Hitler vs. Stalin

[Valmy]

? The Second Army got encircled and wiped out in East Prussia.

How many Soviet Armies got encircled and wiped out in 1941?

Please this is the lamest arguement ever: Stalin's decisions were awesome because, you know, Samsonov was defeated 30 years earlier.

[Eddie Teach]

How many Soviet Armies got encircled and wiped out in 1941?

Please this is the lamest arguement ever: Stalin's decisions were awesome because, you know, Samsonov was defeated 30 years earlier.

And Rennenkampf shortly afterward. But I'm not claiming Stalin was a good c-in-c. Just that you can't blame the failings of the Russian military on him when they'd been failing for ages. He at least stuck it out and got a win.

[The Minsky Moment]

Most ridiculous lawsuit ever.

it depends - is truth an absolute defense to libel under Russian law?

[The Minsky Moment]

I think in spite of the purges, the Russians were better prepared in 1941 than 1914.

High standards. 

[Valmy]

And Rennenkampf shortly afterward. But I'm not claiming Stalin was a good c-in-c. Just that you can't blame the failings of the Russian military on him when they'd been failing for ages. He at least stuck it out and got a win.

I think the problems with the Russian Armies in 1914 in East Prussia came down to bad luck, supply problems, incompetent peace time generals, outdated tactics, and so forth.  These sorts of things that plagued all the Armies in 1914 and were completely understandable and the result of things no Russian officer could have forseen.  A pincer movement into East Prussia was strategically sound.  To blame that on anything peculiarly Russian is nonsense especially after they won one of the biggest battles in history decisively just next door in Galicia.

The problems the Russian Armies faced in 1941 were almost entirely Stalin's own doing and were forseen by many officers in his army even after he purged so many competent ones.  The fact he managed to save a disasterous situation does not excuse his reckless foreign policy and frankly idiotic military management that made the disaster possible.

I am, frankly, unsure how exactly the Soviet Union could have been less well prepared.  Maybe if Stalin had taken away his Army's ammunition to save money the week before or something.

[Caliga]

I think this line of argument is somewhat off-topic (and I checked and I think what I was thinking of was the Seige of Odessa, Valmy, not the initial campaign in Bessarabia, but anyway...)  It came about as a result of your rejection of my statement about Stalin leaving the USSR stronger than when he took it over (i.e. your post that contained "I have my doubts much of anything Stalin did was really good shit though.")

Is there any dispute that the USSR of 1953 was not stronger than the USSR of 1922?  This is not a loaded question--I seriously do not know if anyone has tried to dispute that.

The obvious followup, assuming there is no serious dispute, is: was Stalin responsible, or maybe did the USSR succeed during that interval because of Stalin, in spite of him, or neither?  That's a question that nobody can probably answer with any degree of precision but obviously there will be opinions encompassing the first two possibilities at least.

[Eddie Teach]

I think the problems with the Russian Armies in 1914 in East Prussia came down to bad luck, supply problems, incompetent peace time generals, outdated tactics, and so forth. 

= they were unprepared.

Stalin made some strategic blunders, but he also modernized the army and the industrial base and closed the gap with Germany a bit. During Lenin & Stalin's reigns, Russia went from being a backward empire on the decline to being one of two hyperpowers in the world. Surely he deserves some of the credit.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think the problems with the Russian Armies in 1914 in East Prussia came down to bad luck, supply problems, incompetent peace time generals, outdated tactics, and so forth. 

Another problem is that they were under pressure to conduct large-scale offensive operations as soon as possible.  Ie we are comparing apples and oranges here.

[The Brain]

My impression is that according to conventional moral metrics they were more or less equally evil.

The whole "Hitler was teh most evilest man ever possible" thing is not very mature and not very productive.

[ulmont]

The obvious followup, assuming there is no serious dispute, is: was Stalin responsible, or maybe did the USSR succeed during that interval because of Stalin, in spite of him, or neither? 

I'm going with neither.  The portrayal of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, in Court of the Red Tsar and Young Stalin strongly suggests that, while Stalin was the most successful of his generation, that he was merely one of a long line of Russian leaders with roughly the same goals, motives, and tactics.  To put it another way, Beria could have done a reasonable Stalin impersonation.

[Caliga]

The whole "Hitler was teh most evilest man ever possible" thing is not very mature and not very productive.

I'm going to go further and say that it's downright dangerous.  The more Hitler is demonized and made to seem inhuman, the easier it is to overlook the possibility that "another Hitler" could arise from a seemingly ordinary, charismatic leader.

[Caliga]

I'm going with neither.  The portrayal of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, in Court of the Red Tsar and Young Stalin strongly suggests that, while Stalin was the most successful of his generation, that he was merely one of a long line of Russian leaders with roughly the same goals, motives, and tactics.  To put it another way, Beria could have done a reasonable Stalin impersonation.

I don't disagree... but it was still ultimately Stalin in the driver's seat, yes?

[Valmy]

= they were unprepared.

Stalin made some strategic blunders, but he also modernized the army and the industrial base and closed the gap with Germany a bit. During Lenin & Stalin's reigns, Russia went from being a backward empire on the decline to being one of two hyperpowers in the world. Surely he deserves some of the credit.

They were unprepared only because they did not have a clairvoyant powers.  Magical powers is a pretty big demand to make of a military.

Stalin had an army the sort of which you would be expected to have in 1941 so what?  Russia was well on its way to being a hyperpower in 1914, its economic expansion every year was massive and everybody was predicting it would be a superpower someday.  The Soviet Union destroyed that from ever really happening with its heavy hand IMO.

[ulmont]

I'm going with neither.  The portrayal of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, in Court of the Red Tsar and Young Stalin strongly suggests that, while Stalin was the most successful of his generation, that he was merely one of a long line of Russian leaders with roughly the same goals, motives, and tactics.  To put it another way, Beria could have done a reasonable Stalin impersonation.

I don't disagree... but it was still ultimately Stalin in the driver's seat, yes?

Yes, it was ultimately Stalin.  My point is that anyone of Stalin's potential replacements would have likely done the same things.

[Valmy]

Yes, it was ultimately Stalin.  My point is that anyone of Stalin's potential replacements would have likely done the same things.

I have my doubts about that.  They might have had similar goals but surely they would have done different specific things to attain those goals.