Hypothetical: would the USSR have done better against Germany without Stalin?

[The Vagabond]

Serb, there seems to be little doubt that Stalin f*cked up horribly in 1941. He had plenty of independent intelligence reports that Hitler was about to attack. Yet he chose not to believe it. Millions of Soviet troops lost their lives in the first days of the war due to his idiocy, and the initial blow to the Soviet Union resulted so bad that it would take several years and countless sacrifices in order to recover.

As for Stalin's initial shock, perhaps the best testimony is the indisputable fact that he issued his first wartime radio address only on July 3 (IIRC), whereas the war started on June 22.

[DinoDoc]

I don't think he's allowed to be critical of Stalin.

[The Vagabond]

@ DD.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Serb
Not at all. My atitude towards him are very complicated,

Glad that I gave you an opportunity for this little salvo.

but I still think he was overdemonized. To much BS about him were released, to much.

Perhaps you are right. But what you seem to be trying to do in this thread is to "undemonize" him, not to "unoverdemonize", so to speak.

Anyhow, I'm with GePap here:
" People have to learn that being Great and being good are not the same thing at all".

Well said.

Stalin, among Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible, certanly was one of the Greatest leaders in Russian hisory. But unfortunately, in Russian history, Great is always = cruel dictator.

Cynically speaking, the example of other cruel dictators like Franco or Pinochet shows that it takes much less victims (by orders of magnitude) in order to totally control the country. The number of Stalin's victims is way too large even for a "cruel dictator", and for what can be justified even from a cynical point of view.

It's our cross.

Let's hope that our current president will break this cross.

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Serb, there seems to be little doubt that Stalin f*cked up horribly in 1941. He had plenty of independent intelligence reports that Hitler was about to attack. Yet he chose not to believe it. Millions of Soviet troops lost their lives in the first days of the war due to his idiocy, and the initial blow to the Soviet Union resulted so bad that it would take several years and countless sacrifices in order to recover.

As for Stalin's initial shock, perhaps the best testimony is the indisputable fact that he issued his first wartime radio address only on July 3 (IIRC), whereas the war started on June 22.

Check this link. There you will find the explanation.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/7231/june_41.htm

[Serb]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't think he's allowed to be critical of Stalin.

Yeah, right. I'm a KGB agent. They will kill me if I'll dissobey their oders.

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Perhaps you are right. But what you seem to be trying to do in this thread is to "undemonize" him, not to "unoverdemonize", so to speak.

I'm trying to prove that without Stalin the USSR would not have done better against Germany.

Well said.

All credit goes to GePap.

Cynically speaking, the example of other cruel dictators like Franco or Pinochet shows that it takes much less victims (by orders of magnitude) in order to totally control the country. The number of Stalin's victims is way too large even for a "cruel dictator", and for what can be justified even from a cynical point of view.

Russia it's not Spain or Chile. I believe Russia is doomed with circle: brutality/mobilization - relaxation/demobilization. Without this circle, Russia wouldn't exist in its natural form. The only way to escape this circle is to destroy Russia as defeinition: to split the country ---> become vassals--->more probably slowly die.

Let's hope that our current president will break this cross.

Let's hope, let's hope. Our friends from the West seem to be very unhappy about him and as uncle Joe always said, "It's good when they criticize us. It means we are doing all right. It's bad when they do not, it means we are on wrong way."

Nadejda umiraet poslednei.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Serb
Check this link. There you will find the explanation.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...31/june_41.htm

Well, I don't know... Why should we trust to what is written on that webpage? Of course, if Khruschev's memoirs is the only evidence of Stalin's shock, then it is not quite reliable an evidence. (BTW, is it really the only evidence?) But as for the version presented on that webpage, that Stalin was ill on June 22 (with acute angina), I don't find it too reliable either. If Stalin was really ill, then why is this not a common knowledge? I doubt that such a huge historic fact could have escaped our attention for so long. Furthermore, if Zhukov really met Stalin on June 22 while Stalin was terribly ill, why doesn't Zhukov mention the fact of illness in his memoirs? This is very strange. Ends don't seem to match.

Anyway, the matter of Stalin's "shock" in the first days of the war is less important than his obvious f*ck-up in the days leading to the war.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Serb
All credit goes to GePap.

And who says that copyright is not respected in Russia...

Russia it's not Spain or Chile. I believe Russia is doomed with circle: brutality/mobilization - relaxation/demobilization. Without this circle, Russia wouldn't exist in its natural form. The only way to escape this circle is to destroy Russia as defeinition: to split the country ---> become vassals--->more probably slowly die.

But now the only chance for survival is to break this cycle.

Our friends from the West seem to be very unhappy about him and as uncle Joe always said, "It's good when they criticize us. It means we are doing all right. It's bad when they do not, it means we are on wrong way."

The more I observe what is going on, the more I believe that Uncle Joe was completely right on this one.

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Well, I don't know... Why should we trust to what is written on that webpage? Of course, if Khruschev's memoirs is the only evidence of Stalin's shock, then it is not quite reliable an evidence. (BTW, is it really the only evidence?)

Yes it is. Khrushev's memoirs is the only source which mention this escape to dacha episode.

But as for the version presented on that webpage, that Stalin was ill on June 22 (with acute angina), I don't find it too reliable either. If Stalin was really ill, then why is this not a common knowledge? I doubt that such a huge historic fact could have escaped our attention for so long.

It is a common knowledge NOW. But for almost 50 years, this BS Khrushev's story considered as true, because Khrushev re-wrote our history, edited it as he liked and everyone were pretty comfortable with this version, despite it was the obvious lie.

Furthermore, if Zhukov really met Stalin on June 22 while Stalin was terribly ill, why doesn't Zhukov mention the fact of illness in his memoirs? This is very strange. Ends don't seem to match.

Not only Zhukov mentions this in his memoirs, but many others who met Stalin those days, as well.
Esli pamyat mne ne izmenyaet to u Timoshenko ya chital tozhe samoe.

Anyway, the matter of Stalin's "shock" in the first days of the war is less important than his obvious f*ck-up in the days leading to the war.

What choice he had? The Soviet Union wasn't ready for war yet.

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


And who says that copyright is not respected in Russia...

GePap is respected in Russia, as well.

But now the only chance for survival is to break this cycle.

Esli Rossiya ne otmobilizuetsya v blizhaishie let 30, ee zalomayut sovsem.

The more I observe what is going on, the more I believe that Uncle Joe was completely right on this one.

No doubt.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Serb
Yes it is. Khrushev's memoirs is the only source which mention this escape to dacha episode.

Well, if this is the only source, it is not reliable.

It is a common knowledge NOW. But for almost 50 years, this BS Khrushev's story considered as true, because Khrushev re-wrote our history, edited it as he liked and everyone were pretty comfortable with this version, despite it was the obvious lie.

Not only Zhukov mentions this in his memoirs, but many others who met Stalin those days, as well.

Really? But I still doubt that you interprete this correctly. If Zhukov mentioned the fact of illness in his memoirs, this should have become common knowledge long ago, not just now. I'll have to check this out.

Even if Stalin was really ill, what, he couldn't deliver a 5 minite speech on the radio??

What choice he had? The Soviet Union wasn't ready for war yet.

At least to put the troops on alert. It seems that the army was completely relaxed on the day of the attack...

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Serb
Esli Rossiya ne otmobilizuetsya v blizhaishie let 30, ee zalomayut sovsem.

Unfortunately, we don't have 30 years. It's just 10-15 years at maximum.

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Well, if this is the only source, it is not reliable.

Any Khrushev's stories are unreliable by definition. He wrote Beria told him this story about dacha. Great move concidering that Beria was already killed. Great source, my ass. That kind of sources, as you know, we call agency OBS "agentstvo odna babka skazala".

Really? But I still doubt that you interprete this correctly. If Zhukov mentioned the fact of illness in his memoirs, this should have become common knowledge long ago, not just now. I'll have to check this out.

He metioned in his memoirs that he met with Stalin several times during first days of war (the same I read, iirc in Timoshenko's memoirs, so this story about Stalin's escape to dacha is obvious lie). BUT Zhukov wrote his memoirs already after Stalin's death and his memoirs cannot be 100% reliable source also, because he was a cheif of staff of Red Army and share responsibility for disaster. I suspect he didn't tell all the truth (he could just forget something here, something there, and here we go- Stalin is dope, Zhukov is genius. It's quite common problem with all authors of literature of that kind).

Even if Stalin was really ill, what, he couldn't deliver a 5 minite speech on the radio??

1) He had plenty of other things to do.
2) Imagine you are a country's leader and your country was invaded. When you'll speak, you have to be an example for your people, but you have +40C temperature, you're sick and tired as hell. Your people do not know about this and if they'll hear that your voice is weak, what will they think? They will think you're so week because you're broken, you've no willpower and do not believe in victory. He just can't risk. That's why he waited untill he felt better, then he made a perfect speech, perhaps the best speech of his life, which boosted morale of population greatly.

At least to put the troops on alert. It seems that the army was completely relaxed on the day of the attack...

Takoi prikaz byl otdan, a vot pochemu ego ne vezde isponili, sprashivali kogda voina uzhe shla. Sprashivali s sootvetstvuyushih generalov, kotorye etot prikaz ne vypolnili. Naprimer s komanduyushego Zapadnym voennym okrugom Pavlova. Sprashivali kak izvestno ne po-detski.

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Unfortunately, we don't have 30 years. It's just 10-15 years at maximum.

Huynya voina, prorvemsya. Cheluskinci i ne v takih peredelkah byvali.