and mass Starvation in Soviet Union before the war that contributed to their War effects. They won not because they were industrialized only, but because Stalin for one was aware of a future conflict with German and two he knew he had to make Soviet Union industrialised also to do so. Unfortunately he could not also pursue economic goals, so he forced Ukraines to give them all their food, "Collectivization" policy to provide Soviet Union with enough food. Although that was short term.
Could you remind me when was Great Famine in Ukraina and when the war started?
Blitzkreig was not a failure, but the Operation Barbarossa was. Blitzkreig was a very efficient tactic, but that does not always guarantee a win, does it?
Now about blietzkrieg – blietzkrieg it’s not a tactic, it’s conception of battle actions. Tactic – it’s how you forces acts in battle under different situations (tactic human waves, tactic walking artillery fire, tactic bating artillery gun, e.t.c). Barbarossa was plan with blietzkrieg as foundation. It means, that war will be fast, not long sitting in trenches like in WW1 and you don’t need mobilize all your human forces and industrial power (in fact blietzkrieg was create to achieve these goal, germans don’t want fight on long time and with huge economical tension like in WW1). The similar conception was create in SU in 1930 years called “deep operation or Soviet Deep Battle (in western sources)”, but it was not implemented in start of war. It was use in Vistula–Oder Offensive (1945) and August Storm (Soviet-Japanese War 1945) as examples.
Italy was entirely lagging behind. Fought too many wars before WW2 exhausting their resources. Had a huge budget deficit. Still had WW1 equipment and tanks that were pretty bad.
Japan had the infantry but not the vehicles. Reasons why they were successful around Asia is because the other neighbouring countries were ill prepared and taken by surprise. Taken by surprise meaning, just declare war without declaration.
Both Italy and Japan had their own ambitions leaving Germany kind of doing all the heavy lifting work. They were allies, but no cooperative ones. They all had their own ambitions, which resulted in parting away. The only supporter Germany had really during the War was Italy. Although Italy was militaristically poor. Invasion of Africa, they could not do it without Germans help. Some more elements be spilled but I would rather if you could take the time to check some things.
Why talking about German allies on EF you remember only Italy and Japan? If you called Italy and Japan as main allies of German on EF, you are deeply wrong.
Total casualties of German allies on EF
https://military.wikireading.ru/4759
Pay attention that Hungary fought until the end of war. Also in that tables don’t include “Blue Division” (18 693 soldier, from start of war from it gone almost 47k mans, casualties were IRC 5k killed and captured and 9k wounded) and volunteers of SS (Dutches, Danes, Norwegians and e.t.c) IRC their amounts was 45k.
Quantity of German allies forces at start of Barbarossa
https://rg.ru/2016/06/16/rodina-sssr-germaniya.html
German total forces at start of Barbarossa:
At start of Barbarossa quantities of allies forces are almost 20% from quantities German first line divisions (division that take actions on battle, remain parts were used as reserve and to encirclement of SU forces) or if use other words “each 5-th soldier that fought on EF against SU was soldier of German ally, each 4-th plane, each 10-th tank and each 7-th artillery”. These forces you called "useless allies".
Clarify Japanese thing. I did leave out the fact the Japanese made a so called "secret non-aggression pact" with the SU. Reasons why Japan did so, it to continue their Conquest in Manchuria China. Their cult of being the so called so Masters of Asia. It is called the "The Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact" 1941 April.
I could tell you much more about Japan, about England pacts with Japan that give them freedom to act in China, and reasons why SU made pact with Japan. In short: England don't want to fight against Japan in Asia and use bluff and concessions trying not to start war against Japan. AS history showed in Singapoore it's not worked so well as initially planned.
I do recommend this Movie "Bitter Harvest" and it is definitely way better than Enemy at the Gates. You will enjoy it, that is for sure. It is more historically accurate and I think it was based also on a true story. There is no better movies than it being based on true story.
https://www.basedonatruestorypodcast.com/57-behind-the-true-story-of-bitter-harvest/
Watch this trailer and you will recieve an interesting insight on both Ukraine and Russia during the 1930s.
I watched description and trailer to that movie. No, I am not big fan of anti-Soviet propaganda. I watched and read such shit enough in 90-s. But, I also not fury communist who said “Stalin is our god and leader, he did everything right and never be wrong”. I prefers use my brains to judge about events, not my feelings. But, just on one second turn on your imagination – how movie that was did in 2017 in Canada, man who collected only Ukrainian sources could be unbiased? Or you don’t know what was in 2014? If you want to dispute about Famine 1932 you could write private message to me, but I never will be talking about this in open air. I don’t want pull all of this Ukrainian-Russian holywar shit on these forum. And one question for you: do you watched soviet movies about war? If no, I could you offer watch next:
I don't know if exist english subtitles to these movies or not, but for me these movies in one row with "Fullmetal Jacket", "Band of Brothers" and "Pacific Front".
Pyad zemli (Square foot of soil)
Goryachiy sneg (Hot snow)
1-st movie was strict made on same-name novel, author went through war from start to end.
And one last word about so lovely for you tactic of human waves. If you think goal of this tactic is dropping cannon fodder on HMG, you are deeply wrong. First – it’s only used by weaker opponent against more stronger, when you have little amount of artillery, hmgs, tanks and planes (or none), but have more manpower in this battle. Just imagine yourself as officer of army of country with weak industrial base and you need defeat enemy that have more firepower than you (like Japan in WW2 in ground battles or Korea in Korean War). You will be fight or just drop weapon and go to surrender? If you choose 1-st variant, you need a tactic that give you possibility for victory.
How it was and how it looks:
http://eternalcontras.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_10.html
My free retelling the most valuable parts for you:
“Renouncement from attack in full growth was did in WW1. Experience showed that, HMG could kill any amount of attacking soldiers, if HMG don’t be suppressed. 7 august 1915 Australian soldiers attacked Turkish trenches in hill Baby 700 (Hallipoli). Australian trenches was in 30-40 meters from Turkish. Right before attack was artillery firing from naval guns. But it was ended 7 minutes earlier than planned, Turkish soldiers went out from shelters and take defense positions. 3 waves of Australian soldiers couldn’t achieved Turkish trenches.
To find possible decisions used many tactical methods: heavy artillery fire while infantry getting closer to enemy trenches, waves of infantry behind tanks, use artillery fire to did big amount of craters – small groups of soldier run from one to another and getting closer to enemy positions. But from attack in full growth renounce all countries in WW1.
While in Korean War this tactic used so much and with great success? What changed? In WW1 no one whining about waves of attacking infantry that leave defending soldiers without ammo.
Could HMG kill attacking wave?
Even if you have HMG this not mean that it can stop attacking in full growth infantry. You need some conditions for this. In first: good sector of view and good place to view, that HMGunner could have enough time to open fire, see target and correct himself fire. In WW1 in Europe neutral territory have good view and attacks were in day conditions. In Korea attacks were in poor visibility conditions (night, snow, mist e.t.c). Second: attackers need to overcome some obstacles (barbwire as example). Many attacks were ripped off when attacking infantry try overcome barbwire. Third: HMG must be in flank to position of attacking wave or it will be shoot only right behind himself and it will not trying to defend trenches. It will be shoot to separate soldiers instead the whole wave. AS remark: there is tactical method called final protective fire of HMG’s. Right before attacking wave make final jerk to trenches, HMGunners turned they weapon and start firing parallel to defended front on height of belt attacking soldiers. They fire not at targets, but at earlier marked lines, in this way enemy soldiers by themselves went into bullets flow. Next moment: HMGunner must have good training in WW1 HMGunners were trained like artillery crews and they could fire on long distances. After WW1 HMG was consider as more simple weapon and level of training was decrease. If blob of attacfers will be big enough, it can kill defenders.
In 1928 Japanese officers after analysis of WW1 battle actions tried to find method to achieve enemy positions with minimum loses and start of bayonet fight in trenches. As decision were accept next actions: infantry covertly getting closer to enemy positions and one fast run from 30-50 meters go to enemy trenches. Enemy couldn't open effective fire for time while infantry will be running these 30-50 meters. In consider that much easier to getting closer to enemy positions under poor visibility conditions, like snow, rain or night. Main accent was did on night attacks. Night attacks were main visit card of Japanese infantry in WW2. Covert attacks used all armies in WW2. But Japanese experience of this tactic show some disadvantages and restrictions of it.
History of battles in Pacific Ocean saves many happening when JF (Japan Forces) take big loses with minor results or even catastrophic results for some reasons:
Not every time possibly covertly closer to enemy positions on 30-50 meters, especially if squad is big. More soldiers, more sound. One careless sound or move could reveal all, after that squad was catching under heavy fire and attacking side need to retreat with big loses. It’s good example that tactic for small forces couldn't every time used by big forces and that if some tactic couldn't used by big forces that mean, that it can’t be used by small forces. But we need to pay attention that JF were cultivated in offensive style and under early revelation (when distance greater than 30-50 meters) they always gone to attack, that led to big loses.
But near to end of WW2 JF start find ways how this tactic could help against USF in Pacific Front. The most common moments: JF make loud noises, screams and started rifle and HMG fire. Goal of this was scare US soldiers and make them open fire to reveal they positions to JF. While in that moment main forces preparing for attack from different angle as more closer as possible to found USF positions, silently and covertly with ready bayonets and grenades. Sometimes small groups of snipers deployed behind USF positions in night and start firing into void, this make illusion of encirclement and make morale of defenders lower.”
In link that i showe before more facts and rules how it was and how it works in Korean War and in Pacific Front with some picts and USF reports. If you want know more use goole translate (unfortunately it couldn't translate site as link, use copy-paste method)
This tactic in most closer to your expectation view, was used in last time IRC in Iraq-Iranian war, when Iranian militiaman (young boys) often unarmed or with small amount of weapon, used to storm Iraq defense (it was almost end of the war where both sides can’t achieve success, but in final Iran won this war). After ammunitions of defenders were empty in action gone professional soldiers with good ammunition and weapon, they take positions of Iraq forces. But again, it was not stupid run on HMG how it everyone imagine, main goal it have - that enemy used most of his ammo and can’t fight effective after that.
If moderator will be here, feel free to move this tread to history or offtopic, i am too tired from all of this.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
