Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not quite sure about that. I think that Russia/USSR won despite Stalin. I think there is a reason why the USSR lost so many people in that war and that's because of Stalin. If he had listened to his generals and informants, and didn't create an environment where people felt that saying something that Stalin didn't want to hear it would be off to the gulags, then many lives would've been saved. the USSR had one of the strongest air forces right before the war and the Germans destroyed it in a "surprise" attack, an attack that was seen a mile away, but Stalin was to stubborn to see it. Then it took several years to bring back the soviet military up to par with what it was at the beginning. Furthermore Stalin refused to have his troops retreat, and many lives were wasted. Russia has one huge advantage that allows them ample room to retreat, that's how the Russians beat napoleon, but Stalin refused to use that advantage. Saying that Stalin was a product of his time and that it couldn't be done any other way is just something Russians say to make them feel better. You don't see Germans defending Hitler and the Nazis, so why should Russians defend Stalin? He should be denounced by modern Russians, just as Khrushchev did in the 1950s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...s_Consequences
And you compare military losses,not all the herd. Picture will be a little different.
I'm not quite sure about that. I think that Russia/USSR won despite Stalin. I think there is a reason why the USSR lost so many people in that war and that's because of Stalin. If he had listened to his generals and informants, and didn't create an environment where people felt that saying something that Stalin didn't want to hear it would be off to the gulags, then many lives would've been saved. the USSR had one of the strongest air forces right before the war and the Germans destroyed it in a "surprise" attack, an attack that was seen a mile away, but Stalin was to stubborn to see it. Then it took several years to bring back the soviet military up to par with what it was at the beginning. Furthermore Stalin refused to have his troops retreat, and many lives were wasted. Russia has one huge advantage that allows them ample room to retreat, that's how the Russians beat napoleon, but Stalin refused to use that advantage. Saying that Stalin was a product of his time and that it couldn't be done any other way is just something Russians say to make them feel better. You don't see Germans defending Hitler and the Nazis, so why should Russians defend Stalin? He should be denounced by modern Russians, just as Khrushchev did in the 1950s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...s_Consequences
The Soviets made a lot of mistakes, Stalin and Stavka (Soviet High Command) are far from guilty in this. There is no excuse for the purge, it hurt them. A great example of the climate faced by commanding officers and the result of it was the debacle at Kiev. Stavka figured out that they could not hold Kiev in early Sept 1941 and a disaster in the making. Voroshilov and Stalin discussed withdrawing for days. All the while the Germans were closing in during those days it was being discussed. September 8 or there about Voroshilov telephoned Simeon Budenny (commander of the Kiev forces) and told him to begin pulling back. Budenny refused to do so without written permission. He wanted a goddamn letter. 72 hours later he got it, unfortunately it was a day too late and Fedor V Bock had closed the pocket east of Kiev. Too further compound the stupidity of the situation the army was told to move east out of the city to an assembly area to prepare for a break out. German artillery and mechanized infantry were waiting for them.
This should show clearly how the Red Army and Stavka was screwing up. They never knew where the Germans were let alone what they had. The situational awareness was non existent. The Red Armies problems in 1941 were systemic and endemic. Stavka did not trust the generals they had.
Key thing is though that Stavka, Stalin and the Red Army RECOGNIZED and set out to remedy this and they succeeded. The Red Army of 1943/1944 was an unstoppable juggernaut the history of warfare has never seen before or since. It's said that with Operation Bagration it was all over but the crying for the Germans.
Stalin was the product of his time. He did what he could. He was able to save the country, he won in the Great War. I doubt that he could have achieved this by other means at the time.
I tend to agree. Ultimately the Soviet Union changed the face of this world and history. One shouldn't lay it all at his feet though. The system he and his people (Russians) created did this. Just how much credit he deserves is debatable. A politician is after all, just a politician.
He is disqualified. Can you tell me what illegal drugs he used? When? Where? If you can not say this, then you must agree that your post is a stupid propaganda.
I'm not quite sure about that. I think that Russia/USSR won despite Stalin.
Look at Ukraine. What can a country without a strong leader during a war? Nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94
I think there is a reason why the USSR lost so many people in that war and that's because of Stalin. If he had listened to his generals and informants, and didn't create an environment where people felt that saying something that Stalin didn't want to hear it would be off to the gulags, then many lives would've been saved. the USSR had one of the strongest air forces right before the war and the Germans destroyed it in a "surprise" attack, an attack that was seen a mile away, but Stalin was to stubborn to see it. Then it took several years to bring back the soviet military up to par with what it was at the beginning. Furthermore Stalin refused to have his troops retreat, and many lives were wasted. Russia has one huge advantage that allows them ample room to retreat, that's how the Russians beat napoleon, but Stalin refused to use that advantage.
Stalin could not control the generals of the civil war and destroyed them. He understood that when a general does not follow orders to commander-in-chief, this is path to disaster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94
Saying that Stalin was a product of his time and that it couldn't be done any other way is just something Russians say to make them feel better.
You talk in isolation from the rest of the history of Russia of that period. In isolation from Revolution, Civil War, collectivization, industrialization, struggle for power within the political party. The country was experiencing colossal problems. Stalin was the product of the revolution and solved problems as he was able. Other solutions could be better, but with equal probability could lead to disaster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94
You don't see Germans defending Hitler and the Nazis, so why should Russians defend Stalin?
Why do Americans defend Truman for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94
He should be denounced by modern Russians, just as Khrushchev did in the 1950s
Do you think Khrushchev was better than Stalin? Ask Ukrainians what they think about his work in Ukraine (since 1938).
His condemnation of the cult of Stalin had only one goal - to make the cult of Khrushchev.
It looks like Lesin may have been murdered by US intel. That was the initial suspicion when he was found dead in his hotel room. In the US press, he was alternatively called a Putin mouthpiece and a a potential FBI/CIA informant ready to turn on Putin. FBI released a ridiculous report claiming he beat himself to death.
It's not comparable. As awful as the atomic bombs were, they ended the war and possibly saved millions of Japanese lives.
They could attack military targets. But they attacked the city. And they knew that children, women, old people would die in terrible agony for several days. Russians do not believe in your tales of saved Japanese lives.
They could attack military targets. But they attacked the city. And they knew that children, women, old people would die in terrible agony for several days. Russians do not believe in your tales of saved Japanese lives.
There were no purely military targets large enough which could be attacked.
Russians don't believe in Holodomor either, so it's quite irrelevant, isn't it?
If we're going to critcize leaders there's far more than one candidate available.
Woodrow Wilson for example. Why did America have to get involved in WWI? Specifically in Europe?
100s of 1000s of US soldiers were packed onto ships like sardines. Anywhere from 2500 to 5000 on a ship, really densly packed. Some of those soldiers had influenza when they boarded those ships. I knew and old man a long time ago, he was from Philadelphia and he told me that as a boy he knew of ghost ships that arrived in England and France. A lot of the times those ships would arrive filled with dying soldiers and crews. Shiploads of men dying of influenza and sometimes ships only half full because the bodies of the dead were thrown overboard.
Woodrow Wilson and congress approved of us going to war knowing full well what would happen. 10s of 1000s of soldiers died this way without even have picked up a rifle let alone stepped onto European soil. It all worked out correctly in the end though. Germany was defeated.
Does the end justify the means?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
