|
05-28-2010, 03:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Fort Wayne
470 posts, read 1,116,503 times
Reputation: 271
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1960
|
Stalin...a man responsible for the deaths of tens of millions..made two more bad decisions?
I'm shocked I tells you...SHOCKED!!! |
|
05-28-2010, 10:06 AM
|
|
|
|
14,781 posts, read 41,733,882 times
Reputation: 14596
|
|
|
Makes sense. Had Hitler been removed from power and the Werhmacht/Kriegsmarine or cooler heads within the party assumed the leadership there would have at least been a chance of peace between the Western powers and most likely would have included Russia, but on very unfavorable terms.
If peace became possible in '43 or even '44 the Russian position to assert influence over Eastern Europe and create the satellite states would have been almost non-existent. Perhaps Stalin felt that it needed to be an all or nothing proposition. Russia emerges victorious and reaps the spoils of war and spreads the revolution or it collapses.
|
|
05-28-2010, 11:22 AM
|
|
|
|
15,015 posts, read 22,516,299 times
Reputation: 26342
|
|
|
Yeah but, how many assasination attempts did Hitler survive or that were foiled? More than just a few.
How many potential assassins ended up hanging by piano wire?
Hitler had a very well established protective service, and intellegence service, and he was himself very paranoid about assasination and made allowances for it. Having plans is one thing, carrying them out is another. So I don't see this as being much merit for a possible history changing event. I am sure all the allies (Britian, US) would have wished to take out Hitler, and had potential contingency plans, if they had the shot they would have.
|
|
05-28-2010, 01:06 PM
|
|
|
|
1,308 posts, read 2,767,260 times
Reputation: 641
|
|
|
The allies considered bombing the wolf's lair which was certainly possible by 1944. They decided not to, according to the military channel anyway, because they believed Hitler harmed the German war effort and would be replaced by a more competent leader if killed.
|
|
05-28-2010, 01:17 PM
|
|
|
|
31,381 posts, read 35,672,758 times
Reputation: 15006
|
|
|
This was probably Stalin's most brilliant act during WWII. Had Hitler been assassinated Paulus and the 6th Army would have escaped capture and the battle for Stalingrad might not have changed the course of the war.
|
|
05-28-2010, 04:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Fairfield, CT
6,982 posts, read 10,332,788 times
Reputation: 8786
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Makes sense. Had Hitler been removed from power and the Werhmacht/Kriegsmarine or cooler heads within the party assumed the leadership there would have at least been a chance of peace between the Western powers and most likely would have included Russia, but on very unfavorable terms.
If peace became possible in '43 or even '44 the Russian position to assert influence over Eastern Europe and create the satellite states would have been almost non-existent. Perhaps Stalin felt that it needed to be an all or nothing proposition. Russia emerges victorious and reaps the spoils of war and spreads the revolution or it collapses.
|
Stalin was very cold-blooded. After Stalingrad, it was pretty clear that Russia was going to win the war, and end up in a much improved strategic situation to what existed before. An early peace without unconditional surrender would have short-circuited that, and once again left Russia isolated behind a cordon sanitaire of hostile states, rather than in firm control right into central Europe.
Stalin had a lot more to lose than the western allies from an early peace, and he knew it. The western allies at that point hadn't even invaded western Europe yet. Stalin was surely willing to trade a long period of acute suffering for his people for strategic advantage, and it's doubtful the western allies would have done this if another option was available. |
|
05-29-2010, 11:13 AM
|
|
|
|
1,308 posts, read 2,767,260 times
Reputation: 641
|
|
I am not sure, at the time, that it was clear the Soviets would win the war after Stalingrad. It was not until the battle of Kursk and the success of the Soviet counter offensive, that this was obvious. A minor point  |
|
05-29-2010, 11:19 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Fairfield, CT
6,982 posts, read 10,332,788 times
Reputation: 8786
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi
I am not sure, at the time, that it was clear the Soviets would win the war after Stalingrad. It was not until the battle of Kursk and the success of the Soviet counter offensive, that this was obvious. A minor point |
I guess you're right. Stalingrad was the psychological turning point, Kursk the military turning point. |
|
05-29-2010, 03:30 PM
|
|
|
|
31,381 posts, read 35,672,758 times
Reputation: 15006
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi
I am not sure, at the time, that it was clear the Soviets would win the war after Stalingrad.
|
If Stalin knew that Stalingrad was indeed the turning point, I don't think that he would have been as adamant during the Tehran Conference in December of 1943, about the Allies opening a second front in Western Europe. Which by the way was four months after the battle at Kursk. |
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.
