World war 2

[Andy Broadley]

Interesting. Such claims would fit in well with the Western perception of Stalin as a Very Bad Man but a Very Good WWII Leader. But perhaps my own views are coloured by the glasnost' tarring of all things associated with Stalin. I shall check my Riasanovsky and other history books when I get back to my home library, and see if I can find some other sources for you, as well as confirm/deny my own perceptions of this time period.

Fond nostalgia for Uncle Joe ? Surely not.

 

[Milla]

Fond nostalgia for Uncle Joe ? Surely not.

What in the nine circles of the Inferno are you talking about?

 

[Andy Broadley]

What in the nine circles of the Inferno are you talking about?

Lol I love it!!

Hey, I've probably got it wrong (I do that a lot), but you seemed to be saying that the west had made Comrade Stalin to worse than he actually was.

If you are saying that, then I think you're worng. If I've got it wrong then please disregard my inane drivellings, but tell me more about the nine circles of the inferno, I'm intrigued.

 

[Redneck]

Uncle Joe was worse than Hitler.

 

[Milla]

Lol I love it!!

Hey, I've probably got it wrong (I do that a lot), but you seemed to be saying that the west had made Comrade Stalin to worse than he actually was.

If you are saying that, then I think you're worng. If I've got it wrong then please disregard my inane drivellings, but tell me more about the nine circles of the inferno, I'm intrigued.

No, what I was saying is that the Western portrayal of Stalin is contradictory and simplistic. It seems to consist of "Stalin was evil evil evil...except where he helped us out with WWII, where he was pretty darn heroic." Which is just...eh. Stalin behaved the same way during WWII that he behaved throughout his time in power, which is to say, ruthlessly and cruelly. Which was, it may be said, necessary to defeat the Nazis. Of course, he also thought that such behaviour was necessary to defeat his foes internal and external at times other than the WWII, and to bring the USSR out of its backwardness.

It's probably impossible to say what Stalin was really like, between the propaganda of the West and the propaganda produced by Stalin and his regime, and the various reinterpretations of his reign that historians and politicians have made since his death to suit the needs of their own pet theories or political goals.

For more about the nine circles of the Inferno, see Dante

 

[Andy Broadley]

No, what I was saying is that the Western portrayal of Stalin is contradictory and simplistic. It seems to consist of "Stalin was evil evil evil...except where he helped us out with WWII, where he was pretty darn heroic." Which is just...eh. Stalin behaved the same way during WWII that he behaved throughout his time in power, which is to say, ruthlessly and cruelly. Which was, it may be said, necessary to defeat the Nazis. Of course, he also thought that such behaviour was necessary to defeat his foes internal and external at times other than the WWII, and to bring the USSR out of its backwardness.

It's probably impossible to say what Stalin was really like, between the propaganda of the West and the propaganda produced by Stalin and his regime, and the various reinterpretations of his reign that historians and politicians have made since his death to suit the needs of their own pet theories or political goals.

For more about the nine circles of the Inferno, see Dante

But no-one in Russia had a bad word to say about hi, while he was alive!!

I take on boeard what you have said. Not sure what I think about it, so I'll not comment. I do believe that if the Germans had succeeded, which they probably would have done if barbarossa had been launched on time, the extent to which Stalins purges had weakened the Army would have been a crucial factor.

 

[Andy Broadley]

Dante, Oh yea, got 'im.

​

​

​

I AM THE WAY INTO THE DOLEFUL CITY
​

I AM THE WAY INTO ETERNAL GRIEF,
​

I AM THE WAY TO A FORSKAEN RACE.
​

JUSTICE IT WAS THAT MOVED MY GREAT CREATOR;
​

DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE CREATED ME,
​

AND HIGHEST WISDOM JOINED WITH PRIMAL LOVE.
​

BEFORE ME NOTHING BUT ETERNAL THINGS
​

WERE MADE, AND I SHALL LAST ETERNALLY
​

​

ABANDON ALL HOPE, ALL YOU WHO ENTER.
​

​

​

 

[Grey Eminence]

[font=&quot]Regards Milla,

[/font]

[font=&quot]Napoleon didn't take [/font][font=&quot]Moscow[/font][font=&quot]. [/font][font=&quot]Russia[/font][font=&quot] burned [/font][font=&quot]Moscow[/font][font=&quot]. (Sorry, it's a matter or national pride[/font][font=&quot]]

Fair enough.[/font][font=&quot]

Anyway, in addition to being a point of pride, had Napoleon been able to use Moscow's shelter and resources he may have been able to regroup and the war could very well have ended differently.[/font]

[font=&quot]
Napoleon retired from [/font][font=&quot]Moscow[/font][font=&quot] because the position was unsustainable. He could not supply his forces from the regions surrounding so he had to fall back on his lines of communication.

I'm not convinced that taking [/font][font=&quot]Moscow[/font][font=&quot] would have meant victory even for Hitler, though. While [/font][font=&quot]Moscow[/font][font=&quot] was Stalin's hub, most of the power structure had been evacuated from [/font][font=&quot]Moscow[/font][font=&quot] already, and the Western view of all power being centralized in [/font][font=&quot]Moscow[/font][font=&quot] is a big exaggeration anyway. [/font]

[font=&quot]
However in getting to, and taking [/font][font=&quot]Moscow[/font][font=&quot], the German forces had overrun the majority of Russian coal, iron, food, and industrial production. While factories were certainly evacuated east of the Urals it denotes far more than simply taking [/font][font=&quot]Washington[/font][font=&quot] which you use in your analogy. More importantly in terms of rail line, which were essential to move force, taking [/font][font=&quot]Moscow[/font][font=&quot] would have hindered the Russians greatly. It would have also likely led to the collapse of the siege of [/font][font=&quot]Leningrad[/font][font=&quot] which would have freed up more German forces.
[/font]

[font=&quot]
Hitler still would have had a heck of a time controlling the [/font][font=&quot]USSR[/font][font=&quot]. Sheer size of the country (and of the population - lots of potential defenders) would have made it prohibitively difficult.[/font] [font=&quot]
I agree with this point entirely. Napoleon could not hope to control [/font][font=&quot]Russia[/font][font=&quot]. But in the case of [/font][font=&quot]Germany[/font][font=&quot] they had occupied enough of [/font][font=&quot]Russia[/font][font=&quot], that provided they could hold it for a time could sufficiently starve the [/font][font=&quot]USSR[/font][font=&quot] of resources to drive them from the war for all intents.
[/font]

[font=&quot]Regards Agrippa,

[/font]

If the Red Army were able to retake the city, say, use the Siberia divisions to cut off the Germans in Moscow a la Stalingrad, then the problem would have been avoided.


This brings up a point that I was going to raise with Milla. Speed. Taking Moscow needs that. The reason that Barbarossa is still open to some level in interpretation is Hitler’s dithering when it came to army group assignments, in addition to changing objectives mid stream. Had the forces been kept on target and driven to Moscow it is likely that they could have taken it prior to the arrival of the Siberian Divisions in sufficient force to prevent it. Hence the eternal question… could the Germans hold it.



But you must remember that the Franco-Prussian War, or, more specifically, the harsh peace, laid many of the seeds of the First World War. Bismark said that he wanted the French to forgive Sedan as they had forgiven Waterloo. The German seizure of Alsace-Lorraine made that very difficult. A more lenient peace might have avoided enough of the Franco-German animosity to make war in 1914 impossible.


Germany in the years leading up to WWI was actively trying to tip over the balance of powers at the time. Also leading up to WWI Germany, was Germany. Prior to the Franco Prussia War it was a customs union with additional treaties. I do not subscribe overtly to the Prussian War basis for the start of WWI. Although I will concede that the taking of Alsace-Lorraine was a major sticking point which Bismarck wisely noted and was opposed to. Bismarck understood the concept of first among equals.


Regards SoupySayles,


If they had taken Moscow quick enough, they might have been able to salvage the North africa theater as well


Probably not. The North African business was a matter of logistics. Rommel could not have deployed more forces, or at least not much more, that he did. While he operated along one road at distances over 1000 miles the UK operated from Alexandria, a scant 100 miles away at the worst moment. Also it is important to consider the naval position at the time. Even if Hitler could move forces from the Russian front it would not have resolved the naval issue.

 

[Milla]

[font=&quot]Napoleon retired from [/font][font=&quot]Moscow[/font][font=&quot] because the position was unsustainable. He could not supply his forces from the regions surrounding so he had to fall back on his lines of communication.

[/font]
[font=&quot][/font]
[font=&quot]Precisely. Which is why Russian forces burned Moscow, including its stores - had he taken Moscow, it would have served as a resupply point and new command post. Without Moscow, Napoleon's forces were left stretched out across the country with nowhere to go but back.
[/font][font=&quot]

However in getting to, and taking [/font]

[font=&quot]Moscow[/font][font=&quot], the German forces had overrun the majority of Russian coal, iron, food, and industrial production. While factories were certainly evacuated east of the Urals it denotes far more than simply taking [/font][font=&quot]Washington[/font][font=&quot] which you use in your analogy. More importantly in terms of rail line, which were essential to move force, taking [/font][font=&quot]Moscow[/font][font=&quot] would have hindered the Russians greatly. It would have also likely led to the collapse of the siege of [/font][font=&quot]Leningrad[/font][font=&quot] which would have freed up more German forces.

[/font]
[font=&quot][/font]
[font=&quot]I entirely agree with the rail lines and supplies. I wasn't saying that taking Moscow would have made no difference. But the question is, what was his goal in taking Moscow? The entire endeavor of the Nazis invading the USSR seems highly senseless to me - it would have required more troops than Hitler had to actually pacify the nation and use its supplies and manpower in any real way. So why even try to invade the USSR, if you can't use it? Would taking Moscow hinder the USSR's ability to be part of the Allies? Yes. But I really doubt that the USSR would have even entered the war to begin with had Hitler held out to his original deal with Stalin, thereby making the whole goal moot, since the USSR wouldn't have been really knocking itself out to aid the Allies then...I mean, thank goodness Hitler did invade, because otherwise the USSR might not have gotten involved until it was too late, but it was very illogical of him.[/font]

I'm not sure that taking Moscow would have caused Leningrad to fall. It might even have helped Leningrad, since troops could have been recommitted...Stalin did not do all he could to help Leningrad during the siege, claiming that troops were more needed elsewhere. A lot of Russians believe that the let Leningrad suffer purposely in order to weaken it as an alternate center of Soviet power.
[font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]I agree with this point entirely. Napoleon could not hope to control [/font][font=&quot]Russia[/font][font=&quot]. But in the case of [/font][font=&quot]Germany[/font][font=&quot] they had occupied enough of [/font][font=&quot]Russia[/font][font=&quot], that provided they could hold it for a time could sufficiently starve the [/font][font=&quot]USSR[/font][font=&quot] of resources to drive them from the war for all intents.

[/font]
[font=&quot][/font]
[font=&quot]Indeed. But the USSR wouldn't have participated in the war unless it had been threatened to begin with, so...Hitler drove the USSR into the war, and then had to attempt to pacify it...less than excellent strategy, really.
[/font]

 

[Milla]

I take on boeard what you have said. Not sure what I think about it, so I'll not comment. I do believe that if the Germans had succeeded, which they probably would have done if barbarossa had been launched on time, the extent to which Stalins purges had weakened the Army would have been a crucial factor.

Yes. It's the great contradiction of Stalin. His ruthlessness killed off the competent generals before the war, for fear of them threatening his own power. Then his ruthlessness kept the Soviet army and citizens fighting against all odds - his willingness to destroy entire swaths of his own people could be considered what saved the country from the Nazis. His ruthlessness in industrializing the USSR was also one of the reasons it was prepared at ALL for WWII. I would never say that he was a good leader, but I do wonder what would have happened to the USSR during WWII had he not been in power.

 

[kurabrhm]

Stalin - - he looks, pretty much, just about as pleasant and friendly as my old Iranian friend who has now gone back to his home city of Esfahan. How wierd, considering Stalin was responsible for the death of millions but my Iranian friend is a doctor who helps save lives.

it must be the old chaos theory at work again.

 

[Andy Broadley]

You could say the same thing about Charlie Chaplin & Hitler

 

[Milla]

Stalin - - he looks, pretty much, just about as pleasant and friendly

Dude, even Lenin thought Stalin was lacking social graces. The perception of Stalin as jovial "Uncle Joe" is one created by the finest of Soviet propagandists and airbrushers; in real life, he was poxy and unpleasant, according to the accounts of those who actually interacted with him. There are rather (in retrospect) amusing accounts of those who planned his funeral and his display in the mausoleum frantically trying to figure out some trick of lighting that would make him look less pockmarked and unsavoury...

 

[jgarden]

Ironically although both Hitler and Stalin ruled with an iron fist and demanded loyalty from others, each was their nation's greatest liability. While dictatorship has some short-term advantages, the lack of checks-and- balances to absolute power of the leaders undermined any possibility of longterm success. Below the leadership, however, was a system of checks-and-balance to maintain loyaty through prepetual fear.

The fact that both nations were as successful as they were, was a result of sheer perserverance, inspite of inept leadership. Russia was able to win an attrition war in cities like Stalingrad that could have been bypassed instead of engaging in urban warfare where Germany's technical superiority was nullified. Hitler and Stalin should not bear all the blame, while their mental stability was suspect, there were no end of "willing" subordinates who followed orders, did their "dirty work." kept them in power and knew better.

 

[kurabrhm]

Dude, even Lenin thought Stalin was lacking social graces. The perception of Stalin as jovial "Uncle Joe" is one created by the finest of Soviet propagandists and airbrushers; in real life, he was poxy and unpleasant, according to the accounts of those who actually interacted with him. There are rather (in retrospect) amusing accounts of those who planned his funeral and his display in the mausoleum frantically trying to figure out some trick of lighting that would make him look less pockmarked and unsavoury...

Sorry Milla, maybe I'm reading too much into that infamous picture of Stalin sitting next to FDR and Churchill at the Yalta conference.

 

[Milla]

Sorry Milla, maybe I'm reading too much into that infamous picture of Stalin sitting next to FDR and Churchill at the Yalta conference.

Well, in fairness to Stalin, he was wearing a pretty snappy coat in that photograph.

 

[Andy Broadley]

Sorry Milla, maybe I'm reading too much into that infamous picture of Stalin sitting next to FDR and Churchill at the Yalta conference.

Theres also the fact that sitting next to Winnie and FDR is gonna make anyone look better in a photo

 

[ajm122188]

I'm pretty sure Hitler would have taken over all of Europe and slaughtered the British Army if he wasn't stupid enough to declare war on Russia and make a pact with Japan.

 

[phylis]

I'm pretty sure Hitler would have taken over all of Europe and slaughtered the British Army if he wasn't stupid enough to declare war on Russia and make a pact with Japan.

I agree, he never learned from Napoleon's mistake. He would have done good to concentrate in Britain, then moved through Africa, until he could have Russia surrounded.

Although I do not belive that America would have sat back and watched this happen. Even if Pearl Harbor would not have happened.

 

[applepowerpc]

I disagree. While Hitler may have had the land forces to defeat Britain et al., he did not have the air and sea. Operation Sea Lion was scrapped in response to Hitler's defeat in the Battle of Britain--which was the result of another boneheaded move by Hitler, to bomb London.

Under the circumstances, surprise-attacking Russia seemed an easier target at the time;; especially when you consider what a sorry job Russia did of invading Finland. And then the logic was you could use Russia's resources to invade Britain. I still think Barbarossa was a dumb move, though. But then again hindsight is always 20/20....