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

[Serb]

1) BT, were absolutely stupid tanks, their concept was stupid from the beggining. And "red marshal" Tuckhachevsky build thousands, sh!tloads of them. He did not ordered those tanks for recon mission. He saw them as cruise tanks and ordered several thousands of them, while to brake enemy's defensive lines he ordered T-35, 5 turreted monster, with armor which can be penatrated by German guns of WW1. (The 13 mm armor of BT German troops could penatrate with AP rounds of their rifles). Overall about fifty T-35 were made. Cool isn't it? 50 T-35 broke throught enemy's defenses and then several thousands of BT start to puse the enemy. He was a bright mind, indeed. The bulk of Soviet armor forces in 1941 were T-26, a modified Vickers tank unreliable, with tiny armor, slow, i.e. even more crap as BT. This armada of rusty metal crap, created by Red marshal was wiped-out by Germans within months. Few survived BT were used as scout vehicles, because they couldn't be used elsewhere.

2) Stalin was not an alcoholic, alcoholics usally don't live long and don't have bright mind to make really desicive desicions.

3) He wasn't paranoid as well.

4) Western brainwashing machine is awesome.

5) Unfortunately it was we Russians who started to create absurd myths about Stalin, thus giving fuel for your brainwashing machine. Khrushev was kinda f*cker.

6) Have a nice day. I have to log-off now.

p.s. and please Shawnmmcc, take a deep breath, I didn't want to ofend you. It was reply to Hurricane.

[Mr. Harley]

Serb, thank you for the note. Bear with me. It may be that our two cultures define alchoholic differently. I have seen numerous citiations that Stalin consumed a fair amount of Vodka, multiple times a month. He was not a "drunk", as in letting the alchohol disable him. But people who drink routinely, with many drinks up to a substantial portion of a bottle in one sitting, are considered alcholic. Note I did not consider it delibilitating per se, but it evidently did not help his dispostion nor do anything good for those whose death warrants he was signing. Many bright minds have had problems with alchohol, and with the right ancestry you will not necessarily get cirrohsis of the liver as long as it isn't constant. Also, if Khruschev fed the west this false history, where is a non-Russian speaking historian type going to find translated documents that show this was false. It's the nasty problem in studying Soviet History - whose history and when did the party write it.

Reference the BT, yes I know it was not the T-60 or the T-70, two vehicles designed as scout tanks or tankettes. However, given it's speed and capability it would have made an excellent scout tank. The heavy tank break out concept, with the cavalry tank break out, was NOT that far removed from a Blitzkreig. Imagine instead of the few T-34's and KV-1's as part of a spearhead with the BT-5/7's as the breakout vehicles. Compared to the AFV's the Nazis used in France quite successfully (Pzkw 1 (machine guns) - II (20mm canon) - III and Czech 38t (37mm canon) - IV (short 75mm field gun), it wouldn't have been that different.

However, the Red Army at the time did not the flexibility in doctrine/lower command initiative to make that kind of tactical doctrine work. Plus the lack of radios really cramps any mobile doctrine. In fact the Soviet armed forces never quite put these together except on a special forces level, look at Afghanistan half a century later. You need both to be truly successful - hardware and doctrine. The Nazis showed that doctrine and organization can get you further than hardware at times.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Serb

Yeah, right. The Russian sources are communist's propaganda and American sources are Soviet propaganda as well.
Just what kind of f*cking sources do you need?

Have you read "A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia" by Alexander N. Yakolev? I highy recommend it; written by a Russian that was part of the top communist machinery. He if anybody should know what he is talking about.

4) Western brainwashing machine is awesome.

Not nearly as awesome as the Soviet machine.

And just a small comment to shawnmmcc's post:

Did his executions/exiles/gulags at times hurt his industrial and war efforts. Absolutely.

The "at times" is really redundant. The gulag mines and factories were never profitable.

EDIT: I should probably point out that there of course were some profitable camps, but that the Gulag system as a whole was unprofitable and much more unefficient than corresponding institutions with free workers.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Hurricane
Have you read "A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia" by Alexander N. Yakolev? I highy recommend it; written by a Russian that was part of the top communist machinery. He if anybody should know what he is talking about.

Alternatively, we can dismiss his works as a commie propaganda. Or do we just accept anything that states that Soviets were monsters as true (regardless of the souurce) and deny everything else as a biased account.

Not nearly as awesome as the Soviet machine.

The big difference between Soviet and Western propaganda is that no Soviet really believed what he saw on TV or read in newspapers. Thus, it was not truly effective, at least in post-Khrushchev USSR.

Western propaganda is much more sophisticated, I'll grant you that. That's only makes it more dangerous. "Wag the Dog" may be a satire, but it really is not too far from the reality.

[Bosh]

He wasn't paranoid as well.

Well at least he wasn't strung out on drug cocktails while having sex with bunches of young girls like Mao.

[Whoha]

Nice diary from the ambassador, but I'd have put this part in bold "The buildings and equipment in most of the cases are the most modern available. The best companies mostly from USA, but also from Germany, France and England were invited on competive base to design them.

When you have to invent, design, and build everything yourself, of course its going to take a little longer.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Saras
--"This meant, among other things, betraying the comrades in the Baltics and the Ukraine"

Che Che Che... Comrades in the Baltics... Just say no, man.

Yes, comrades in the Baltics. Whom do you think saved St. Petersburg but the Estonians? Sure, after a few years of occupation by Germans and White armies, your countries were purged of the Reds, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have been Red had the German not occupied the area. Finland would have been Red had German troops not aided the Finnish bourgeoisie.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Finland would have been Red had German troops not aided the Finnish bourgeoisie.

You could much more convincingly argue, that without Lenin's communist revolution, Finland would never have got its independence. Only because Lenin was busy fighting a civil war Finland had its chance to go its own way.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by ErikM
Alternatively, we can dismiss his works as a commie propaganda. Or do we just accept anything that states that Soviets were monsters as true (regardless of the souurce) and deny everything else as a biased account.

Commie propaganda? That was a new one.

The fact is that Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet system was criminal in nature. There is no way around it (unless, of course, you believe that genocidal dictatorships is the perfect form of society).

The big difference between Soviet and Western propaganda is that no Soviet really believed what he saw on TV or read in newspapers. Thus, it was not truly effective, at least in post-Khrushchev USSR.

Post-Kruschev USSR is hardly the issue at hand here.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Hurricane
Only because Lenin was busy fighting a civil war Finland had its chance to go its own way.

Since the Bolsheviks recognized Finland's indpendence in late 1917, before the Civil War began, I doubt they had to let Finland go.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Hurricane
The fact is that Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet system was criminal in nature. There is no way around it (unless, of course, you believe that genocidal dictatorships is the perfect form of society).

What genocide? Even the monstrously murderous Stalin did not atempt genocide (though there are rumors that he was about to try and exterminate the Jews before he died).

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Since the Bolsheviks recognized Finland's indpendence in late 1917, before the Civil War began, I doubt they had to let Finland go.

Of course not. That's my point. Without Lenin, busy with more important things than Finland, Russia would never just like that have accepted Finland's independence.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What genocide? Even the monstrously murderous Stalin did not atempt genocide (though there are rumors that he was about to try and exterminate the Jews before he died).

Sorry, used the wrong word. Mass-murder and mass-exile (even of whole peoples like the Chechens) is not by definition genocide.

[Imran Siddiqui]

alcoholics usally don't live long

Explain Yelsin then

He wasn't paranoid as well.

Yes, they really were all out to get him .

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Hurricane
Commie propaganda? That was a new one.

Sure thing Yakovlev was a chief party ideologist during Gorby's administration. So if you are a consistent anti-communist, how can you possibly use works written by one of the top commies as an authoritive source?

This book was written when the party line was to paint Stalin era as black as possible, so this Yakovlev fellower was just obediently following his orders. Yet another top democrat my arse.

The fact is that Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet system was criminal in nature.

No, it is not the fact. This is just a vague statement with no particular meaning. Something akin to "United States is an imperialistic power that embarked on the policy of conquest, genocide, and neo-colonialism from the first decades of its existence". In other words, you are making sweeping generalizations which make no sense outside historical context.