Could Russia have defeated the Nazis without Stalin?

DBear said:
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.

Am not entirely sure about this. Winter undoubtably shot the Axis down in 1941, but they still recovered well enough to continue Barbarossa in '42. Winter in 42-43 'prolly helped Soviet Generals #cough Zuckov, Rokossovsky etc# with additionally aid, but I doubt they depended on random weather factors to aid in the salvation of Russia. (From what I know, this was a particularly harsh winter).

As for Stalin, I have to say his ability to grant more freedom to his generals over the years (as opposed to Hitler) undoubtedtly helped the war effort. The manpower was never a problem, most at the time accepted that you could fight the Soviets to the Urals and still face possible defeat - except of course, Hitler.

I'm hardly one to advocate what Stalin did to his people, but I will say that Russia with Stalin did win the war, Russia without Stalin only might have won it. Despite what respected historians might say (and of course, some may be right) we'll never know that second history.

P.S I hoped I covered my tracks well enough there. I'd hate to be known as an advocator of Stalins policies.
 
Case said:
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).

I probably should have said high-ranking Civil War officers.

And most Civil War veterans who fought in WW2 were not officers at the time of of the CW. IIRC no general survived.
 
Intresting thread! I'd like to add a certain angle to it :)

I reckon that if Stalin had not been in power their is a chance that Hitler would never have gotten into power in Germany.

Under Stalin Soviet policy was to build up the USSR 'Socialism in one country', whilst other important communists were arguing for European wide reveloution. German Marxist groups were taking instructions from the USSR.

It can be argued that in effect the USSR's lack of decent instructions to the German Marxists helped Hitler to gain power. So, being purely speculative here, if one of the other Soviet factiosn had come into leadership, then I think the German communists could have done alot better.

I think that had the German communists been more stronger, the Nazi's would not have been able to seize power as they did in 1932/33.

Stalin wasted a golden oppurtunity to set about the rise of communism in Germany, with more funding and better help form the USSR German communists could potentially have defeated the Nazi's and maybe taken power for themselves.

Thoughts anyone?
 
Possibly if Marxism hadn't been transformed into the Soviet version and actually got the opportunity to run a country, then maybe fascism and national socialism wouldn't have been considered as quite so attractive political alternatives.

Mussolini started as a socialist. In the choice between nationalism and socialism at least the initial party (the one police informer Adolf Hitler was sent to report on) was more socialist.

The interwar years in Europe was a period when a lot of people doubted if liberalism, capitalism, parliamentarism and deomcracy had much of a future. It seemed to belong to colletivist mass movements. Given the choice between internationalist socialist revolution (Soviet style) and the seemingly national options of fascism and nazism, the latter looked like the less radical choice.
 
The Nazis rise to power was certainly aided by the Communist Internationals policy at the time. Known as class vs. class, the third era of communism in non-communist countries espoused a total lack of co-operation with other groups. The moderate left were attacked as social fascists, who tried to buy off the working class by moderating capitalism instead of advocating radical social and political change. This alienated the communists and prevented them working with the moderate left against the extreme right. Even when the Nazis had taken power German communists were encouraged not to attack the Nazis as it was believed that Nazism (and fascism in general) was the last dying breath of capitalism which would move to socialism. When it was realised how disasterous this policy was (by 1934ish) this particular brand of communism was abandoned in favour of 'popular front' communism. which entailed working with any willing groups, from moderate left to conservative right, against fascism. Sadly too late for Germany though. Many individual communists and communist partys had adopted this policy already without instruction from Moscow.
 
I always think a 'continental' perspective might be useful on these predominatley 'anglosaxon' boards. ;)

The 20's and 30's was a period of weakness for democracy in Europe. Britain and the US was too far off and not considered representative in any case.

The German Weimar republic was obvioulsy a great idea in retrospect, but too many people simply didn't want it as it was perceived as something alien, pressed upon Germany.

Of the major European nations only France had a long democratic tradition, but French politics was a shambles all through the period. France fell in 1940 as much as a result of its internal political weakness as for its military deficiencies. Looking at French domestic policies at the time, no one in their right mind wanted it.

Other democracies were considered too insignificant to be useful models (Scandinavia, Benelux).
 
Given the resources and choices in 41 I think alot of people could have run the war better than Stalin. However without Stalin theirs alot of ???? about Russias industrial capacity.
 
rilnator said:
One could learn to distinguish between the USSR and USRR!

roflol .................
 
Back
Top Bottom