USSR Like it or not?

[Yeekim]

Yeah, of course, by the subjects nature it is, but do you think Trotsky would have industrialised the country to the degree Stalin did? That is the main reason the USSR won

The main reasons USSR won was that their enemy was overstretched and fighting on two fronts. Then their famous winter. Then their vast size geographically, enabling lots of strategic depth. Then lack of infrastructure (roads) to make this size more manageable for invader. Then huge, expendable reserves of cannon fodder. And only here does industrialization kick in - and not far behind is lend-lease...

Russia kicked out Napoleon without any industrialization, although admittedly he managed to torch Moscow first. They would have kicked out Hitler as well. Probably they had been better off doing it without having had to suffer from civil war and bolshevik terror for 30 years beforehand.

 

[RedRalph]

The main reasons USSR won was that their enemy was overstretched and fighting on two fronts. Then their famous winter. Then their vast size geographically, enabling lots of strategic depth. Then lack of infrastructure (roads) to make this size more manageable for invader. Then huge, expendable reserves of cannon fodder. And only here does industrialization kick in - and not far behind is lend-lease...

Russia kicked out Napoleon without any industrialization, although admittedly he managed to torch Moscow first. They would have kicked out Hitler as well. Probably they had been better off doing it without having had to suffer from civil war and bolshevik terror for 30 years beforehand.

Dont be so ridiculous. Take away the tank and other armnaments building capacity - now re imagine Barbarossa. the Napoleon copmparisons are idiotic - the Germans were using modern, motorised and mechanised warfare, without the industrialisation they would have completely and utterly annihilated the USSR, winter or not.

 

[plarq]

I got partisanship today, I support Trotsky over Stalin, being equally bloody, sadistic and revolutionary.

 

[Masada]

I don't think he would have gutted the Red Army and destroyed its capacity to fight. He wouldn't have needed the same degree of industrialization if the Red Army hadn't caved right at the get go. He would also not have signed a certain pact that give Nazi Germany a stress free tilt at Poland.

 

[RedRalph]

I don't think he would have gutted the Red Army and destroyed its capacity to fight. He wouldn't have needed the same degree of industrialization if the Red Army hadn't caved right at the get go. He would also not have signed a certain pact that give Nazi Germany a stress free tilt at Poland.

I disagree. They wouldnt have had the tanks, transport etc they needed. It would have been a pre-mechanised army vs one that had just conquered most of Europe. they would have been utterlly annihilated.

Lets say he didnt sign the pact. All Poland would have gone to the Nazis anyway, seeing as the Reds would have been in even less of a position to do anything about it when Germany did invade. So whats gained? the Nazis attack form Poland's 1939 soviet border instead of the 1941 one? that makes it even easier for the Germans

 

[joycem10]

...the Germans were using modern, motorised and mechanised warfare,...

That not really true.

The Wehrmacht had an armoured and mechanized fist but the majority of its infantry and artillery was not mechanized and its support elements were often horse drawn. What made the Wehrmacht so effective early in the war was the doctrine by which they concentrated and exploited that armoured fist.

 

[plarq]

That not really true.

The Wehrmacht had an armoured and mechanized fist but the majority of its infantry and artillery was not mechanized and its support elements were often horse drawn. What made the Wehrmacht so effective early in the war was the doctrine by which they concentrated and exploited that armoured fist.

It's because Soviet troops were routed out without much preparation and training. In fact, the whole Red Army in 1941 were destroyed and rebuilt later, considering the casualty and mobilization. If Soviet Union was better prepared for a Nazi invasion, the outcome would be much different.

 

[RedRalph]

That not really true.

The Wehrmacht had an armoured and mechanized fist but the majority of its infantry and artillery was not mechanized and its support elements were often horse drawn. What made the Wehrmacht so effective early in the war was the doctrine by which they concentrated and exploited that armoured fist.

And? It still would have been infinitely more effective against a country which would effectively been nonindustrialised. Correct me if I'm wrong here but massive production of T-34s, among other thing, from behind the Urals played a large part in the Red Army's victory. Take that away and explain to me how the USSR could have won.

I cant believe I'm having to argue that a country which came so damn close to losing wouldnt have lost if it had the massive handicap of not having been industrialised... some people will argue for the sake of it I suppose.

 

[joycem10]

... some people will argue for the sake of it I suppose.

You seem to like to pick an argument for where none exists. I'm merely pointing out that the idea of a modern fully mechanized Wehrmacht is a myth. I dont remember contesting anything else you said. But please, continue on with the histrionics.

 

[RedRalph]

You seem to like to pick an argument for where none exists. I'm merely pointing out that the idea of a modern fully mechanized Wehrmacht is a myth. I dont remember contesting anything else you said. But please, continue on with the histrionics.

OK, apologies. I thought you were arguing the overall point. My mistake.

 

[innonimatu]

Lets say he didnt sign the pact. All Poland would have gone to the Nazis anyway, seeing as the Reds would have been in even less of a position to do anything about it when Germany did invade. So whats gained? the Nazis attack form Poland's 1939 soviet border instead of the 1941 one? that makes it even easier for the Germans

Actually, no, it would make it harder. One of Stalin's mistakes was to advance the Red Army beyond its prepared fortified positions, into the territories the USSR conquered after the pact. The value of those fortifications might have been small, but they would have been an additional obstacle for the germans.

 

[Yeekim]

And? It still would have been infinitely more effective against a country which would effectively been nonindustrialised. Correct me if I'm wrong here but massive production of T-34s, among other thing, from behind the Urals played a large part in the Red Army's victory. Take that away and explain to me how the USSR could have won.

I cant believe I'm having to argue that a country which came so damn close to losing wouldnt have lost if it had the massive handicap of not having been industrialised... some people will argue for the sake of it I suppose.

Well, yes, if we are arguing about Trotsky vs Stalin, then I do not care. I know not much about Trotsky and have nothing to love him for either. However, my points were that
1) Soviet industrialization alone was not enough to defeat Germany. Especially if we remember that "industrialized" Red Army was largely annihilated in the very first stage of the war and a large number of industrial plants occupied by Nazis, so much of both had to be rebuilt the other side of Urals.
2) The premise that sans Stalin Russia would have been "effectively nonindustrialised" is bit of a stretch. That industrialization came at a terrible cost - and much of this could have been avoided, if not for Bolshevik revolution, subsequent civil war and terror policies. Why wouldn't Russia have been able to at least partially keep up in pace with defeated, disarmed and bankrupted Germany?
EDIT: Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Russia penetrated far faster and further in WW2 than in WW1?
3) So the big question is, whether Russia survived thanks to Bolshevik Party and leadership of Stalin, or rather despite Bolshevik Party and leadership of Stalin...
The man was a genius, no doubt, but imho his strength was in machiavellian power games, acquiring and consolidating power and eliminating his rivals, rather than in being economic/social/military visionary.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The industrialization brought by the Five-Year Plans did not come at a terrible cost, there were simply parallel events happening that caused great loss of life. The accelerated industrialization itself was not the cause of them. Look to Nehru's Five-Year Plans in the 40s-60s to see an example of this.

 

[Yeekim]

The industrialization brought by the Five-Year Plans did not come at a terrible cost, there were simply parallel events happening that caused great loss of life. The accelerated industrialization itself was not the cause of them. Look to Nehru's Five-Year Plans in the 40s-60s to see an example of this.

Precisely. You said it a bit better than I did, though.

 

[RedRalph]

Well, yes, if we are arguing about Trotsky vs Stalin, then I do not care. I know not much about Trotsky and have nothing to love him for either. However, my points were that
1) Soviet industrialization alone was not enough to defeat Germany. Especially if we remember that "industrialized" Red Army was largely annihilated in the very first stage of the war and a large number of industrial plants occupied by Nazis, so much of both had to be rebuilt the other side of Urals.

I'm not saying it alone would have been enough. But if Trotsky had been in power he would have not pursued Stalins policy of strenghthening socialism in the USSR (Accelerated industrialisation). They came this close to losing the war. Dramatically reduce the industrialisation level of the country, and that would have been enough to tip the balance. And Yeekim, the fact is the USSr HAD the capability to move factories behind the Urals because they had been aindustrialised form some time. If they hadnt been at all (or merely to the levle Trotsky would have gone for), how do you think that would have gone?

2) The premise that sans Stalin Russia would have been "effectively nonindustrialised" is bit of a stretch. That industrialization came at a terrible cost - and much of this could have been avoided, if not for Bolshevik revolution, subsequent civil war and terror policies. Why wouldn't Russia have been able to at least partially keep up in pace with defeated, disarmed and bankrupted Germany?
EDIT: Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Russia penetrated far faster and further in WW2 than in WW1?

Yes of course but that was because transport, communications etc were much better by WW2. It was a different era of warfare. OK, 'effectively unindustrialised' is hyperbole on my part. By Trotsky would have concentrated far less on industrialisation, so if you can imagine a Red Army with less tanks, less small arms, less artillery, less everything in fact, what chance would you give that alternate Red Army agains the Nazis?

3) So the big question is, whether Russia survived thanks to Bolshevik Party and leadership of Stalin, or rather despite Bolshevik Party and leadership of Stalin...
The man was a genius, no doubt, but imho his strength was in machiavellian power games, acquiring and consolidating power and eliminating his rivals, rather than in being economic/social/military visionary.

Well, we can never say definitively. But I'm alsmost certain without Stalins sometimes brutal, but incredibly fast rush to indutrialisation, the USSR would have been defeated and thus, well, you can imagine the consequences. for you, maybe even more lavish parades glorifying the SS, for most Europeans, not so great.

 

[Masada]

I'm not saying it alone would have been enough. But if Trotsky had been in power he would have not pursued Stalins policy of strenghthening socialism in the USSR (Accelerated industrialisation). They came this close to losing the war. Dramatically reduce the industrialisation level of the country, and that would have been enough to tip the balance. And Yeekim, the fact is the USSr HAD the capability to move factories behind the Urals because they had been aindustrialised form some time. If they hadnt been at all (or merely to the levle Trotsky would have gone for), how do you think that would have gone?

What I contend is that Trotsky would not have gutted the Red Army, such that it needed to be rebuilt from the ground up in the first darn place. You don't need to be as industrialized in that case to win the war. You only need to be industrialized when your military almost completely collapses in 6 months and the enemy stops needing to fight and can just leisurely advance forward swallowing up more of your territory. Winter was the only real dampener in those early days. Which likely would not have happened had Stalin not butchered his senior staff, his officer corp in general, and heck his army. The war was not nearly lost because Russia's equipment was bad, it was nearly lost in those early days because the Red Army could not fight courtesy of Stalin's policies. Trotsky in all likelihood would not have screwed his army like Stalin did... ergo the Germans would not have had a field day destroying the whole of the first incarnation of the Red Army.

 

[amadeus]

The industrialization brought by the Five-Year Plans did not come at a terrible cost, there were simply parallel events happening that caused great loss of life.

You know that Stalin sold the grain to buy the machinery for the plans, right?

 

[luiz]

You know that Stalin sold the grain to buy the machinery for the plans, right?

And that was yet another of Trotsky's ideas that Stalin stole. It's silly to think that the USSR would not have industrialised under Trotsky (not directed at amadeus).

Now folks, don't get me wrong. I hate Trotsky and think that he was as immoral as Stalin. His only concern was power. But he would have been less catastrophic than Stalin, because he would not have purged the officers (to the extent Stalin did, anyway) nor commit the idiotic mistakes that Stalin made in the early stages of the german invasion that almost resulted in a complete soviet defeat.

 

[Sharwood]

And that was yet another of Trotsky's ideas that Stalin stole. It's silly to think that the USSR would not have industrialised under Trotsky (not directed at amadeus).

Now folks, don't get me wrong. I hate Trotsky and think that he was as immoral as Stalin. His only concern was power. But he would have been less catastrophic than Stalin, because he would not have purged the officers (to the extent Stalin did, anyway) nor commit the idiotic mistakes that Stalin made in the early stages of the german invasion that almost resulted in a complete soviet defeat.

Yet Trotsky probably would have been more militant, more supportive of Communist movements in other countries, less inclined to attempt diplomacy - I certainly don't see Trotsky joining the League of Nations - etc. It's really a toss-up, as a Trotsky-led USSR probably would have frightened the West far more than Stalin, which could conceivably lead to more Western backing of Hitler, more free Central European territories, etc.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't see any Soviet leader joining the League of Nations out of pure spite for having been left out of Versailles.