Wasted at the end by the author's pro communist/Stalin bias. First, I do agree that the Soviets contribution to winning WW2 was criminally understated for a long time. The Soviets suffered greatly, taking the full Nazi punch, and fought with incredible bravery despite the poor logistics they had initally.
But the OP's justification of Stalin getting rid of his generals before Barbarossa sounds more like swallowing Stalin's excuses hook line and sinker. Calling them "Nazi collaborators" is exactly the line Stalin would use to justify his fear of being overthrown by the military, and was a common tactic used to get rid of people. Stalin is responsible for ignoring clear signs given by his intel spys about Barbarossa, and the mess his army was in after the firings. He didn't help things at all at the start.
Yes, the US didn't supply trucks, oil, etc to the Soviets to defend Barbarossa...because the US didn't go to war with Germany until Hitler declared war on the US on Dec 11th, 1941!! Barbarossa started in June 1941...but he does not mention that!!! The facts are that Germany was still slugging it out in the eastern front in 1942, and US aid was vital for the survival and eventual success of the Soviet Union.
So, no, I'm not impressed with the article. There's lots of good stuff there, but the bias drags it down.
But the OP's justification of Stalin getting rid of his generals before Barbarossa sounds more like swallowing Stalin's excuses hook line and sinker. Calling them "Nazi collaborators" is exactly the line Stalin would use to justify his fear of being overthrown by the military, and was a common tactic used to get rid of people. Stalin is responsible for ignoring clear signs given by his intel spys about Barbarossa, and the mess his army was in after the firings. He didn't help things at all at the start.
Yes, the US didn't supply trucks, oil, etc to the Soviets to defend Barbarossa...because the US didn't go to war with Germany until Hitler declared war on the US on Dec 11th, 1941!! Barbarossa started in June 1941...but he does not mention that!!! The facts are that Germany was still slugging it out in the eastern front in 1942, and US aid was vital for the survival and eventual success of the Soviet Union.
So, no, I'm not impressed with the article. There's lots of good stuff there, but the bias drags it down.