Did Stalin's leadership do more good or harm for his country during the Eastern Front

Not quite: at the time a famine was occurring in the Ukraine, the USSR was actually exporting grain to pay for its industrialization program.
Yes, it was exporting grain to get required currency.
As soon as the scale of famine become known, the export was seriously cut and food aid was given to suffered regions.

Really? You might want to check some actual sources on that.
Yes, really - and you might want to check some actual sources on that. I like your argument, sounds very strong.

Seeing as the greater part of those frontier forces got eliminated in the first few days of the war, I rest my case.
What you would propose, great general - to put all forces in Siberia?

I'm not sure where you checked, but since a lot of Soviet archives have been opened it is verifiable that your 4% number is a huge underestimate. But, let's for arguments sake, assume for a moment even that low figure is correct. Then after the first few months of the Axis offensive, the remaining officer would be further reduced by 50%, since the Red Army lost about half of its existing forces (including the commanding officers, such as there were) during that offensive.

So your 4% would be on the lower side of estimates. However, as you can see in the first paragraph, top ranking officers (i.e commanding officers) were hit hardest - and many were sumply executed, so 'reinstatement' would not really be an option for those.
So, is my number a "huge underestimate", or it is "on the lower side of estimates", according to your wiki source? :)

Actually, by 1941, the Axis faced three fronts: the ongoing airwar with Britain, the North African front and the Eastern front. (To even begin Operation Barbarossa, Germany had to withdraw a considerbale amount of its airforce from the West to the East.)
What percentage of their land forces were in those fronts? And how it is compared to years of fighting on Western front of WW1?

In the 1930s the USSR gained recognition by several capitalist states. If your hypothesis that the whole industrialization had as its goal rearmament is correct, that makes the 1930s army purges nonsensical (and utterly counterproductive). In fact, until the Nazi frontline along its Western borders, the USSR did not face any serious threat to its existence. Such conflicts as there were, were decided in the USSR's favour (border conflicts with Japan, Winter War with Finland). Directly prior to WW II there had been diplomatic negotiations with all European powers, before Stalin setled on the Ribbentrop pact with Nazi Germany.
I guess the fact that USSR was recognized by several capitalist states, and had diplomatic negotiations with them, make it perfectly safe from any further aggression.

In the 1930s the USSR gained recognition by several capitalist states. If your hypothesis that the whole industrialization had as its goal rearmament is correct, that makes the 1930s army purges nonsensical (and utterly counterproductive).
Well, I would like to listen to your explanation of the real reasons behind industrialization and purges. If it was not a preparation for war (nobody threatened USSR), and not destroying the internal opposition and consolidation of power, then what makes them sensible and productive?
 
biar said:
As unethical as his leadership was. Would the USSR had lost (or won with less losses) without Stalin's leadership?

"Unethical" leadership is itself a debatable topic. Ask Red Elk if he know or knew anyone who survived the Great Patriotic War and what they thought about Stalin. My dentist (forced to move to US to get work) has nothing bad to say.

I am glad this forum is open. Let CFC begin the rehabilitation of Stalin.

Would anyone like to mention that when the USSR stopped the Nazis with the MRP, Churchill (not yet PM) said "We only wish she (Russia) were doing it as our ally."

Or the fact that aside from the "air war" over Briain, there WAS no Western front until 1943 when the allies invaded Italy?

Stalin's "unethical" leadership wad even recognized by US envoy Joseph Davies, who called the purge trrials the fairest he'd seen. What the purge trials did ws eliminate the Fifth Column in USSR -- a tactic Hitler used to roll over the W. Euro countries.
 
It's quite true that the Western front comprised mainly of air engagements (which in due course Germany lost). However, air superiority was deemed the first necessary step prior to any invasion. (It was the same lack of air superiority that proved fatal for Rommel when his forces got nearer to Egypt, i.e. closer to the British airbases.)

Yes, it was exporting grain to get required currency.
As soon as the scale of famine become known, the export was seriously cut and food aid was given to suffered regions.

Well, how nice. A pity a famine had to occur first and a few (million) people had to die.

Yes, really - and you might want to check some actual sources on that. I like your argument, sounds very strong.

You might have read on a bit first before commenting... you know, to where I actually quote sources - unlike you. (May I remind you you're the one claiming the results of Stalin's purges have been 'overstated'.)

What you would propose, great general - to put all forces in Siberia?

Obviously put a reserve behind the border forces. (There actually were reserves, but they were so close to the border as well they suffered the same fate.)

So, is my number a "huge underestimate", or it is "on the lower side of estimates", according to your wiki source? :)[/QUOTE]

I think you just answered your own question.

What percentage of their land forces were in those fronts? And how it is compared to years of fighting on Western front of WW1?

And how does that relate to anything? You stated there was only one front.

I guess the fact that USSR was recognized by several capitalist states, and had diplomatic negotiations with them, make it perfectly safe from any further aggression.

Oh, Stalin certainly thought so. But feel free to disagree with the Great Dictator. Until Hitler invaded the USSR faced no foreign power capable of threatening her.

Well, I would like to listen to your explanation of the real reasons behind industrialization and purges. If it was not a preparation for war (nobody threatened USSR), and not destroying the internal opposition and consolidation of power, then what makes them sensible and productive?

Industrialization does not 'destroy internal enemies'. Although the combination of industrialization and collectivization certainly proved handy to get rid of the 'enemy' kulaks.

But to answer your question: defense spending only increased after WW II to a level of 20% of GNP. The purpose of the industrialization program obviously was to make Soviet Russia a great power instead of an agricultural backwater. (Mao had the same idea, but failed utterly, if you recall.)
 
Stalin's "unethical" leadership wad even recognized by US envoy Joseph Davies, who called the purge trrials the fairest he'd seen. What the purge trials did ws eliminate the Fifth Column in USSR -- a tactic Hitler used to roll over the W. Euro countries.

An awful lot of American - and other Western, but particularly American - envoys and press-men reported favourably on Stalin and tried to cover up his atrocities, in the hope of allowing favourable relations between their two nations to continue: 'better Stalin than Hitler', in effect, or perhaps more accurately 'better Stalin over there than Hitler over here'. The latter probably applied more to British than American journalists and politicians, though.
 
Actually, by 1941, the Axis faced three fronts: the ongoing airwar with Britain, the North African front and the Eastern front.

The African Front (Rommel's forces) - at its peak - involved between 10 and 15 Axis divisions (most of them Italian).

For example on the 15th of august 1942 Rommel had 4 German divisions and 1 brigade plus 8 Italian divisions.

So it was a very small-scale front compared to any other front of WW2.
 
You don't remember correctly. 35,000 officers were shot or imprisoned, including the executions of the commander of the Red Army and its 7 leading generals. Between 1938 and 1939, approximately half of the Army's officers and every single one of the Navy's admirals were shot or imprisoned.

In 1940 further thousands of Polish officers were shot. And then in late 1941 when Stalin wanted to form the Polish People's Army using the remaining Polish POWs in Soviet captivity, there was shortage of... officers for this army. So Stalin decapitated two armies - the Red Army and the Polish People's Army...

As the result even in 1945 ethnic Russians were 38% of the officers in the 1st Polish Army and 56% in the 2nd Polish Army.
 
You might have read on a bit first before commenting... you know, to where I actually quote sources - unlike you. (May I remind you you're the one claiming the results of Stalin's purges have been 'overstated'.)
Is your own quote from wikipedia good enough source for you?
Because it says that
"At first it was thought 25-50% of Red Army officers were purged, it is now known to be 3.7-7.7%. Previously, the size of the Red Army officer corp was underestimated and it was overlooked that most of those purged were merely expelled from the Party. 30% of officers purged 1937-9 were allowed back.[32]"
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12275918&postcount=20
See also statements of Flying Pig, about half of Red Army officers purged - that's one example of great overstating the effect of purges.

I can only assume that you didn't read the source which you quoted.

Obviously put a reserve behind the border forces. (There actually were reserves, but they were so close to the border as well they suffered the same fate.)
There were reserves. That's why Red Army still had forces to resist after initial defeats in 1941.

And how does that relate to anything? You stated there was only one front.
I said there was no second front.
The second front which was opened in 1944, and which existed throughout all WW1 before.
Diverting significant German land forces, not just a dozen of divisions.
The second front which was called that, back then, despite existing of all the other minor fronts.
Only you pretend not to understand what I mean.

Oh, Stalin certainly thought so. But feel free to disagree with the Great Dictator.
You mean, Stalin thought nobody would attack USSR and it was perfectly safe, because a few capitalist countries recognized USSR?
And he built 25000 of tanks, almost 20000 of planes, put more than 3-million army along Western border by summer 1941 just for fun, or to cheer German armada on the other side of the border?

But to answer your question: defense spending only increased after WW II to a level of 20% of GNP. The purpose of the industrialization program obviously was to make Soviet Russia a great power instead of an agricultural backwater. (Mao had the same idea, but failed utterly, if you recall.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, you seriously think that Stalin was not preparing USSR in late 1930-s for big war?
 
defense spending only increased after WW II to a level of 20% of GNP.
I don't know whether this figure is correct or not, but to put things in perspective: current US defense speding is ~4% of GDP and agreed target for NATO countries (which hardly any other meets) is 2%.
Chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.svg
Correct me if I'm wrong, you seriously think that Stalin was not preparing USSR in late 1930-s for big war?
Yeah, claiming otherwise would be even more ridiculous than claiming that Stalin built more tanks than rest of the world combined for strictly defensive purposes. :D

EDIT: as for purges, we probably shouldn't underestimate their effect on those that survived.
 
Yeah, claiming otherwise would be even more ridiculous than claiming that Stalin built more tanks than rest of the world combined for strictly defensive purposes. :D
But not as ridiculous as believing in Goebbels claim, that German attack in 1941 was a pre-emptive strike, knowing full well about Molotov defense line and plan Barbarossa, being developed since 1940.

Yeekim, I haven't heard about any more or less reputable historian who would take Soviet offensive theory, developed by fiction writer, seriously.
 
See, you're completely ignoring what I actually want you to say in favor of repeating the same dumb talking points, just more forcefully. I am not trying to create an alternative narrative. What I'm trying to do is get you to meaningfully demonstrate that Stalin's policies of the late 1920s and of the 1930s, brutal and inhumane as they were, were necessary for the Soviet Union to have successfully resisted the Hitlerites. You just keep going back to that proof-by-assertion thing, except this time you've added "because Hitler was just that bad of a person" to the list, which doesn't even qualify as "putting lipstick on a pig".

So yeah, I'm done, this is getting nowhere.
I am glad this forum is open. Let CFC begin the rehabilitation of Stalin.
CFC WH has a fairly vocal group of devoted adherents of Stalin, like red_elk and his camarilla of like-minded Russian nostalgia-nationalists, or the local extremely loud Red minority, or even a few of the supposedly "liberal" members of OT who think they're being iconoclastic, who see no flaws - or no flaws that can't be explained away - with what the man did and who credit him with winning the Second World War Great Patriotic War more or less by himself. They are sometimes armed with minutiae from the very best encomiastic source material.

It certainly doesn't hurt their perception on the forum that their most vocal detractors are usually from the group of ultra-right-wing American nutjobs that are liked even less.
 
Is your own quote from wikipedia good enough source for you?
Because it says that
"At first it was thought 25-50% of Red Army officers were purged, it is now known to be 3.7-7.7%. Previously, the size of the Red Army officer corp was underestimated and it was overlooked that most of those purged were merely expelled from the Party. 30% of officers purged 1937-9 were allowed back.[32]"
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12275918&postcount=20
See also statements of Flying Pig, about half of Red Army officers purged - that's one example of great overstating the effect of purges.

I can only assume that you didn't read the source which you quoted.

Not really. I wasn't referring to estimates in this thread. As you may note from what you just quoted, only 30% of offficers purged were reinstated - to make matters worse, the purges were almost all directed against commanding officers. If you think that has a positive effect on an army's fighting ability, there's something seriously wrong.

There were reserves. That's why Red Army still had forces to resist after initial defeats in 1941.

There were reserves, but the larger part of the forces left at the end of 1941 were hastily called up fresh recruits. (If we discount the Siberian forces. The Germans, however, were out of reserves.)

I said there was no second front.
The second front which was opened in 1944, and which existed throughout all WW1 before.
Diverting significant German land forces, not just a dozen of divisions.
The second front which was called that, back then, despite existing of all the other minor fronts.
Only you pretend not to understand what I mean.

I'm sorry, but you clearly said there was only one front. So I pointed out that that is incorrect. The second front was actually the Russian front, the third the North African (Italian in 1943). So your statement is incorrect, I'm afraid.

You mean, Stalin thought nobody would attack USSR and it was perfectly safe, because a few capitalist countries recognized USSR?

No, that is your interpretation. In reality the USSR did not plan for a war until Hitler started WW II. Stalin was hoping for a war of Hitler against the Western Allies. Meanwhile he was willingly cooperating with Hitler right up until 1941. You may conclude from that what you wish, but those are the facts.

And he built 25000 of tanks, almost 20000 of planes, put more than 3-million army along Western border by summer 1941 just for fun, or to cheer German armada on the other side of the border?

Where else would he put those forces? On the Finnish border? (And actually, the USSR had a total number of 80,000 tanks, the largest tank force in the world.) Yet Stalin refused to believe both Western and internal reports about an imminent attack.

But not as ridiculous as believing in Goebbels claim, that German attack in 1941 was a pre-emptive strike, knowing full well about Molotov defense line and plan Barbarossa, being developed since 1940.

Goebbels would not need such a claim, since Hitler's plan had always been to destroy the USSR. (I think it was even mentioned in Mein Kampf, published in 1923.)

I don't know whether this figure is correct or not, but to put things in perspective: current US defense speding is ~4% of GDP and agreed target for NATO countries (which hardly any other meets) is 2%.
Chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.svg

Yes, Soviet spending could never hope to match NATO, even at those rates. (They ever only were ahead in tanks and subs.) It was a huge pressure on the Soviet economy, which already was grinding to a halt since around 1970 or thereabouts (the 1973 oil crisis helped to mask it as oil prices suddenly soared. You may also recall that they turned from a grain exporter to a net importer.)
 
red elk, you are my kind of poster:

There were reserves. That's why Red Army still had forces to resist after initial defeats in 1941.

Not only that, but learning days before of the Pearl Harbor attack allowed the USSR to move divisions from the eastern Asia theater (to counter the Japanese in China) because the Japanese would be tied up with a war with America.

See the excellent Chinese spy thriller East Wind Rain about the Communist spy ring that cracked the intelligence that Japan was plannign the attack and told the US, USSR.

I said there was no second front.
The second front which was opened in 1944, and which existed throughout all WW1 before.
Diverting significant German land forces, not just a dozen of divisions.
The second front which was called that, back then, despite existing of all the other minor fronts.
Only you pretend not to understand what I mean.

Oh, how right you are. The Americans and Brits did not make a move for Europe until 1943 when they tried to go up the "soft underbelly of Europe." Stalin's genius was in getting two fat cat bourgeois politicians to AGREE to open a second front on the west at all -- and only after the defeat of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad.
Read Zhukov's account of the battle of Stalingrad. Or, William Craig's Enemy at the Gates The plan for "Operation Overlord" (D-Day) did not even see the light of day until the USSR won the Battle at Kursk -- and started pushing the Nazis back into wester Europe.

You mean, Stalin thought nobody would attack USSR and it was perfectly safe, because a few capitalist countries recognized USSR?
And he built 25000 of tanks, almost 20000 of planes, put more than 3-million army along Western border by summer 1941 just for fun, or to cheer German armada on the other side of the border?

Correct me if I'm wrong, you seriously think that Stalin was not preparing USSR in late 1930-s for big war?

Of course, Stalin thought no such thing. Louis Fischer, in Men and Politics described the process by which the USSR found itself squaring off with the Nazis. One by one, Britain and France gave away Austria and Czechoslovakia and it was only a matter of time before Germany would head East. That is where the MRP came from, known at thetime as the "Pact that stopped Hitler," making the USSR the first Army to stop the Wehrmacht (oh, there was fighting, as Soviet troops had to take the part of Poland ceded to them).

Also, why else would the USSR move its factories to the east side of the Ural mountains.

Oh, no, Stalin has secured this part of history as being one of the greatets leaders of that era.

My gift to you, the Red Army Choir singing "The Sacred War"
 
Not really. I wasn't referring to estimates in this thread. As you may note from what you just quoted, only 30% of offficers purged were reinstated - to make matters worse, the purges were almost all directed against commanding officers. If you think that has a positive effect on an army's fighting ability, there's something seriously wrong.
You are substituting my thesis here.
From "The negative effect of purges has been overstated" to "The effect of purges was positive".
That's not what I'm stating, what I said is that the opinion about Stalin purged almost half of Red Army officers and seriously crippled Red Army ability to fight, is common misconception.

I'm sorry, but you clearly said there was only one front.
Don't be sorry, anyone can check this two-paged thread in a few minutes and see that I never said there was only one front.
But you just need one quote to prove me wrong, you know.

No, that is your interpretation. In reality the USSR did not plan for a war until Hitler started WW II...
...
(And actually, the USSR had a total number of 80,000 tanks, the largest tank force in the world.)
No problem. Let's agree that USSR built whatever millions of tanks, but in the same time, was not preparing for a war :rolleyes:
On a serious note, USSR had about 25000 of tanks by June 1941, and most them were obsolete, built in 1930-s.
One purpose of creating heavy industry in USSR was accelerated militarization of economy.

Goebbels would not need such a claim, since Hitler's plan had always been to destroy the USSR. (I think it was even mentioned in Mein Kampf, published in 1923.)
It was actual Goebbels justification of German attack on the USSR, part of his propaganda.
As for Hitler's plans, we can agree here.

Also, why else would the USSR move its factories to the east side of the Ural mountains.
That's another important thing, the preparation for evacuating of some factories started before June 1941.
It shows how "Stalin did not believe that Germans will attack".

My gift to you, the Red Army Choir singing "The Sacred War"
Thank you.
There is also a big collection of Red Army Choir songs on youtube.com
 
What I'm trying to do is get you to meaningfully demonstrate that Stalin's policies of the late 1920s and of the 1930s, brutal and inhumane as they were, were necessary for the Soviet Union to have successfully resisted the Hitlerites.
My answer is -
I can't demonstrate it to you, and I'm not supposed to - because I'm not stating that brutal and inhumane policies (contrary to urgent, hi-speed modernization), were necessary.
And I thoroughly explained what my position is, in my previous reply to you.
It's a pity you didn't bother to read and understand it, and judging from this:
red_elk and his camarilla of like-minded Russian nostalgia-nationalists
my further explanations will be a waste of time.
 
Stalin worshippers are kinda ridiculous, I agree.

It's true, however, that during the war, the interests of Stalin and his circle of technocrats did, in large part, coincide with the interest of the Soviet people, and that the Eastern front was the decisive one during WWII.

It's also true that the Soviet initial performance in 1941 was rather embarrassing. I admit I'm undecided on the degree to which Stalin's repressions factored in all this, but they definitely did factor. Regadless, stuff like NKO Directive #3 of 22/06/41 reveals some severe delusion on part of the Soviet leadership about the nature of the incoming war (just in case someone gets the wrong impression, I'm emphatically not a Rezunite).
 
Regadless, stuff like NKO Directive #3 of 22/06/41 reveals some severe delusion on part of the Soviet leadership about the nature of the incoming war
The directive was a result of lack of proper information about the situation on the front, and generally a total mess, happening in first hours of war. It's easy for us to judge, having a hindsight and knowing true scale of German aggression in retrospective, back then it was much less clear. In reality it turned out that both sides were seriously mistaken in their plans.

(just in case someone gets the wrong impression, I'm emphatically not a Rezunite).
Someone didn't get the wrong impression.
Agree with the rest of your post.
 
Domen said:
Not at one given point in time. In June 1941 they had something like 30,000 in total.

Fun fact: the T-34 "Stalin" main battle tank was designed originally by an American (see BBC "Battlefield" series "The Russian front". It was improved upon by the Soviets, of course, and not until the Pzkfw V "Panther" did the Wehrmacht have anything that could match its performance.
 
Fun fact: the T-34 "Stalin" main battle tank was designed originally by an American

Nope - not entire tank, but only its suspension:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_suspension

and not until the Pzkfw V "Panther" did the Wehrmacht have anything that could match its performance.

I think that already PzKfw IV models F2, G and H could match Soviet T-34.

"Panther" was actually much better than T-34, but only after initial drawbacks (high failure frequency) were fixed.
 
Back
Top Bottom