WWII Eastern Front - Did Stalin win or Hitler lose? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Note: nostalgia *is* allowed.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14707829
It kinda sounds like an empty question as both are technically true, but which is more true?

Was it Hitler's strategic mistakes or Stalin's strength that contributed more to the eventual outcome?

I've seen people argue that the USSRs industrial capacities and potential far outweighed that of the Third Reich, which is undoubtedly true. However, Hitler had almost the entirety of Europe in his grasp and at one point was on the doorstep of Moscow, only to have it all unravel. Was a Soviet victory an inevitable outcome?
#14707833
Turns out Germany came late to the party, with all the games in france and the balkans, the Ribbentrop pact was a grave strategic error. Hitler ran face first into a brick wall as a result. The soviets had geared up for total war by that point. He ignored rule 1-never underestimate your opponent. They threw everything they had at that operation, but they did it too late. They couldn't support those armies across so much territory against such an opponent. He could have made it to the Urals as it turns out, and still lost.

Why Barbarossa failed, a retrospective according to Hitler, by Hitlers own words:
#14707863
Ornate Placebo wrote:It kinda sounds like an empty question as both are technically true, but which is more true?

Was it Hitler's strategic mistakes or Stalin's strength that contributed more to the eventual outcome?

I've seen people argue that the USSRs industrial capacities and potential far outweighed that of the Third Reich, which is undoubtedly true. However, Hitler had almost the entirety of Europe in his grasp and at one point was on the doorstep of Moscow, only to have it all unravel. Was a Soviet victory an inevitable outcome?


Based on the situation at the time of the Battle of Moscow and the zenith of Hitler's domination of Europe and the occupied USSR, German defeat was probably inevitable. They were simply being bled dry on the Eastern Front and they still had Africa to contend with, not to mention the continued threat from Britain. British air superiority meant that their bombers, as well as America's air power which served to assist the British in Europe at the time, was beginning to do quite a number on German industry and infrastructure. As it stood, German victories in Russia were akin to Pyrrhic ones: even if the Germans had captured Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, and pushed forward on each of those three main fronts, they would have had more cities along the way to fight tooth-and-nail. Capturing Moscow may not have quite been a devastating loss of morale to the Soviets, as its loss could have also led to an immediate call for vengeance.

In any event, the Soviets would have continued to fight on, and even if the Germans had reached the Urals, their supply lines would have been stretched to incredible proportions, their troops weary and decimated by that point, and fighting still going throughout European USSR. At that point, the Allies would still plan on an invasion of Western Europe/Southern Europe, and German air power would not be able to stop daily Allied bombing of Germany itself.

History would have had to diverge significantly before the invasion of the USSR to allow for a German victory or a stalemate/armistice. Japan was still fucked, and Germany would have been introduced to the nuclear bomb.
#14708760
How much of the Soviet industrialization was by Stalin and his people, rather then a continuation of existing development policies? Was it strength that he took his hands off his generals to let them act?
#14708776
Thunderhawk wrote:How much of the Soviet industrialization was by Stalin and his people, rather then a continuation of existing development policies? Was it strength that he took his hands off his generals to let them act?


So you think it was more a case of Soviet industrial might in spite of Stalin's leadership than any special effort on his part specifically?

I don't know enough about Stalin's generals to know if they were brilliant military strategists and what impact this might have had on the war. What does seem significant was the ability of the Soviet Union to essentially recreate a Red Army so quickly and effectively after if had been annihilated in the first few months of Barbarossa.
Moreover, Soviet industry was far more streamlined than German industry, it was geared toward producing a larger number of units of a fewer number of products. They also employed planned obsolescence to the point that less resources and time were required to produce each piece of Soviet equipment when compared to German industry.

I guess the degree to which this was attributable to Stalin is debatable, but it seems as if such rapid industrial development needed a strong hand to come along as it did. Soviet morale was impressive during WWII as well considering the initial losses of territory, resources and manpower.
#14708810
It was Hitler's defeat rather than Stalin's victory. Hitler overestimated the potentials of the Wehrmacht and the Third Reich, while he underestimated the potentials of the USSR and war communism. He also got involved in military issues too much and made big strategic mistakes. Operation Barbarossa was doomed to fail anyway, it was an overstretched military plan.
#14708811
Hitler had no Oil, for a motorized warfare. In this time were the Caucasus the Saudi-Arabay of today. if Hitler had just taken Stalingrad/Wolgograd, then he would be able to win the war...

even lost battles, lost the Allies more troops and heavy weapons, against Anglo-Americans 3 times and against Sowiets about 7 times...

but the real battle were fought by the russians, the US startet D-Day as the Russians were nearly crossing german borders...
#14708815
Stalin did nothing but get in the way and mess things up. Russian people had won via miracle handicapped by Stalin. German people had lost the war handicapped by Hitler.

Stalin perged the army, leaving it with poor leadership. Hence Russia was severely out performed in terms of tactics and strategy in comparison with German military.

Stalin put forth crazy Communist reforms prior to the war, messing up the economy. Industrialization was happening in Russia at earnest prior to Communist arrival. In my view communist only hampered industrialization instead of letting it develop like it should have had.

Prior to Barbarossa Stalin religiously refused to mobilized the military, even though there had been credible information that invasion is forth coming. Leaving the army unprepared to the intital German onslaught with disasterous consequences. Stalin's reasoning was that he did not want to break the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty. Believing Germans themselves will never break it.

Hitler on the other hand made blunders of starting Barbarossa to late. Then diverging troops to Caucasus campaign all in the face of protest from his general staff. Then Stalingrad happened.

One thing Stalin did right was give more and more decision power to his generals. And stay out of the war business that he had no clue about. Where as Hitler did the opposite as the war went on.

But both leaders were fuck ups. Heck the whole WW2 was one big complete fuck up that ruined Europe.
#14708818
Stalin perged the army, leaving it with poor leadership.


Probably a good thing long term, it meant soviet government and armed forces would stay more stable going forward. The motive was centralization of the command structure. And it needed unity in the face of the German attack. The reorganization did come at a bad time, messing with the Finnish campaign but it was won regardless.

Hence Russia was severely out performed in terms of tactics and strategy in comparison with German military.


So were France/Britain...

NOBODY knew how to deal with Blitzkrieg at the outset of the war. By 1942-43 it was over for German tactics, soviets had adapted. They were the first to adapt on an operational scale and Barbarossa is precisely where blitzkrieg was made obsolete. Since France, Germans relied on splitting their main offensive force, punching through the front line with an armoured spearhead while going around the two flanks to hit from behind. The soviets would employ mobile defense in depth, simply moving their front line back as their flanks converged on the spearhead, and destroy it from two sides as it advanced against an ever retreating defensive line. Then they would turn to face the flanking portions of the German offensive which were comprised of much lighter armour and infantry not capable of penetrating their lines and thus attrition ensued, tying up axis manpower and equipment.

Stalin put forth crazy Communist reforms prior to the war, messing up the economy. Industrialization was happening in Russia at earnest prior to Communist arrival. In my view communist only hampered industrialization instead of letting it develop like it should have had.


The command economy saved the soviet union, it made mass production of war materiel possible in times of economic devastation wrought by Barbarossa. It allowed factories to be moved and reassembled overnight.

Prior to Barbarossa Stalin religiously refused to mobilized the military, even though there had been credible information that invasion is forth coming.


Prior to the German invasion Soviet forces were stationed in an offensive posture-preparing for an eventual invasion of Germany, i.e they were in the process of mobilizing for an offensive. Which contributed to them being overrun-they were caught with their pants down as they lacked defensive fortifications or fortifications to fall back to-they never intended to be on the defensive so soon if at all.

Hitler on the other hand made blunders of starting Barbarossa to late. Then diverging troops to Caucasus campaign


Axis threw everything it had available at the height of Barbarossa at Moscow-and failed. This is where Blitzkrieg shifted into a war of attrition, something Germany could not win.

The priority then changed to securing oil to keep the panzer divisions alive, so the effort shifted south-east. Moscow would have made an operationally useless prize. Russians would have just burned it down before giving it up like they did when nappy showed up for his ill fated visit.
#14708961
Loads of Plaroesque people were in the army, they would have defected to Hitler and lost the Soviets the war. Stalin did the right thing to purge the traitors.

Only one Soviet general ever defected to the Germans, even during the repeated military disasters of the first few months after Operation Barbarossa, and that was Vlasov. When news reached Stalin that Vlasov had defected, he turned to Molotov and asked him gloomily: "How did we miss him in 1937?"
#14708981
Generals and officers that exhibit strong signs of independent action are a hazard to the establishment. MacArthur got himself done in for being like this, he was pissing off and countermanding the president.

It wouldn't have been hard to mop up the opinionated brass and send them to Siberia. They would have had their entire record on show for deliberation. Stalin smelled rats and he made it impossible for rats to nibble at his feet.

Like Erdogan did recently.
#14708988
Sure, Stalin smelled rats and nuked them all, with which he created a totally incompetent army.

As a matter of fact he didn't smell anything, he just felt like purging the army completely. He just felt like it was about time to do it and replace the purged with his own men. Now his fans are praising him for his great sensitivity to any bit of potential treason, which is like praising him for his highly developed paranoia. They would be praising him even with a bullet in their own heads.

"I must be a traitor myself too!" - and they'd be glad to die for Stalin. :roll:

As to Erdogan, I can imagine he organised a coup against himself, then he can purge teachers and judges too. I wonder whether how the Turkish society will react to that.
Last edited by Beren on 10 Aug 2016 03:07, edited 1 time in total.
#14708997
Decky wrote:Loads of Plaroesque people were in the army, they would have defected to Hitler and lost the Soviets the war. Stalin did the right thing to purge the traitors.
Indeed, the best kind of generals.

Communist surrendered to the Germans in WW1 and with it the legacy of Russia on which it was founded, so don't be talking to me about betrayal. If it was not for them Constantinople would had been liberated now. Instead we were supporting the Turks in Greeco-Turkish war. Everything we fought for centuries at last moment was betrayed by these scum.

If I was a general back then this is how I would have been. (Watch at 28:00 min)


Stalin was a dumbass crazy ideoluge, no different then progressive liberal ideological fanatics you have running the show in the west today. He brutalized a generation of Russian people. From this trauma the Russian people I believe still have not fully recovered till this day. I spit on his fucking grave.
#14709245
Too many usual misconception about war which has already talked been many times before. But still two points which I am probably repeating for 20th time.

Barbarossa couldn't had been launched earlier because of weather. See all the the major German summer offensive in east, they all start in late June/July. Aprill/May is not a good month to start any major offensive in the eastern front.

As per purge of military officers, meh. Less than 3% of officers were purged and purging was not equal to death sentence, around 30% of purged officers were rehabilitated.

The chronic lack of leadership in Red army at the opening months of war was not because of purges in military but because of the rapid expansion of the army, a necessary step to counter the growing Nazi threat. In less than 2 years Red army was almost tripled which led to a shortage of trained military staff and officers and not these purges.
#14709250
fuser wrote:The chronic lack of leadership in Red army at the opening months of war was not because of purges in military but because of the rapid expansion of the army, a necessary step to counter the growing Nazi threat. In less than 2 years Red army was almost tripled which led to a shortage of trained military staff and officers and not these purges.
:lol: The German army went from one hundred thousand to five million by the start of Barbarossa, that Communists must resort to these pathetic excuses for the pathetic performance of the Communist army speaks to the incredible inefficiency and wastefulness of Communism. Like Islamic regimes, the only thing they were really good at was terror. (Note Islam was only invented after the great Arab conquests)

What exactly is wrong? We know how many rockets w[…]

Leslie woman gets to the point. Lol. https:[…]

I'm surprised to see the genocide supporters (lik[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]