31-03-2004 12:49									#1
	Hypothetical: would the USSR have done better against Germany without Stalin? Got spare money?

Some blamed the staggering early losses of the USSR in WWII on Stalin, particularly on his purges. Others attributed eventual victory on Stalin's superhuman will, arguing that the USSR would have lost without the man.

What do you think?

	31-03-2004 13:06									#2
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, the Soviet union could surely have done without many of his bozo-misstakes. But on the other hand it's hard to see that the soviet union (considering it's early history) would have a leader without a simular ruthlessness.

	31-03-2004 14:06									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

What would have happened if Trotsky had taken power instead of Stalin?
Maybe he would be more prone to make a deal with or surrender to the Germans.

	31-03-2004 14:16									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'm sure that USSR would have fared better since Stalin purged the military of its brightest and best officers. Russians, based on my observations throughout their history, have been a very resilent country and they seems to be willing to do whatever it takes to ensure their Motherland's survival. Human waves, sorched-earth tactics, and so on.

	31-03-2004 14:19									#5
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

On the other hand, with Trotsky in power the Communist revolution in Germany would be more likely to succeed, and there wouldn't be a second world war. (At least not one where Germany attacked the USSR.)

	31-03-2004 14:27									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Without somebody as ruthless and crazy as Stalin, it is possible that the whole state of Soviet wouldn't have existed anymore by WW2. But with the communist system having failed already in the 30's, would Hitler ever have been able to get to power in Germany? Would there even have been any WW2 in this case?

Last edited by Hurricane on 31-03-2004 at 14:33

	31-03-2004 14:32									#7
	Tired of ads?

quote: I'm sure that USSR would have fared better since Stalin purged the military of its brightest and best officers.

That's true. But don't you think the German campaign would be successful in the opening stages anyway? I'm just speculating here, but Trotsky was Lenin's boy and Lenin did "surrender" to the Germans in 1918. If Lenin could do it then Trotsky could too.

	31-03-2004 14:56									#8
	Tired of ads?

Stalin virtually decimated much of the high military campaign taking out many experienced officers. He was left with bozos (Zhukov) who didn't know how to operate a military campaign effectively. Running groups of men against MG-42 fire isn't effective. You get morons like Zhukov running campaigns...

"For Zhukov, it won him accalades from Stalin who had so badly purged his military that their morale was so low and leadership so bad that they couldn’t even defeat the tiny population of Finland prior to the German invasion of Russia. In January 1941, Stalin appointed Zhukov to be chief of the general staff. Zhukov was neither qualified nor interested in the work. In fact, Stalin considered him too out-spoken and dismissed him down to the Stavka on a committee in charge of strategic planning."

"Throughout the winter, Zhukov’s true military prowess was revealed. Zhukov was a man who cared little to nothing for his men nor casualty counts. Like the Japanese, he ordered massed front-wide attacks dis-interested in losses. Unlike the Japanese though, his men did not have the culture nor morale for it. It was a meat-grinder, what Soviet soldiers and even tanks weren’t killed by the Germans, were killed upon returning by their own country-men. Too impatient to deal with mine-fields by mine-detectors or even bayonets, when he ran out of cows to herd across them, he used civilians, pows and even his own soldiers. German commanders couldn’t believe it. Historically even the Japanese weren’t so wreckless. There was a huge difference between the Japanese Banzai attacks and this."

http://www.monarch.net/users/miller...roes_Zhukov.htm

	31-03-2004 14:58									#9
	Tired of ads?

Serb will tell you about the best and brightest. Some were, some were not, a LOT were brought back from Gulags to become the most successful operational generals.

That aside, if Stalin had ordered a coordinated retreat in 1941 and not a "stand fast till death" orders, the red army might have, and I say might have, managed some serious counterattacks earlier on. I'm about through "Red Army Tank Commanders: the Armored Guards" and they were desperately scrapping units together from 90% depleted units in october-november. Imagine if they had a powerful retreated, equipped and rested STAVKA reserve and :gasp: cut off Panzergroup Guderian at the base in a massive encirclement?

	31-03-2004 16:11									#10
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If the Germans thought the SU was well led and organised they would not have invaded. They thought they could win because Stalin had purged the army. and that their armed forces were rubbish.
of course some of this perception was due to Nazi superiority theories but this was at the margins.

	31-03-2004 16:59									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If stalin wasn't there to make mistakes and do stupid things, someone else would be there to make mistakes and do stupid thing.

	31-03-2004 17:41									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger They thought they could win because Stalin had purged the army. and that their armed forces were rubbish. of course some of this perception was due to Nazi superiority theories but this was at the margins.

Most of it was due to abysmal performance in Finland and :gasp: eastern poland, where the only enemy resisting was mud and logistics.

	31-03-2004 18:31									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

A co-ordinated retreat in 1941 would have saved the Red Army a lot of blood, and would have played on Russia's big advantage; distance.

Not gumming up the rail network with deportees would have helped as well.

	31-03-2004 18:39									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Also remember that Stalin brutally industrialized the country. Without him, would the USSR been at the same level of industrialization? It's hard to tell, but it usually is easier to progress if the crack of the whip makes you.

	31-03-2004 18:49									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The Red Army would have probably fared better had they not been forced to deal with Ukrainian partisans, had the effected a coordinated retreat in '41 rather than being annihilated, and had Tukhachevsky et al not been executed. Perhaps Trotsky and Bukharin would have starved the Ukrainians, hobbled the tank corps, and executed the staff officers, but somehow I doubt it. It is also unlikely that Trotsky or Bukharin would have signed the non-aggression pact with Hitler, so there would not even have been a need for a coordinated retreat in '41.

Whether the world as a whole would have fared better is another question -- perhaps without Stalin's idiocy leading to Hitler's overconfidence, Germany may have never attacked the Soviets at all, and Germany would have been left fighting a war on only one front.

	31-03-2004 18:57									#16
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Also remember that Stalin brutally industrialized the country. Without him, would the USSR been at the same level of industrialization? It's hard to tell, but it usually is easier to progress if the crack of the whip makes you.

Free markets would have done a better job.

	31-03-2004 19:15									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Saras Free markets would have done a better job.

Right better economically, but it would've done more light industry which would've been of less use to a wartime economy.

quote: The Red Army would have probably fared better had they not been forced to deal with Ukrainian partisans,

Right, it was only the absolute idiocy of the Russians which allowed them to alienate the slavs so badly that even Stalin looked better.

	31-03-2004 19:26									#18
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Boshko Right better economically, but it would've done more light industry which would've been of less use to a wartime economy.

Heavy industry would have boomed as well; a country like Russia cannot live without heavy industry, therefore, it would have happenened.

	31-03-2004 19:33									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Depends. Stalin was bad, no doubt. The question is, if not Stalin, then who? And, following up on that, what would this hypothetical leader of the USSR have done in the run-up to the war and then the war itself - would the USSR have been roughly similar to the one we know? Or maybe this not-Stalin fellow would have been much more liberal/democratic minded, and the country might've been a weaker confederacy, or even split up? Better for the people during peacetime, but possibly worse when the Nazis came calling.

My gut says just about anyone would've been better than Stalin. But considering the crop of potential leaders would have been a bunch of revolutionary communists, hardened by a nasty civil war... who knows?

-Arrian

	31-03-2004 19:37									#20
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Free markets would have done a better job.

Not as quick, IMO. Russia didn't have the infrastructure and institutions for a speedy build up.

	31-03-2004 19:39									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Yeah, for short-term industrialization, central planning + a willingness to use force to get it done > free market. I can't PROVE that, of course, but it's certainly my impression.

-Arrian

	31-03-2004 19:40									#22
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The USA, France,Germany and the UK managed to aquire heavy industry without having a homicidal maniac in charge

	31-03-2004 19:41									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Saras Heavy industry would have boomed as well; a country like Russia cannot live without heavy industry, therefore, it would have happenened.

Well capitalist economies tend to start with fairly simple processing of agricultural materials (textiles and suchlikes) and build from there, which commies have tended to have a steel fetish and massively over-invest in heavy industry which isn't of much use except at wartime.
This isn't to say that Russia would've had more industry in 1941 if Russia had been spared the dislocation of the Civil War, but I don't think that the NEP or something similar would've been able to deliver the same amout of heavy industry despite resulting in greater overall economic performance.

	31-03-2004 19:53									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: The USA, France,Germany and the UK managed to aquire heavy industry without having a homicidal maniac in charge

How quickly?

	31-03-2004 19:59									#25
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger The USA, France,Germany and the UK managed to aquire heavy industry without having a homicidal maniac in charge

Yes, in about 50 years.

In about 9 (1932-1941) years Stalin built huge amounts of heavy industry, power plants, so forth. The free market would not have taken Russia from a broken country recoevring from bloody civil war in 1922 to an industrial powerhouse able to outproduce Germany by 1943.

	31-03-2004 20:06									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Fair point about the time scale, although Japan did it in about 15 years following ww2

	31-03-2004 20:10									#27
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger Fair point about the time scale, although Japan did it in about 15 years following ww2

One, Japan was rebuilding party-while Stalin was building from nothing.

2.If you think Japan's massive growth after 1952 was all market driven.... there was masisve government involvement, control, subsidies.

	31-03-2004 20:13									#28
	Inflate your Upload Space

I konw it wasn't market driven I'm trying to distinguish Maniac driven from other forms of growth

	31-03-2004 20:16									#29
	Got spare money?

Stalin was a paranoid monster-but if insane, he had the sort of insanity that makes one an effective leader in terms of organization and mobilization.

	31-03-2004 20:18									#30
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Dunno if I'd say effective, at least not on the whole. Effective at rapid industrialization? Yeah, ok. Effective leadership overall? Hmm, killed a bunch of Ukrainian farmers, "purged" some of his best military officers, killed goodness knows how many other people for political reasons, picked a fight with Finland and damn near lost...

-Arrian