 |
| |
|
|
ErikM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hurricane
A country of 4 million (in the 50's and 60's) can of course not have a complete heavy industry line-up. But that does not change the fact that proportionally, Finland changed from a agricultural country to a industrialised country, in a very short timespan. Feel free to pick any 4-million-inhabitant area of Soviet that had a complete heavy industry line-up.
|
First, there is an issue of scale.
Second, Finland was open to international markets and foreign investment.
Third, in 1930s Finland have foundations for subsequent industrialization in place, such as an efficient agriculture and light industry.
Industrial revolution does not start at railroads, power plants, and icebrakers. Industrial revolution starts when a country's agriculture becomes efficient enough to sustain substantial urban population.
As I posted earlier, before the revolution Finland was among more developed regions in Russia. Yet, it did not become a modern industrialized country until 50s-60s. This just confirms my thesis that a normal cycle of economic development for industrializing countries takes 40-50 years.
quote:
If Soviet had a complete heavy industry line-up, why did they need American Studebakers, US and British tanks, and millions of tons of raw materials?
|
I do not want to start a debate on the importance of lend-lease since (i) it is a completely another ballgame and (ii) it will invariably turn into a flame war. But what is your point, precisely? Do you suggest that SU should have turned down US/UK supplies? That SU shoud have refused to participate in any sort of international alliance to fight Nazis? Would you rather prefer that WW2 lasted another couple of years and brought even more devastation that it did?
quote:
This is not some kind of contest about who did what in which time. My point is that Stalin's tyranny was unnecessary, in fact harmful, in industrialising the country. |
Fine, but you have not advanced any points in defense of your argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
quote:
Somehow, it seems extraordinary unlikely to me that any sort of government would attract foreign investment towards rebuilding Russian military |
I remind you that "Capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with" 
Now, provided that capital for heavy industry could not have been accumulated in Russia in the short period we are discussing (and I am not convinced of that), Russia could have asked the foreign capital to come in and build. During the Tzars this is exactly what happened. Russia was railroaded (is that a word? ) by an Austrian, and a whole line of foreigners held capital in its armament factories.
The hypothetical free market SSSR I am pitting against your Stalin the Industrializer would have been very protectionist (like all other capitalist countries at the time). Its huge market for railtracks, construction iron, machine tools, tractors and other agricultural mechanization, automobiles, ships and barges to navigate its numerous rivers... would have provided enough demand, incentive and profits for strong heavy industry to emerge.
And it would not have been from scratch either. Russia was an overall underindustrialized country but it was still among the top industrial countries in the world when World War I ended.
In conclusion I am still convinced Stalin harmed industrialization of Russia
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VetLegion
The hypothetical free market SSSR I am pitting against your Stalin the Industrializer would have been very protectionist (like all other capitalist countries at the time). Its huge market for railtracks, construction iron, machine tools, tractors and other agricultural mechanization, automobiles, ships and barges to navigate its numerous rivers... would have provided enough demand, incentive and profits for strong heavy industry to emerge.
|
Nice hypothetical experiment VetLegion, but why speculate? Let's take a look at what really happened after Soviet Union fell apart! After all, 13 years have passed since break-up of the Soviet Union; Stalin's industrialization was accomplished in shorter period of time.
Soviet Union in late 1980s was, as you put it, underindustrialized but still industrialized. SU was still a huge market for automobiles, agricultural machinery, machine tools - and also for computers, telecoms, biotech, etc. And Russia was no longer communist and open to the outside world. Welcome, dear foreign investors! Please come and, well, invest! Our market is huge and numerous rivers wide; we are waiting!
Still waiting after these 13 years, in fact. Didn't come by some reasons. In fact, during 90s former Soviet republics exported capital to the Western world - to the tune of estimated $30 bln per year, to find its proper place in Swiss bank accounts, Spanish sea-side real estate, and English football teams.
Where did it come from? Why, from the garage sale of all this infrastructure that Stalin built in 1930s. Indeed, why bother producing something while it is much easier to sell the "people's property" for scrap and arbitrage away domestic/international price differences. And US T-bills are much safer investment than producing tractors or railroad tracks for domestic consumption.
And rather than scream murder, we should realize that this is exactly what should have happened in the free market environment with an unrestricted trade. Capital flows where profits can be obtained most easily first.
Only when our glorious entrepreneurs run out of the Soviet-era inheritance to sell, have we seen some domestic investment. And where do those investments flow? Computers? Sadly, Intel makes better microchips than Minsk Computing Tecnologies. Aircraft? Airbus is better than Tupolev. Automobiles? Ladas are not competitive vs. BMWs. Agricultural machines? Please. Nope, investment flows towards the greatest profit potential, which in Russia happens to lie in
- oil and natural resources
- food processing
- light industry.
[Which, incidentally, is the point I made a couple of posts back].
Maybe there was a shortage of talent involved in Russian privatization/capitalization/post-industrialization or how is this thing supposed to be called? Sure, after all we only had our most democratically elected leaders like Yeltsin and Kuchma and a bunch of experts from the World bank, IMF, Eurobank for Reconstruction and Development, etc., so there is always this possibility.
The bottom line though is that after 13 years of capitalism in Russia whatever heavy industry existed in Russia was partially sold out and partially rotten from the lack of use. Not all of it, of course. Red October chocolate factory and numerous liquor plants, those investors' delights, do show steady profits. Last three years Russian and Ukrainian economies have shown some decent economic growth. Still way to go to reach 1989 GDP, but.
So it is all very nice, but it hardly translates into a powerful military. But at least the sorry state of Russian Army serves as a constant source of joy for Western journalists.
But maybe it is just that Russians are ugly ducklings of Europe, who cannot possibly do anything right. After all, Western press never fails to remind us how corrupt Russians are in those rare moments they are not completely drunk. Thus, let's take a look at our Slavic brothers, finally liberated from Soviet tyranny. They are, after all, a major success story, New Europe and all.
After entertaining Western audiences with heart-breaking stories on how Nazi occupation was so much better than the Soviet one, Eastern Europeans painted their MiG-29s and T-72s in NATO colors and started rebuilding their economies full steam. They only were communist for some 40 odd years, they were more accustomed to free market economy, they started earlier, and so their economies have recovered faster.
What about their heavy industries, though... Give me some big names in Eastern European manufacturing, as I sure as hell cannot recall any. Moreover, what happened to those glorious industrial giants of the Soviet Era? Robotron? Icarus? Energopol? Sold out, restructurized, closed down, barely eke out an existance. Skoda is the only big-name company I can recall from the top of my head that survived more or less intact, and probably only because it was bought by Volkswagen.
Otherwise, sure, they are prosperous developing economies... Banks, tourist agencies, breweries, soft drinks, etc. All fine and dandy, but where is the heavy industry on the scale necessary to maintain a powerful military?
So after 13-15 years of capitalism in Eatern Europe I cannot find a single country that developed an industry on the scale similar to Stalin's Soviet Russia.
So let's not dismiss Stalin's accomplishments before someone manages to do something similar.
And oh yes, the human cost. The repressions.
Poverty and unemployment do not kill people directly as GULAGs do.
They, however, do affect people's health, mortality from natural causes, suicide rates, crime rates, birth rates, etc.
All of these do translate into loss of life.
It is estimated that the human cost of the Great Depression worldwide due to factors mentioned above was ~50mln.
It is also well known that in 1990s the life expectancy for Russian males has fallen from 69 years to 57 years (less dramatic for woman).
Or 6 deaths from natural causes instead of 5 in Soviet era.
Multiply by Russian population.
Gives some perspective.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
Keep feeding us with Khrushev's stories, AH? Wasn't it you, who said that every new Soviet leader re-wrote the history of USSR in acordance with his needs? What you've said in this post is Khrushev's edition of histroy of USSR. This BS story about Stalin's escape to dacha comes from Khrushev's memoirs. It's the only source which says so and I don't have any respect for this source. If you wish I can find you a different source. Stalin, as any other head of government, had personal assistants, a secretaries and security. Every time when Stalin had a meeting with somebody in his office, Stalin's secretaries (and Stalin's personal security officers) wrote the names of visitors and time they spend there. Those security's journals are still exist. I saw photos of pages of one of those journals. Within two weeks of German invasion, Stalin had meetings in his office in Kremlin with hundreds of people. If you wish, I can find a link to those photos. Within first two weeks of invasion, Stalin worked in his office in Kremlin, EVERY DAY often 20 hours per day, despite he was terribly ill (he had temperature 39C). The memoirs of Zhukov and many others with whom Stalin worked during first days of Barbarossa would tell you the same.
This BS story about Stalin's escape to countryside is created by Khrushev. It's complete lie.
As for "do not respond to provacation". How else do you think he should act? Stalin knew perfectly that his army is not ready yet, and he knew how Germans started their campaign in Poland. One of the German generals said- "to bad Russians can't give us a favor and attack us". Stalin tried to win some time, he needed this time very badly, SU wasn't ready for war yet, because it had to re-arm itself (thanks to Tukhachevsky) and Stalin couldn't risk, could not give Germans even a slight reason for attack.
Next thing. Who told you that Stalin ignored the warrnings and did nothing to prepare? What all those 3 millions of troops and thousands of planes were doing on Russian-German border, if not preparing for defense? The problem was however that they weren't ready yet, and German caught them during re-organization stage. Zhukov as cheif of staff gave to forces order about high alert state at June 19, iirc. He does not speak about this in his memoirs (he forget about this perhaps ), but such document signed by him exist. Stalin gave order to bring forces at full alert at June 21, but due technical problems, it wasn't recieved by most of the units (where it was recived Soviets fought well, example- Baltic fleet).
After Stalin's death Soviet generals started to blaim him for everything, to wite-wash their own faults and mistakes. The same was with German generals after Hitler's death. Even a jackass can kick a dead lion.
What you've told us, it's their version of history- the version which was created by new ruler of USSR- Khrushev.
Last edited by Serb on 05-04-2004 at 13:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErikM
Nice hypothetical experiment VetLegion, but why speculate? Let's take a look at what really happened after Soviet Union fell apart! After all, 13 years have passed since break-up of the Soviet Union; Stalin's industrialization was accomplished in shorter period of time.
Soviet Union in late 1980s was, as you put it, underindustrialized but still industrialized. SU was still a huge market for automobiles, agricultural machinery, machine tools - and also for computers, telecoms, biotech, etc. And Russia was no longer communist and open to the outside world. Welcome, dear foreign investors! Please come and, well, invest! Our market is huge and numerous rivers wide; we are waiting!
Still waiting after these 13 years, in fact. Didn't come by some reasons. In fact, during 90s former Soviet republics exported capital to the Western world - to the tune of estimated $30 bln per year, to find its proper place in Swiss bank accounts, Spanish sea-side real estate, and English football teams.
Where did it come from? Why, from the garage sale of all this infrastructure that Stalin built in 1930s. Indeed, why bother producing something while it is much easier to sell the "people's property" for scrap and arbitrage away domestic/international price differences. And US T-bills are much safer investment than producing tractors or railroad tracks for domestic consumption.
And rather than scream murder, we should realize that this is exactly what should have happened in the free market environment with an unrestricted trade. Capital flows where profits can be obtained most easily first.
Only when our glorious entrepreneurs run out of the Soviet-era inheritance to sell, have we seen some domestic investment. And where do those investments flow? Computers? Sadly, Intel makes better microchips than Minsk Computing Tecnologies. Aircraft? Airbus is better than Tupolev. Automobiles? Ladas are not competitive vs. BMWs. Agricultural machines? Please. Nope, investment flows towards the greatest profit potential, which in Russia happens to lie in
- oil and natural resources
- food processing
- light industry.
[Which, incidentally, is the point I made a couple of posts back].
Maybe there was a shortage of talent involved in Russian privatization/capitalization/post-industrialization or how is this thing supposed to be called? Sure, after all we only had our most democratically elected leaders like Yeltsin and Kuchma and a bunch of experts from the World bank, IMF, Eurobank for Reconstruction and Development, etc., so there is always this possibility.
The bottom line though is that after 13 years of capitalism in Russia whatever heavy industry existed in Russia was partially sold out and partially rotten from the lack of use. Not all of it, of course. Red October chocolate factory and numerous liquor plants, those investors' delights, do show steady profits. Last three years Russian and Ukrainian economies have shown some decent economic growth. Still way to go to reach 1989 GDP, but.
So it is all very nice, but it hardly translates into a powerful military. But at least the sorry state of Russian Army serves as a constant source of joy for Western journalists.
But maybe it is just that Russians are ugly ducklings of Europe, who cannot possibly do anything right. After all, Western press never fails to remind us how corrupt Russians are in those rare moments they are not completely drunk. Thus, let's take a look at our Slavic brothers, finally liberated from Soviet tyranny. They are, after all, a major success story, New Europe and all.
After entertaining Western audiences with heart-breaking stories on how Nazi occupation was so much better than the Soviet one, Eastern Europeans painted their MiG-29s and T-72s in NATO colors and started rebuilding their economies full steam. They only were communist for some 40 odd years, they were more accustomed to free market economy, they started earlier, and so their economies have recovered faster.
What about their heavy industries, though... Give me some big names in Eastern European manufacturing, as I sure as hell cannot recall any. Moreover, what happened to those glorious industrial giants of the Soviet Era? Robotron? Icarus? Energopol? Sold out, restructurized, closed down, barely eke out an existance. Skoda is the only big-name company I can recall from the top of my head that survived more or less intact, and probably only because it was bought by Volkswagen.
Otherwise, sure, they are prosperous developing economies... Banks, tourist agencies, breweries, soft drinks, etc. All fine and dandy, but where is the heavy industry on the scale necessary to maintain a powerful military?
So after 13-15 years of capitalism in Eatern Europe I cannot find a single country that developed an industry on the scale similar to Stalin's Soviet Russia.
So let's not dismiss Stalin's accomplishments before someone manages to do something similar.
And oh yes, the human cost. The repressions.
Poverty and unemployment do not kill people directly as GULAGs do.
They, however, do affect people's health, mortality from natural causes, suicide rates, crime rates, birth rates, etc.
All of these do translate into loss of life.
It is estimated that the human cost of the Great Depression worldwide due to factors mentioned above was ~50mln.
It is also well known that in 1990s the life expectancy for Russian males has fallen from 69 years to 57 years (less dramatic for woman).
Or 6 deaths from natural causes instead of 5 in Soviet era.
Multiply by Russian population.
Gives some perspective. |
Great post.
During Stalin's rule with all its horrors, the population of USSR was constantly growing (except 1941-1945 for obvious reasons). Even in 1937-1938 the population of USSR was increasing. Now when Russia ruled by "good, pro-western, civilazed" democrats and doesnt have inefficient and stupid planned economy, Russia is loosing about one million citizens per year. GNP can't reach level of 1989. Life standards during Stalin rule were better than in 1989, under Stalin average Soviet citizen consumed more food and goods per year than in 1989. Now life standards, consumption and GDP is lower than in 1989.
Great job. Viva la free market.
Last edited by Serb on 05-04-2004 at 10:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
VetLegion,
Do you know, that USSR was the first country in Europe which abandoned card system of distribution of food and consumption goods? Soviet Union completely abandoned cards in 1946 (iirs), while for example UK used cards up to 1949. The rate of growth of Soviet post-war economy was unprecedented. It was the fastest growing economy in the world. Despite that there were no other country in the word which was SO badly damaged by war. Despite, that there were no other country in the world, which lost SO many people. Despite, other European countries enjoyed enormous help from US, while Soviet Union was on his own. There was a serious concern among some western economist that if Soviets will keep growing that fast, SU will have the largest economy in 70's-80's. Fortunately for the west, after Stalin's death, Khrushev took the power and completely f*cked*-up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Keep feeding us with Khrushev's stories, AH? Wasn't it you, who said that every new Soviet leader re-wrote the history of USSR in acordance with his needs? What you've said in this post is Khrushev's edition of histroy of USSR. It comes from his memoirs. The BS story about Stalin's escape to dacha comes from Khrushev's memoirs. It's the only source which says so and I don't have any respect for this source. If you wish I can find you a different source. Stalin, as any other head of government, had personal assistants, a secretaries and security. Every time when Stalin had a meeting with somebody in his office, Stalin's secretaries (and Stalin's personal security officers) wrote the names of visitors and how long they were in Stalin's office. Those security's journals are still exist. I saw photos of pages of one of those journals. Within two weeks of German invasion, Stalin had meetings in his office in Kremlin with hundreds of people. If you wish, I can find a link to those photos. Within first two weeks of invasion, Stalin worked in his office in Kremlin, EVERY DAY often 20 hours per day, despite he was terribly ill (he had temperature 39C). The memoirs of Zhukov and many others with whom Stalin worked during first days of Barbarossa would tell you the same.
This BS story about Stalin's escape to countryside is created by Khrushev. He wrote about this in his memoirs. It's complete lie.
As for "do not respond to provacation". How else do you think he should act? Stalin knew perfectly that his army is not ready yet, and he knew how Germans started their campaign in Poland. One of the German generals said- "to bad Russians can't give us a favor and attack us". Stalin tried to win time, he need this time very badly, SU wasn't ready for war yet, because it had to re-arm itself (thanks to Tukhachevsky) and Stalin couldn't risk, could not give Germans even a slight reason for attack.
Next thing. Who told you that Stalin ignored the warrnings and did nothing to prepare? What the hell all those 3 millions of troops and thousands of planes were doing on Russian-German border, if not preparing for defense? The problem was however that they weren't ready yet, and German caught them on re-organization stage. Zhukov as cheif of staff gave to forces order about high alert state at June 19, iirc. He does not speak about this in his memoirs (he forget about this perhaps ), but such document signed by him exist. Stalin gave order to bring forces at full alert at June 21, but due technical problems, it wasn't recieved by most of the units (where it was recived Soviets fought well, example- Baltic fleet).
After Stalin's death Soviet generals start to blaim him for everything, to wite-wash their own faults. The same was with German generals after Hitler's death. Even a jackass can hit a dead lion.
What you've told us, it's their version of history- the version which was created by new ruler of USSR- Khrushev. |
Well it is interesting some of the insights that will come out over the next fews years as the Soviet archives are opened and analysed.
But conventional wisdom is the difference between Hitler and Stalin is in the early years Stalin interfered a great deal and Russia suffered disaster after disaster. He seems to have realised this and backed off. When Stalin backed off, Russia started to win. Conversely Hitler let his generals run the battle initially and Germany was winning but then he interfered more and more as the war went on and Germany lost more and more.
I'm rather suprised you defend Stalin so much. What did you think of his favorite generals, Voroshilov and Budenny?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
AH,
I found an article with list of people with whom Stalin worked at his office in Kremlin, June 21- June 28, and list of orders Stalin signed during those days. This list is pretty long. The site also conatins a photo of one of the original pages of security journals and an article any Russian speakers will find interesting.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHil...231/june_41.htm
Last edited by Serb on 05-04-2004 at 12:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
 |
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Not at all. My atitude towards him are very complicated,
|
Glad that I gave you an opportunity for this little salvo. 
quote:
but I still think he was overdemonized. To much BS about him were released, to much.
|
Perhaps you are right. But what you seem to be trying to do in this thread is to "undemonize" him, not to "unoverdemonize", so to speak.
quote:
Anyhow, I'm with GePap here:
" People have to learn that being Great and being good are not the same thing at all".
|
Well said.
quote:
Stalin, among Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible, certanly was one of the Greatest leaders in Russian hisory. But unfortunately, in Russian history, Great is always = cruel dictator. |
Cynically speaking, the example of other cruel dictators like Franco or Pinochet shows that it takes much less victims (by orders of magnitude) in order to totally control the country. The number of Stalin's victims is way too large even for a "cruel dictator", and for what can be justified even from a cynical point of view.
Let's hope that our current president will break this cross.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
|
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
Well, I don't know... Why should we trust to what is written on that webpage? Of course, if Khruschev's memoirs is the only evidence of Stalin's shock, then it is not quite reliable an evidence. (BTW, is it really the only evidence?) But as for the version presented on that webpage, that Stalin was ill on June 22 (with acute angina), I don't find it too reliable either. If Stalin was really ill, then why is this not a common knowledge? I doubt that such a huge historic fact could have escaped our attention for so long. Furthermore, if Zhukov really met Stalin on June 22 while Stalin was terribly ill, why doesn't Zhukov mention the fact of illness in his memoirs? This is very strange. Ends don't seem to match.
Anyway, the matter of Stalin's "shock" in the first days of the war is less important than his obvious f*ck-up in the days leading to the war.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Well, I don't know... Why should we trust to what is written on that webpage? Of course, if Khruschev's memoirs is the only evidence of Stalin's shock, then it is not quite reliable an evidence. (BTW, is it really the only evidence?) |
Yes it is. Khrushev's memoirs is the only source which mention this escape to dacha episode.
quote:
But as for the version presented on that webpage, that Stalin was ill on June 22 (with acute angina), I don't find it too reliable either. If Stalin was really ill, then why is this not a common knowledge? I doubt that such a huge historic fact could have escaped our attention for so long. |
It is a common knowledge NOW. But for almost 50 years, this BS Khrushev's story considered as true, because Khrushev re-wrote our history, edited it as he liked and everyone were pretty comfortable with this version, despite it was the obvious lie.
quote:
Furthermore, if Zhukov really met Stalin on June 22 while Stalin was terribly ill, why doesn't Zhukov mention the fact of illness in his memoirs? This is very strange. Ends don't seem to match. |
Not only Zhukov mentions this in his memoirs, but many others who met Stalin those days, as well.
Esli pamyat mne ne izmenyaet to u Timoshenko ya chital tozhe samoe.
quote:
Anyway, the matter of Stalin's "shock" in the first days of the war is less important than his obvious f*ck-up in the days leading to the war. |
What choice he had? The Soviet Union wasn't ready for war yet.
Last edited by Serb on 05-04-2004 at 14:24
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
|
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Yes it is. Khrushev's memoirs is the only source which mention this escape to dacha episode.
|
Well, if this is the only source, it is not reliable.
quote:
It is a common knowledge NOW. But for almost 50 years, this BS Khrushev's story considered as true, because Khrushev re-wrote our history, edited it as he liked and everyone were pretty comfortable with this version, despite it was the obvious lie.
Not only Zhukov mentions this in his memoirs, but many others who met Stalin those days, as well.
|
Really? But I still doubt that you interprete this correctly. If Zhukov mentioned the fact of illness in his memoirs, this should have become common knowledge long ago, not just now. I'll have to check this out.
Even if Stalin was really ill, what, he couldn't deliver a 5 minite speech on the radio??
quote:
What choice he had? The Soviet Union wasn't ready for war yet. |
At least to put the troops on alert. It seems that the army was completely relaxed on the day of the attack... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Well, if this is the only source, it is not reliable.
|
Any Khrushev's stories are unreliable by definition. He wrote Beria told him this story about dacha. Great move concidering that Beria was already killed. Great source, my ass. That kind of sources, as you know, we call agency OBS "agentstvo odna babka skazala".
quote:
Really? But I still doubt that you interprete this correctly. If Zhukov mentioned the fact of illness in his memoirs, this should have become common knowledge long ago, not just now. I'll have to check this out. |
He metioned in his memoirs that he met with Stalin several times during first days of war (the same I read, iirc in Timoshenko's memoirs, so this story about Stalin's escape to dacha is obvious lie). BUT Zhukov wrote his memoirs already after Stalin's death and his memoirs cannot be 100% reliable source also, because he was a cheif of staff of Red Army and share responsibility for disaster. I suspect he didn't tell all the truth (he could just forget something here, something there, and here we go- Stalin is dope, Zhukov is genius. It's quite common problem with all authors of literature of that kind).
quote:
Even if Stalin was really ill, what, he couldn't deliver a 5 minite speech on the radio?? |
1) He had plenty of other things to do.
2) Imagine you are a country's leader and your country was invaded. When you'll speak, you have to be an example for your people, but you have +40C temperature, you're sick and tired as hell. Your people do not know about this and if they'll hear that your voice is weak, what will they think? They will think you're so week because you're broken, you've no willpower and do not believe in victory. He just can't risk. That's why he waited untill he felt better, then he made a perfect speech, perhaps the best speech of his life, which boosted morale of population greatly.
quote:
At least to put the troops on alert. It seems that the army was completely relaxed on the day of the attack... |
Takoi prikaz byl otdan, a vot pochemu ego ne vezde isponili, sprashivali kogda voina uzhe shla. Sprashivali s sootvetstvuyushih generalov, kotorye etot prikaz ne vypolnili. Naprimer s komanduyushego Zapadnym voennym okrugom Pavlova. Sprashivali kak izvestno ne po-detski.
Last edited by Serb on 05-04-2004 at 15:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Unfortunately, we don't have 30 years. It's just 10-15 years at maximum. |
Huynya voina, prorvemsya. Cheluskinci i ne v takih peredelkah byvali.
Last edited by Serb on 05-04-2004 at 15:10
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-04-2004 03:02
The ambassador said that Soviets exterminated net of German agents before the war. If it's not true, how do you explain constant failures of Abwer?
@ DD.
There you will find the explanation.
|
|