Posted on 08/23/2005 1:48:53 PM PDT by jb6
It seems that most Russians are not ready to discard the myth that Joseph Stalin "won the war" over Nazi Germany. According to 58% of respondents, Stalin made a major contribution to the Soviet Union's victory. This opinion was mostly shared by people over 55 (68%), village dwellers (65%), and almost unanimously by KPRF followers (85%), while the opposite opinion is expressed by only 18% of respondents. Residents of big cities and people with a higher education were more likely to disparage Stalin's role than others.
Many people (40%) estimate Stalin’s activity in World War II positively, while 31% think it was positive and negative in equal degree, and only 11% estimate it as absolutely negative. KPRF followers (64%), people over 55 (50%), and respondents with an unfinished secondary education (46%) were more likely to estimate Stalin’s activity during the war as absolutely positively, while complicated estimations were mostly given by people who trust President Putin and respondents with comparatively large incomes (37% each). Absolutely negative evaluations were mostly expressed by respondents with a higher education (18%).
Respondents were asked open-ended questions about Stalin’s achievements and failures during World War II. 59% agreed to answer the question about his achievements. Respondents were most likely to consider Stalin to be a talented organizer, and note his ability to establish order and discipline under conditions of war ("total discipline", "order in the country", "he was high-handed with the country") - 20%. Stalin’s personal qualities were mentioned as well: heartless, purposeful, strong-willed and responsible ("justified cruelty"; "his strong nature"; "cruelty – because there was no choice") - 12%. Five percent of respondents are convinced that Stalin developed the strategy of military operations, issued orders, and organized the work of the home front. Many people say it would have been impossible to beat Nazi Germany without Stalin ("our victory would have been impossible without him"; "if there had been no Stalin, Germany would have won") - 8%.
Another groups of answers include the characteristics of the Soviet people – their unity, steadfastness and patriotism (12%). Stalin here is described as a leader who managed to mobilize these qualities ("he inspired people for victory") or as a symbol of unity ("solders began an attack by shouting his name, he was the symbol"). Three percent of respondents think talented military leaders and ordinary Russians played the main role in defeating the Nazis, not Stalin.
53% of respondents talked about Stalin's negative influence during the war. They were most likely to speak about mass repression and arrests, and genocide against their own citizens ("terror against our own people"; "concentration camps"; "he ordered the killing of those who were not guilty"; "genocide against our own people") - 24%. Some respondents (11%) spoke about his cruelty and despotism ("heartless"; "Stalin didn’t care about the people"; "a persecution mania"). 20% of respondents blame Stalin for incompetence and irresponsibility, mistakes in strategy and criminal actions before and during the war ("killing of our military elite"; "he caused the collapse of our army shortly before the war"; "he was incompetent in military matters"; "he didn’t sign the Geneva Convention"; "everything that related to prisoners").
The Public Opinion Foundation. Russia-wide poll of urban and rural population conducted in 100 residencies in 44 regions, territories, and republics, in all economic and geographical areas of Russia. Interviews are conducted at the homes of interviewees. Household interviews with a sample size of 1500 respondents. The margin of error does not exceed 3.6%. April 23, 2005.
I have never considered that. Intriguing.
The Germans lost the war in the winter of 1942-43 at Stalingrad (Volgograd) and the subsequent spring tank battle at Kursk.
Strategically-speaking Napoleon's horse-drawn armies were far more mobile than Hitler's tank armies. Horses can, to a certain extent, live off captured fodder and live off the land for short periods. Tanks are ultimately tied to the road net for supplies. Russia had few roads.
It's been said that the Mongol armies were the most strategically mobile force the world has ever known. I think if you discount naval transportation, this is probably true.
When Russia reversed the tide their offensives were frequently stalled while they constructed rail lines to bring supplies forward.
Don't overlook Mark Clark,CinC 5th Army, and the fact that, while he was not relieved of command, he was so ineffective in the Italian campaign that he was circumvented and basically made irrelevant
You could easily argue that the Germans lost the war when they didn't capture Leningrad and Moscow in the first 6 months of Operation Barbarossa...however, the fact remains that the Russians took all the Germans could throw at them and, in the end, pretty much defeated them. In the Battle of Stalingrad, the Russians lost more soldiers than the Americans did in all of WWII...
Stalin didn't go crap except get huge concessions from his buddy in socialism FDR.
It was the Russian soldiers who beat the Germans, not Stalin....
By signing the Non Agression Pact with Germany, Stalin, helped to instigate World War II.
Had the German General Staff been true German patriots, they would have assassinated Hitler, or arrested him and imprisoned him and saved his country's honor.
If they saw the disaster coming in Russia, with the German Army destined to freeze to death and thousands of soldiers to perish, and their country's victory, future and even survival imperiled by an idiot despot, their duty to Germany was to remove the dictator.
But the German Generals were, instead, cowardly little men: bullies to captured civilians, but boot-licking ass-kissers in front of a maniac who did not have a praetorian guard capable of defending him.
Hitler ordered the forces forward to what the German Generals either confidently expected would be a victory before the snows fell: in which case they were fools. Or to what the German generals knew would be a disaster for their nation and result in its defeat and possible destruction, and instead of using their command of the military power to remove the madman, they submitted to him and rode on to destruction, making them little ball-less cowards AND fools.
The latter is, in fact, the case.
The German Generals were cowards and fools.
They obeyed orders designed to destroy their men and their country, and did nothing about it.
And when they did finally move to assassinate Hitler, in 1945, they did not even have the courage to stand there and put a bullet through his face when the bomb failed to kill them. Instead, they hanged their own on piano wires.
Cowardly little fools who destroyed their own country based on an obedience principle to a madman they could have removed at any time.
Most Soviet historians (including Robert Conquest, Adam Ulam, and Alan Bullock) contend that Stalin made a series of disastrous decisions that cost millions of Russian lives. Before the war he purged the officer class of the Soviet military (including some prominent Soviet marshals). And, despite numerous clear and reliable warnings that Germany was planning an attack he ignored them. After the NAZI attack he was so shocked that he was virtually immobilized for more than a week. It's also a fact that the Russian people initially welcomed the invading forces so horrible was life in the Soviet Union. It was only when the NAZI's proved themselves even more brutal than Stalin that they fought against them. Stalin did learn from experience and had enough sense to stop trying to micromanage the war effort and leave it to the generals. Stalingrad was his biggest PR victory and despite enormous Soviet losses it established his reputation. He even was shrewd enough to appeal to Russian nationalism and made temporary peace with the Orthodox Church. On balance though, he unnecessarily cost millions of lives.
Ummm. Hitler's DECIDED for the Caucusus. No serious attempt was made to take Moscow after winter set in in 1941. The Schwerpunkt of the German effort of 1942 was the Caucasus because that is what Hitler wanted. Hitler may have been militarily inept, but he knew that Germany wouldn't last without those oil fields.
The Germans were outstanding in defense at Normandy - remember they never committed their Panzer Divisions or other first rate units and suffered from a total lack of air coverage. I'll bet on enfiladed 88's vs. T-34's.
Once the Germans were winkled out of the hedgerow country (a seriously difficult task), they had no place to go but back to Germany. Rommel knew his tanks were toast against allied tactical aircraft when they were in open country.
BTW, I'd take the T-34 & lay the Mark VI Tiger. Too heavy for offensive operations, and too expensive to produce in numbers.
Yes, the turning tide (Stalingrad) and the coup-de-grace of German offensive capability (Kursk).
The die might well have been cast on January 12, 1942 when General Von Reichenau died after a cross-country run in -20F weather. Rather than a strong, proven commander, the Sixth Army was led eastward that summer by the rather feckless von Paulus, who couldn't seem to bring himself to defy Hitler from inside the cauldron until he was already too weak to breakout. What the Sixth army needed was someone better equipped to stand up to Hitler, to make clear to him that logistic disasters could not be resolved with a wave of der Fuhrer's hand across the map, and that concessions and regroupments and yes retreats had to be made to save any of the Sixth army at all.
I highly recommend Anthony Beevor's excellent "Stalingrad."
The Mark IV Tiger was also a bitch to maintain.
Yes, but he wasn't relieved, was he? Here's a "What If" for ya. What if Patton wasn't relieved for slapping the soldier in Sicily? Does he command in Italy (and not Clark)? What would Patton's military reputation be today if he'd been consigned to the Italian theater for the duration?
Those German generals who were not cowardly fools were true believers, and rather than wanting to kill Hitler, instead wished to stay by his side and fight with him until he triumphed. A lot of delusional groupthink was at work there. But in all other respects, yes, I agree with you.
To be fair, there was a third category of generals who did act. But as we saw, it was too little and far too late.
Hitler created a lot of little power centers in Germany. For instance, he never fully trusted his senior generals. The SS was pumped-up into a mini-army partly as a counterweight to the Wehrmacht should there be a coup attempt. Hitler loved being the final arbiter of all the political in-fighting that this created.
The winter came a little early in 1941. Stalin was also fortunate in that theJap[anese decided to fight us rather than attack his possessions in the Far East. Once the Japs were committed to a war against us, he could move huge reinforcements to the defence of Moscow.
But to give thwe devil his due, after December, 1941, he seems to have made all the right moves.
evil reincarnated
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.