Hitler or Stalin?

As I have been reading more and more post in all kinds of forums, I couldnt help but notice that one of the main reasons accredited for Germany loosing the war in the East is Hitler getting involved in military affairs as opposed to letting his generals do the work.

Surely I can understand how one can point the finger at Adolf as a reason, but his archrival Stalin, made huge mistakes as well. Overall it is easier to place blame with Hitler simply because Germany lost the war and battles like Stalingrad made his blunders just that much more famous. However Stalin's medalling also cost millions of Soviet lives and huge defeats. But it seems because Stalin's blunders occured in the beginning of Barbarossa they are overlapped by Hitlers which occured closer to the end. As Stalin turned over military planning to his generals at Russia's darkest time, Hitler seemed to take away the ability of his generals to make decisions at the time when they were needed most.

So does the excuse of Germany loosing the war due to Hitler's medalling hold as much water as the " winter " one, or am I just mistaken?

To finish this of, each one of these brilliant military strategists decision's cost there own side millions of lives and at the same time maybe even prolonged the war. So my question is which one of these to two deserves the " PIN HEAD " award?

 

In a nutshell I'd say Hitler got worse with time whereas Stalin was learning and improving with his mistakes as time went on.

Luckily for Stalin the USSR had large manpower reserves, otherwise at the rate h was losing people at the beginning defeat would come quickly. As time went on he learnt that those stay in place orders were leading nowhere and he started allowing timely retreats to fight another day. It still took him some more time to loose his rash streak and stretch his offensives more than prudent.

 

Stalin industrialized Russia, he united his people under his cult of personality, he led a group of peasants to defeat the most modern army in his time, he calmly moved the industries to the west, he wisely appointed Zhukov to defend Moscow, and he bravely stood side by side with his comrades in the Kremlin. It is safe to say if Stalin never came to power, Russia could have never survived 1941. With the vast motherland as his base, Hitler would have what it takes to combat the Allies with an upper-hand. Stalin didn’t only save Russia, he saved the world. His statues should be all over this planet. So let the slogan be: “For Stalin”.

 

Thank for your reply. As I see your point, im no quite sure I would go as far as to say that his statues should be all over this planet.

 

Welllllll. Don't know about that. Stalin interned American airmen who crash landed in Siberia. Also kept their aircraft to steal technology. He also conducted his own police state brutality against Jews, Cossacks, Ukranians, intelligentsia, the senior officer corps and who knows who else. He replaced the nazi menace with the communist menace. He did not cooperate with the allies during the war yet wanted their military assistance with no strings attached. Nope. No statues. The Western Allies could have dealt with Hitler without stalin's help, it just would have taken longer and with more casualties. This in no way downgrades the Russian contribution. But to say he saved the world????????????

 

Who said he saved the world? He's a mass murderer to me, just like AH. He slaughtered or/and deported his own people, his officers, his intelligentia, his minorties (Poles, Crimians,Germans, Jews, Kahzaks and many others) pows etc.. not to mention Katyn, Gulags, Psychiatric hospitals .... Had he ruled a smaller country, the allies would certainly have taken him out.

 

Please elaborate?

 

Stalin was an immoral and despicable man but credit is given where it's due. The Soviets played an enormous role in western allied victory.

I don't see how the allies could have beat Germany without Stalin's help. The eastern front was disastrous for Germany they lost an incredible amount of equipment, manpower, and resources. Instead of chipping away at remnants of Germany's army on the western front we would have had to deal with the full brunt of the 6th army and and the Waffen SS. I really think Britain would have crumbled against that onslaught long before the U.S. would enter into the equation. You have to remember that initially the U.S. was very undertrained and had not reached its industrial output capability until later on. The U.S. still had to contend with Japan too.

 

Agreed!

 

Agreed too!

 

Aren't we agreeing to much?

 

Well, we at least we avoided having Stalin's statue in our homes, haven't we?

 

I triple agree, so that's definitely far too much agreeing now.

As Za mentions, militarily Stalin learnt from his and others mistakes, he may have caused enormous damage to the Army with the pre-war purges but as the war progressed he was capable of allowing important decisions to be made by those best qualified to do so. His technical interventions and approval in tank design were often also well judged and he was prepared to support an unpopular view if he saw some merit in it, even allow particularly stubborn (and brave) 'squeaky wheels' to get their ideas to the fore.

Hitler however constantly meddled down to the tiniest minutiae of military action and technical design. The confusion associated with his interventions in technical projects is well known and the negative affect he could have on the battlefield can't be understated. Just reading 'Ruckmarsch' on Falaise and it gives more minute detail than I've yet read on how the commanders on the ground were truly disabled by Fuhrer orders and suspicions. It's amazing that Von Kluge and his staff achieved what they did with that level of official handicap.

I don't think any of this 'excuses' (??) them losing the war, that was decided as soon as their horizons shifted further than France and the low countries, but I do think there's much truth in the old adage that Hitler was one of the most effective allied commanders.
(who said that first, can't remember for the life of me??)

Cheers,
Adam.

 

I did not say that the Russian contribution was nil. Their contribution help dramatically in bringing about a quick end to the war. I still think that the US and GB could have handled the Germans on their own but it would have taken alot longer and with more dead.

 

The Americans had asked to use Russian airbases when bombing German targets. The Russians said no. The Russians kept American pilots who crashed landed on their eastern borders without repatriating them. When Germany surrendered, Stalin dragged his feet in attacking Japan, per agreement, until the very end just to be at the dividing table. Yet, he asked for lend lease supplies without giving much.

 

Agreed, this is typical Stalinist paranoia, although this is no great excuse.

Not correct. The Red Army was fully committed till the end to his Western theatre of Operations. It was impossible to quickly mount a 1.5 million troops operation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm for a summary) thousands of miles away, at the other end of one rail line only. How long did it take for the Western Allies to prepare for Overlod? The Red Army had been already stockpiling means and materials for months for this case. This is not turning one or two battalions about, you know.

The Allies supplied planes, locomotives, trucks, boots, food, ammunition, raw materials, etc. in boundless amounts. Yet, the Sovets did not give much in exchange, only 25 million lives.

If the Germans had left the USSR alone and turned elsewhere, they would have maintained the ability to inflict this kind of loss of life on somebody else so giving all these amterials in excanhge for 25 million lives does seem like a good bargain after all, doesn't it?

Now I have to go check the roastbeef. Merry Easter

 

Once again agreed!! Couldn have said it better myself!!

 

Well I only partly aggree this time. The figure of 25 million can be considered as realistic, but not all of the victims were killed by the Nazis, these figures should also include the victims of Stalinisn (deported populations , executed soldiers, civilian victims etc...)

 

I accept that, but even if we reduce the number above by half it still means less 12 million deaths suffered by Russians etc instead of someone else, so still a good deal.

 

True Za. I don't think there would be anybody to deny the importance of the Russian contribution and I highly respect those men's sacrifice.