Why do Slavs suck at war unless they have a massive overwhelming advantage?

Why do Slavs suck at war unless they have a massive overwhelming advantage?

The Soviets won, though. They took Karelia, just as planned.

this thread is shit-tier bait, russians used to win battles when massively outnumbered, it's not slavs who suck it's commies

They may have won, but their losses were massive

War isn't a deathmatch tho.

>outdated rifles
but the Finns had way better small arms than the Russians in 1939

*loses war against Japan and Poland*

*wins wars against the french, ottomans, mongols, germans, etc*
you prove my point also, it's commies

No, fuck off. Russians are retarded niggers who are, always were, and always will be shit at war.
Russian strategy is to throw as many subhumans at an enemy until they finally wear them down and if that doesn't work start burning your own shit.
The world would be better off without those Mongolian barbarians.

Show on the doll where the Russians touched you.

It was a Pyrrhic victory at best. They wanted to take the entire country, but had to back down since the war took so long that the Allies were starting to send aid to Finland. Worst case scenario would have been war with the Allies for Stalin.

Finns had no tanks at all and practically no airforce.

Is this bait?

What makes the difference, by all accounts Soviet Russia should be far more capable relatively speaking considering it was the second most powerful country in the world for the latter half of the 20th century and far more industrially capable than it was prior to going commie

>What is gorilla warfare
>What is Vietnam

Finland didn't do gorilla warfare for the most part. They held the line outgunned and outmanned.

>with outdated rifles
Bullshit. They received massive German support and materiel and participated in Barbarossa, they even retook Soviet gains, then captured East Karelia. THEN the British declared war on them because "oh muh gawd you invaded USSR", which led to multiple British raids on the Finns. Hilarious enough, the main Wikipedia page mentions none of this. Fucking Jewish revisionist history.

>gorilla warfare
>gorilla

>Slavs
Stop saying Slavs when you actually mean Russians.

Newfag

There was only one raid on finland, and even that was a total failure.

Two plus the blockade, and failure doesn't negate the action, nor does it justify UK's gross hypocrisy.

summer came early

their officer core and intelligence aparatus got hit by too many purges which so they punched below their weight class during the 30s and early 40s

So the is sure wasn't that they were commie then

>outdated rifles
No such thing.
That's like saying "an outdated knife".

They never wanted to, even original territory they wanted wasnt entire Karelia, but small part, probably as big as London

>Only war Finland won in Its history is civil one and when they backstabbed Nazis

Fucking phone greentext

Of course they wanted the entire country. They had already created a puppet state for it in the occupied areas and it was in line with Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty

This goes exactly against the entire Socialism in one country thing.
Also goal for starting that war was to secure Leningrad.

He did annex lands and created puppet regimes stretching from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic regardless of any ideological tendencies.

If his goal was to only secure Leningrad, why did his initial land transfer proposal include lands besides Karelia? And why was the entirety of Finland covered in Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty and why did he create a puppet regime in advance if he didn't have any plans to go further than Karelia? Furthermore the USSR tried to topple the Finnish government earlier during the civil war, which would have placed the country under their sphere of influence.

After all that, can you really say that they honestly only wanted Karelia?

>USSR in WW2
>Slavic
Because nothing says "Slav" like a bunch of Mongolians and Armenians lorded over by a Georgian bandit

But where they outnumbered and outplanned?

Would you say that they had to make an all out stand?

>losing even to turkroaches

Russians are the only relevant slavs, rest of slavs are irrelevant cocksleeves for Prussians and Austrians.

>After all that, can you really say that they honestly only wanted Karelia?

It's the same with the Ukraine and Crimea situation in the last few years. Putin wanted 2/3 of Ukraine and only managed to get Crimea and now his apologists are claiming that's all he REALLY wanted.

Russiaboos are the worst.

Reminder that WW2 started in 1941, USSR never invaded eastern Europe, just liberated it and that America is an evil empire

You have to know that not alot of a Russian generals during anytime period had any care for his soldiers lives. So thus their tactic was to send wave after wave until the enemy ran out of ammo. So that may and probably is why they sucked at war.

>conquered everything from Alaska to the Elbe River
>Marched into Paris in 1814, and Berlin in 1945.
>Destroyed the greatest armies the Western World had to offer multiple times in history.
>held political influence and control over half the planet's population for 50 years
>shit at war

and it's ironic to think that the only defeats/setbacks the Russians have suffered in their modern history is because of the massive size of their empire and management of it.

educate me further on the russian empire plz user