The notion that Stalin didn't want Roosevelt and Churchill to treat his soldiers as expendable made me smile. If so, it would have been because he didn't want competition.
Roosevelt and Churchill would have been in line well behind Stalin and his generals in that regard.
A Soviet soldier was a cog in a machine and totally expendable in the service of the socialist state, which was demonstrated most recently by the purges of the late '30s. That's why their morale was so high early in the war.
Of late, I've been studying PQ17. One comment I read was that Stalin refused to believe the loss, believing that Roosevelt and Churchill had lied to him because he could not fathom such a loss. Other than that comment, I've not found anything else about Stalin's reaction, which leads me to wonder if, given such a major loss so early in their relationship, and the legitimate reasons for distrust, if perhaps Stalin's whining was because he feared his troops would be considered expendable.
David Barrett raised an issue Oct. 4, in posts, about the scale and complex nature of D-Day as an invasion of Europe and France during WW II. His focus was upon the question of relevancy to Soviet relief by opening a 2nd Front in the West to oppose German military forces.
Continued from previous comments, the South never had the right to secede and it is the 2nd of those pillars upon which Southern hostility to the Union was falsely built. This premise by the post is utterly false and meritless. The South knew that and should have known that despite early history to the Republic and its founding. It is a falsity on its face.
I said I'd stay out, but this is getting interesting, if completely unrelated to the original topic.
Had thought to remain away from this subject but this last thought of Mr. Perry's deserves further:
I can’t agree with Christopher Rein’s assessment of Robert E. Lee. The claim that he was “one of the worst, if not the worst, military commander of all time” is wildly overstated, and to dismiss him as “a traitor and a failure” is overly simplistic.
“The existence of his nation (if you recognize the South's right to secede) depended on his performance on the battlefield and as an advisor, and he failed miserably.”
One last thought, and I will leave this thread alone and return to our regularly scheduled HG. I'll confess, I didn't lob it as a softball so much as a floater. The recent re-litigation of Civil War historical remnants made me revisit related topics I'd read about long ago, even back to childhood when my father took the family south to visit various battlefields (and I'm talking REALLY south; we lived in Canada!).