Could Russia have defeated the Nazis without Stalin?

[stratego]

Could Russia have driven back the Nazis without Stalin? On one hand, he's a horrible strategist, and his insistance on planning the attacks caused many lives. On the other hand, the Russian people saw him as a god, and many fighter had more loyalty to Stalin than the land itself, so essentially they continued fighting for Stalin.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

They continued fighting because they'd be shot if they didn't.

 

[Sub]

And if they did... The russians had by far the most casualties in the war.

 

[DexterJ]

I was under the impression that after disasters at the beginning Stalin realised he was not a good strategist and allowed his generals freedom of action, something that Hitler failed to do.

Soviet troops were motivated by a combination of ~Corsair#01~ and Strategos arguements. Fear was a big part of course but fanatical loyalty was as well. WW2, or the Great Patriotic War, to give it its correct title was massively important to the soviet regime. It gave the communist government legitmacy, and allowed them to tap into russians feelings of nationalism, which was particaully effective due to the feeling of national unity caused by the German invasion. This, combined with the popularity with the regime among certain groups in society, such as the young and workers, which existed in the 30's and can be seen in the collectivisation programme and 5 year plans, meant that during and immediatly after the war the regime was actually popular. The war made the internationalist communism, which had been heavily eroded already, into a much more national communism, (a good example of this is the change of anthems in 1942 from the communist international to the anthem of the soviet union).

I believe that Stalin was also very important to the soviet war effort due to the economic 'progress' made in the 1930s. The five year plans were massively costly, in economic and human terms, inefficient and wastefull. However, they did propell the Soviet Unions economey into 2nd most powerfull in the world. and also crucially huge new industries were built from scratch behind the Ural mountains rather than in western Russia, meaning that the German invasion did not damage the SU industry as it would have previously done. The alternatives to Stalinist economic development which were being put forward in the 1920's by different factions in the Party would not have resulted in the same economic development. Bukharin's gradualist policy of development involved 'rid(ing) into socialism on a peasant nag', not the kind of breakneck industrialisation required for the worst conflict in human history.

Stalinism also created a brutal, centralised, disciplined society where public opinion had no sway, this was usefull for the war as I dont think democracies could have taken the same level of punishment, destruction and death without popular unrest or collapse.

Stalin had, however, serious weakend the red army in the 1930's with purges and this massively hampered the USSR war effort in the beginning.

 

[budweiser]

Well, they would have had a better chance if he hadn't gone and shot all his best officers in another one of his purges before the war started.

 

[bombshoo]

Stalin was probaly needed. Atleast some kind of person like him. Trotsky would have been better I think, as he would have not purged, and been ready for the German attack, and probaly would still have a fairly strict dictatorship (Though not as much as Stalin, I am thinking closer to Salazar in Portugal in terms of freedoms.)

Stalin's carelessness for human life was the Soviet Unions main strength though. The only thing that could beat a tyrant like Hitler was a bigger tyrant.

So If Trotsky or Lenin had been leader, I think they would have been smart enough to have never got into the situation like Stalin did, but I think Stalin is the only person that could bail the Russians out of what looked like was going to be a complete loss.

 

[Elysdeon]

IMO, it wasn't Stalin himself that won per se, but his five-year plans that made the USSR into an industrial superpower.

 

[DBear]

Pshaw...Old Man Winter killed more Nazis than anything else. It is more accurate to say the Russians won in spite of Stalin's leadership.

 

[Case]

Stalin was a definite liability throughout the war. His policies in the 1930s and early 1940s crippled the Soviet military and directly lead to the disasters of 1941 and 1942. The Red Army was only able to begin turning the tide when Stalin learned to keep out of military affairs and listen to the advice of his military experts. Interestingly, by 1943 Stalin was open to very frank discussions of military strategy and was quite forgiving of tactical set backs as long as incompetence didn't play too big a part.

However, even this degree of willingness to leave tactics to the professionals was much less than that Roosevelt displayed in his masterful handling of the national war effort. It's fair to say that a Russian Roosevelt would probably have won the war in 1942 or 1943 at the latest.

Stalin's carelessness for human life was the Soviet Unions main strength though. The only thing that could beat a tyrant Hitler was a bigger tyrant.

Rubbish - the democratic governments headed by Roosevelt and Churchill were much more successful in mobilising their publics than Stalin was. While the Communists succeeded in persuading the Russian people to work remarkably hard for their victory, much of this effort was inefficient and wouldn't have been necessary with good leadership (as was demonstrated by American and British productivity dwarfing Soviet productivity). Hell, a good Soviet leader would have prevented the German invasion in the first place.

In regards to praising Stalin's 'tough but necessary' leadership as being necessary, George Orwell's remark that such comments essentially boil down to saying "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so" is well worth remembering. Stalin was a butcher and a bungler and his appalling leadership came within a whisker of delivering the Russian people into the hands of the Nazi barbarians.

 

[Dragonlord]

Stalin was a butcher and a bungler and his appalling leadership came within a whisker of delivering the Russian people into the hands of the Nazi barbarians.

Yes indeed! It's worth remembering that large parts of the Russian people actually welcomed the Nazis as liberators in the beginning - if the Nazis hadn't been stupid enough to treat the occupied people as badly or worse than Stalin did, I very much doubt whether Stalin would have managed to get the level of support he did.

 

[bombshoo]

Rubbish - the democratic governments headed by Roosevelt and Churchill were much more successful in mobilising their publics than Stalin was. While the Communists succeeded in persuading the Russian people to work remarkably hard for their victory, much of this effort was inefficient and wouldn't have been necessary with good leadership (as was demonstrated by American and British productivity dwarfing Soviet productivity). Hell, a good Soviet leader would have prevented the German invasion in the first place.

In regards to praising Stalin's 'tough but necessary' leadership as being necessary, George Orwell's remark that such comments essentially boil down to saying "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so" is well worth remembering. Stalin was a butcher and a bungler and his appalling leadership came within a whisker of delivering the Russian people into the hands of the Nazi barbarians.

Like I said, I think Trotsky or Lenin (who would have been about 80 but could be still ruling USSR at time) would have probaly never got into the situation. So thats obviously better.


But he was willing to throw millions of men at the Nazis, which allowed him to make huge advances in a relativly short time. Trotsky and Lenin wouldn't have been so careless with human life like Stalin, and as a result almost all the German Army was tied up in the east, allowing D-Day to take place. If the Russians had less people on their side fighting, so would the Nazis have had and this would leave that many more troops for the western powers to be fighting.

I never said he was good at mobilizing his public, atleast like the U.S. was. If we hadn't had Russia, we could have probaly won just from American production. It would have been very heavy casulties though. American production + Soviet armies is why the war was won in 1945 and not much later, had either had to do it alone.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Only in one way: Stalin provided the industrial strength that allowed Russia to be competitive at the great-power level.

In every other way, Stalin was a liability. Russian nationalism would have ensured that the Russians fought back, and just about anyone else could have done a better job as an actual wartime leader.

But you can't look past the industrialization. Without that, its 1917 or 1904 all over again.

 

[Case]

But you can't look past the industrialization. Without that, its 1917 or 1904 all over again.

Sure, but the industrialisation of the 1920s and 1930s was badly handled and hopelessly inefficient. Again, a good leader would have produced better results without a fraction of the human suffering.

 

[rilnator]

Rubbish - the democratic governments headed by Roosevelt and Churchill were much more successful in mobilising their publics than Stalin was. While the Communists succeeded in persuading the Russian people to work remarkably hard for their victory, much of this effort was inefficient and wouldn't have been necessary with good leadership (as was demonstrated by American and British productivity dwarfing Soviet productivity).

The Foundations of the Russian war industry were already laid by 1941. And although the Americans out produced the Soviets by great deal comparing the 2 from 1941-45 is like chalk and cheese, given the circumstances.

What is more important was the Soviets out produced the Germans. And by a country mile to boot. Production figures skyrocketed from 1940 to 1941, right across the spectrum.

 

[rilnator]

If we hadn't had Russia, we could have probaly won just from American production. It would have been very heavy casulties though. American production + Soviet armies is why the war was won in 1945 and not much later, had either had to do it alone.

Wrong.

We had this debate a couple of weeks ago. the Russians pumped out over 48,000 tanks in 1941 and 42. Could the Americans have supplied all of these? And the same quality as the T-34 and KV series?

As far as leand lease goes, the British Empire recieved almost 3 times more than the Soviet Union.

 

[bombshoo]

Wrong.

We had this debate a couple of weeks ago. the Russians pumped out over 48,000 tanks in 1941 and 42. Could the Americans have supplied all of these? And the same quality as the T-34 and KV series?

As far as leand lease goes, the British Empire recieved almost 3 times more than the Soviet Union.

I am not saying American production helped the Russians. I am saying American production would have made it so America could have won eventually regardless of Russian intervention. We were pumping out air carriers like TV networks pump reality shows, the labor from this could have been easily switched to tanks and guns for Europe instead.

If Russia wasn't involved I am guessing we could have won by about 1950, if we didn't just make a ceasefire.

If Russia was only involved and no USA, then I would say they would have probaly taken them just alittle over a year longer then it did to reach Berlin, and by 1949 a Soviet Flag would be flying over Paris and Rome.

 

[blackheart]

Russia would have lost. Why? Because of Stalin's insistance in concentraing the heavy industries in the Urals, while others wanted them closer to the west, therefore Germany would have conquered most of Russia's industry before it got up and running.

 

[blindside]

Russia would have lost. Why? Because of Stalin's insistance in concentraing the heavy industries in the Urals, while others wanted them closer to the west, therefore Germany would have conquered most of Russia's industry before it got up and running.

Ofcourse you have to consider that Russia probably won't have been so vulnerable or weak had it not been for Stalin.

 

[luiz]

Stalin actually made it harder for the russians to win. Not only he was a terrible military strategist, his purges of 1937-1938 eliminated the most competent soviet officers and replaced them with mindless drones who could obey orders but not win a battle. Literally all of the Civil War veteran officers were executed by Stalin, and they were the ones with actuall fighting experience and skill.

Furthermore, Stalin's disastrous agricultural policy made it impossible to properly supply the population and the troops during the war effort.

 

[Case]

Literally all of the Civil War veteran officers were executed by Stalin

While Stalin did murder thousands of officers, plently of Civil War veterans survived to fight in WW2 (albeit often having had spent some time in the Gulags).