Germans doomed to failure

Few of us, if any can even begin to imagine what Soviet Russia and the Russian people went through in 41'-42'. Never before nor after had any country with stood such devastation brought to it by another, transform its military almost over night and bounce back with such resolve that it not only paralyzed the aggressors but shocked the world. The number of casualties sustained by all the Russian people along with the destruction which befell the country should not be a discussion of Russia's inability to cope with the invader but rather a clear representation of the monumental struggle which Soviet Russia found herself in. Never before had so many people put aside their differences, families and ways of life to come together and defeat such an evil.

Stalin, IMO was the man who the people looked up to and was the right individual for the job. It was his actions during this time in Russias history that earned him the nickname "The Man of Steel", as almost anyone else would have folded and ran. It was under his orders factories were moved across the country, scortched earth policy implemented, he reminded the people of Alexander Nevsky and his triumph over the Germans/Swedes, he reminded the people of the struggle against Napoleon, it was his ability to stay put in Moscow when all seemed lost that gave people hope and the chance to believe, and it was he who reminded the Russian people of their duty to "Mother Russia" and by doing so lighting a fire which could not be extinguished...

Of course, Stalin made huge blunders which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, but the fact remains that (IMO) during this period, the people believed in him more than the Germans in Hitler, British in Churchill and so on.

Much which was thrown into Germany's path of destruction in the opening months we rogues criticize as a waist of human life, but how else could have Russia slowed the German advance which came so rapidly and (as far as the Russian people were concerened) without warning? It was these draconian measures which slowed the German advance and gave Russia the breathing room she so desperately needed to build up her defenses, regroup, retrain and rebuild in order to stem the tide. It was Stalin's words which ignited Russia's soldiers who encountered a baffled Wehrmacht who thought it was going to be a bit easier. Even Hitler was unable to have such an impact on the German people the way Stalin had on his. It was for this reason why many Russians of the time chose to forget/forgive/excuse or deny Stalin's purges and wept when he died; it was he who saved Russia.

While many others around the world fought gallantly against the same evil, I can not see democracies sustaining such catastrophic losses of life, infrastructure and equipment and continuing the struggle.

IMO the American Civil War comparison is not a good one for obvious reasons.

(rant over)

 

Sloniksp, I can agree with you on every point but one. 'People believed in Stalin more so than Germans in Hitler' No question that soviet people endured tremendous hardship. But Germany endured the fate that Stalin held off, the complete destruction of the entire country. Russia faced only one significant opponent, Hitler's Germany. Germany faced the British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union and the United States. For 3 and 1/2 years they faced that massive combined economic, industrial, and military force. Long past the point that it was obvious that victory was impossible, the German soldier fought, and the worker built. There was never the dissent found in late WWI Germany, granted it was a police state as Russia was.

 

hm,some people are maybe forgetting that the SU is NOT Russia (or vice versa):in 1930 ,the population of the SU was 160 million,of whom 100 million livinf in the Russian part.I don't think that the nonRussians were fighting for Rudina .

 

Did anyone ever try to assasinate the Kaiser? German "dissent" in WWI was a product of mass starvation not a lack of will to fight or loyalty issues. Why do you think the Nazi economy favored civilian goods for so long, it was a lesson learned from WWI.

 

But why use coercion when you don't have to? There are many ways to motivate people and if you can convince them to do it of their own free will you get more out of them typically.

 

I agree with most of it, but don't forget how Stalin acted during the first few days of the war. The way you put it makes it seem like Stalin put his act together straight away spitting out orders, when in fact he disappeared for a period of time.

 

Point made. IMO, however; the roles of the 2 leaders changed and had an profound effect on the people as the war progressed.... People began to believe more and more into Stalin as the time went on and the opposite was happening to Adolf.

Hello Yono,

Stalin was on vacation at his dacha (summer home) when Germany launched her offensive. It was only then did his Generals fly to where he was and inform him of what has just befallen Soviet Russia. IMO, his reaction to the news was only human; shock, disbelief, fear, nervousness... Upon hearing this news he didnt exactly put on a pair of swim trunks either, he got everything in order and after catching his nerves, set out for Mosocw.

 

Agreed, but this was the case only some of the time.

Ex: In Belarus (for the most part) people fought alongside Russians and for the same cause. Ukraine is a bit tricky as it was split in half. In Eastern Ukraine people considered themselves Russian just as they do today and again fought for the same cause. In Western Ukraine the feelings were a bit different and many sided with the Germans... Even today, there is a fine rift between the two sides.

Speaking only of eastern Europe of course.

 

Stalin also seemed to be willing to set asside his dogma when doing so would help. As time went on Hitler seemed less and less able to do so (and he wasn't ever very good at it).

 

My point is that the scale and speed of Russia's recovery after 1941 could not have been achieved in societies whose democratic principles prevented them - even in wartime - from resorting to outright coercion of the working population. The scale and speed of Russia's recovery could only have been achieved in a totalitarian state. Besides the Russian people were tougher and more resilient than most.

Although Russia's appeals to people's patriotic and civic duty undoubtedly played its part in this recovery, the authorities knew that coercion was also required if they were to achieve the phenomenal increase in industrial output needed to adequately equip the Red Army to defeat and evict the invading German armies.

In short, but for state compulsion this would not have happened. Whether it was ethically right is really neither nor there. We are talking about a country facing the gravest national peril in its history. What were they supposed to do? - call in management consultants from the US or Britain to explore gentler ways of motivating people?

No, they did what they thought was necessary to save the country. They placed factories under martial law to tighten labour discipline and productivity (contrast this with the English workers going on strike during the Battle of Britain). They doled out severe punishment for negligence, absenteeism and unauthorised leave. Many slept in their factories, for fear of turning up late for work because even being twenty minutes late brought a charge of desertion.

It goes without saying that there is a huge distinction between wartime working conditions in Russia and the western democracies. Do tell me, lwd, that you understand this distinction?

 

I realize that was your point I'm just not sure that it's valid.

In the USSR in 1941 you are undoubtedly correct. That doesn't mean that you are correct for other times or oehter ocuntries.

I've never had a problem understanding that distinction I just don't agree with your concusions and so far you've done little or nothing to support them.

 

why would the Russian (sic:you mean the Soviet) people be tougher and more resilient ?

 

Because they had lived in a state of constant revolutionary struggle and they'd been through all the miseries associated with war. In fact, life during the Five Year plans had (almost) conditioned them for what awaited them from 1941 onwards. Throw in the usual Soviet fatalism and you've got a country ready for war.

PS I won't mention your spelling if you don't nitpick on my overlap with 'Russian' and 'Soviet'.

 

It is unwise to use stereotypes as "the usual Soviet fatalism",that's the same as the'upper-stiff ' lips of the English(sic:the British),or theFrench"womanizers"or(perish the thought) the avaricious Scots .
You can't say that the Russians were tougher and more resilient,because that's implying "than other people",and this,you don't know,because,other people did not live in a state of constant revolutionary strugle.
You could say that the Russian people were VERY tough and very resilient .

 

Hello to you to Sloniksp

We can agree that even the great Stalin had his weaker days right?

 

Absolutely

 

You are of course correct, I hope you will forgive that in general areas, for the period of 1941 to '45, I tend to refer to Soviet/Russian interchangably if for no other reason than to not keep repeating the same word repeatedly.

 

Don't get me wrong, its not like I don't think Stalin was a great leader of course he was! I just sometimes think he is overrated as an military leader. IMO what ruined the Germans was just the huge mass of land they had to conquere, weather and the masses of soldiers they had to go through.

 

Stalin was not a good military leader, in fact whenever he took command of such actions disaster followed (it was on his orders that Kiev was to to be held at all cost disregarding Zhukov's pleas, which led to the incirclement and destruction of the 4 Soviet armies). Unlike Hitler, however; he began to understand (or so I like to believe) that the generals knew better than he and once he began to turn over that role things began to look much better.

cheers.

 

He was a bit smarter in that point than Hitler ( who always said he had to kill his Generals like Stalin did!) But i´m not so sure if he was loved by his people or only feared for the things he did before the war started?!