Opening questions from new member

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle

To state that Stalin was the right leader for the Soviets at the start of Barbarossa was probably true given the situation they faced.

However, a democratic middle of the road government, would have not placed the Russian Empire in the same situation as the USSR. Its army would probably have been much smaller, because democratic armies in peacetime nearly always are, but better equipped.

The German armies were initially stopped by their inadequate supply lines, being unprepared even for the relatively mild winter, and the tenacity of the average Soviet soldier, none of which was determined by Stalin.

All true. But.
There is always the uncomfortable fact that had the USSR been led by a peace-loving principled man in 1939, it's likely those same German armies, in 1941, would have started some 150 kms closer to Moscow. The peace-loving principled man might have accepted the non-aggression and trade parts of the Pact, but refused the payoff in other people's territories.

[ShAA]

Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle

However, a democratic middle of the road government, would have not placed the Russian Empire in the same situation as the USSR. Its army would probably have been much smaller, because democratic armies in peacetime nearly always are, but better equipped.

The Russian Imperial Army suffered greatly from equipment shortages in WWI and it was forced to buy many of its armaments abroad. Beside being the reason for major logistical problems, these arms shipments were often delayed and in many cases much less was produced than required. The word "democratic" means little until it is placed in proper context. While your statement might be correct in respect to the Western countries like Britain and the USA (but not even France!), the situation in Russia could've been entirely different. Democracy has no direct relation to armaments production nor to the fighting qualities of an army. Otherwise it would be impossible to explain the successes of the Wehrmacht.

As for the equipment of the Red Army, it had an immense amount of equipment and war materiel. In some aspects it was inferior, in some other aspects it was superior to what other armies had, and while it is possible to argue that its technical quality could've been somewhat better had millions of educated people not escaped from the country during and after the Civil War, it is abundantly clear that no democratic government would've embarked on a massive industrialisation program funded at the expense of grain - and lives - of millions of peasants. A democratic Russia wouldn't have had a half of the steel smelters, steel mills and weapons factories the Soviet Union had. This was a direct result of Stalin's policies. A democratic Russia would've had better dressed and fed people, however, it couldn't have defeated the Nazis with jackets and sausages.

As for "placing the USSR" in the same situation - well, the Poles had an agreement with Britain and France, which even declared war on Germany. You know how great it worked for them. And of the European democracies which had defence agreements with the Western Allies, Poland drew the luckiest straw. The Czechs were a bit less lucky. Now the Soviet Union was even further away - what aid would it have got?

The German armies were initially stopped by their inadequate supply lines, being unprepared even for the relatively mild winter, and the tenacity of the average Soviet soldier, none of which was determined by Stalin.

The average Soviet soldier, after the destruction of the regular staff army in the first months, was a young conscript who was born and raised under the Soviet goverment and inculcated with the Soviet ideology. The army was led and supervised by political commissars, and the disorderly routs (which would've been unstoppable in the French and British armies, had they fought for a longer time over a larger territory in 1940) were halted by the harsh measures ordered by Stalin. A democratic government would've faltered and caved in, when faced with a disaster of such scale, of which France is a great example. Most modern Western historians are loath to admit that Stalin was the only man at the time who could handle a situation like that, and it was because of his personality cult he turned into a rallying banner for the people, INCLUDING those who either personally suffered from his repressions or had family members murdered or imprisoned on Stalin's orders. They are also loath to admit that only the Soviet system was the one which didn't crack under the blow, while all democratic structures would've easily collapsed. Democracy is good for peacetime or when you're sitting on a faraway island or a continent, sending your armies to fight far away from home and feeling secure from any invasion. When you need to send millions to their certain deaths because there's no other way to stop the invasion, no safe island to escape to, I'd love to see how democracy's gonna work.

[Nick the Noodle]

Originally Posted by ShAA

The Russian Imperial Army suffered greatly from equipment shortages in WWI and it was forced to buy many of its armaments abroad. Beside being the reason for major logistical problems, these arms shipments were often delayed and in many cases much less was produced than required. The word "democratic" means little until it is placed in proper context. While your statement might be correct in respect to the Western countries like Britain and the USA (but not even France!), the situation in Russia could've been entirely different. Democracy has no direct relation to armaments production nor to the fighting qualities of an army. Otherwise it would be impossible to explain the successes of the Wehrmacht.

As for the equipment of the Red Army, it had an immense amount of equipment and war materiel. In some aspects it was inferior, in some other aspects it was superior to what other armies had, and while it is possible to argue that its technical quality could've been somewhat better had millions of educated people not escaped from the country during and after the Civil War, it is abundantly clear that no democratic government would've embarked on a massive industrialisation program funded at the expense of grain - and lives - of millions of peasants. A democratic Russia wouldn't have had a half of the steel smelters, steel mills and weapons factories the Soviet Union had. This was a direct result of Stalin's policies. A democratic Russia would've had better dressed and fed people, however, it couldn't have defeated the Nazis with jackets and sausages.

As for "placing the USSR" in the same situation - well, the Poles had an agreement with Britain and France, which even declared war on Germany. You know how great it worked for them. And of the European democracies which had defence agreements with the Western Allies, Poland drew the luckiest straw. The Czechs were a bit less lucky. Now the Soviet Union was even further away - what aid would it have got?



The average Soviet soldier, after the destruction of the regular staff army in the first months, was a young conscript who was born and raised under the Soviet goverment and inculcated with the Soviet ideology. The army was led and supervised by political commissars, and the disorderly routs (which would've been unstoppable in the French and British armies, had they fought for a longer time over a larger territory in 1940) were halted by the harsh measures ordered by Stalin. A democratic government would've faltered and caved in, when faced with a disaster of such scale, of which France is a great example. Most modern Western historians are loath to admit that Stalin was the only man at the time who could handle a situation like that, and it was because of his personality cult he turned into a rallying banner for the people, INCLUDING those who either personally suffered from his repressions or had family members murdered or imprisoned on Stalin's orders. They are also loath to admit that only the Soviet system was the one which didn't crack under the blow, while all democratic structures would've easily collapsed. Democracy is good for peacetime or when you're sitting on a faraway island or a continent, sending your armies to fight far away from home and feeling secure from any invasion. When you need to send millions to their certain deaths because there's no other way to stop the invasion, no safe island to escape to, I'd love to see how democracy's gonna work.

Let's consider a 'democratic' USSR like France, but bigger. After the loss of the theoretically better units during Case Yellow, the French actually fought harder during Case Red with 'inferior' units. German losses were very heavy, and these French troops were not particuarly well trained nor well led.

A bigger France would see the German army run out of steam, just as they historically did against the Soviets.

My point is that Stalin is getting undue credit for pulling the USSR out of a mess he put it into in the first place.