Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soviet people won WWII, not Stalin - Medvedev

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Soviet people won WWII, not Stalin - Medvedev

    Soviet people won WWII, not Stalin - Medvedev

    "Some people believe the role of the supreme commander was extraordinary, some believe it was not. The question is not that, but how we appreciate the very figure of Stalin in general. If we talk about the official assessment of Stalin assessed by the government in recent years, since the emergence of the new Russian state, there is a clear assessment - Stalin committed mass crimes against the people. And despite the fact that he worked hard, despite the fact that under his leadership the country succeeded, what was done to its people cannot be forgiven," the president said.

    He added that people who hate Stalin or love him are entitled to their point of view.

    "And the fact that many veterans, people of the generation of victors have a good view of Stalin - it is not surprising. I think they have that right. Everyone has the right to their own assessment," Medvedev said. "It is another issue that this kind of personal assessment should not affect the state's assessment."

    The president categorically rejected the view that Stalinism is experiencing a revival in Russia.
    www.histours.ru

    Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

  • #2
    The Soviet people did indeed defeat the Germans. I think that the war in the East was won by the common man and woman who fought in defence of the homeland not an ideology, and was probably done in spite of Stalin and his cronies. If I remember I will add to this.
    Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the cheesemakers

    That's right bitches. I'm blessed!

    Comment


    • #3
      I never had thought stalin won the war in the first place,I never thought the allied governments won the war either.
      I dont think Russian men/women won wwII on there own,but
      The average Russian man/women put heart and soul in the battle of Russia and won virtually on there own,while stalin sat on his behind and dictacted.
      Stalin would have no RUssia/SU, if the Russian people decided too let Stalin have Russia for himself.

      Comment


      • #4
        I despise Stalin as few others in history.

        But with out his leadership I doubt that Russia would have even stayed in the war, let alone defeat the German Armys on the East Front.
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Without Stalin, the soviet union would not have the level of industrialization it needed to defeat Germany. Though that fails to erase the stain of his killing of 5 million soviet people.
          Standing here, I realize you were just like me trying to make history.
          But who's to judge the right from wrong.
          When our guard is down I think we'll both agree.
          That violence breeds violence.
          But in the end it has to be this way.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Czin View Post
            Without Stalin, the soviet union would not have the level of industrialization it needed to defeat Germany. Though that fails to erase the stain of his killing of 5 million soviet people.
            Five million is lowballing it by at least a factor of five. Nonetheless, although I would ideologically like to say Stalin was nothing but a hindrance, I'm not sure I could say that with good faith. Stalin's industrialization was heavily titled towards heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods or light industry. Stalin was fortunate enough to receive a huge amount of lend lease material, which completed the tanks and guns of heavy industry with SPAM, telephone wire and other things his five year plans failed to consider. BUT...

            ...The five year plans were politically costly, and not just because of the Holodomor. And Centralized Planning, certainly the Soviet style is grossly inefficient use of resources. And then too one must consider the alternatives. I'm taking Trotsky out of the running right now because he was too much of an ideologue to consider practical matters, as witnessed by his insistence of exporting the revolution when it was clear the Counterrevolution backlash would wipe out any gains. So let us consider a moderate Communist (Bukharin) and then too a Democratic White Russian government that won in 1922 as the Reds did historically.

            1. Moderate:
            Stalin's five year plans made tremendous progress in re-industrializing Russia, as the wars had essentially destroyed the Russian proletariat. However, the NEP did a lot to retard organic industrial development because despite allowing small business and family farms, all industry was state owned. Thus entrepreneurs could not pool money and build say a textile mill anytime between 1918 and 1928 (and 1928 to 1991 for that matter). Nonetheless, the NEP was extremely profitable for the Communists because it allowed organic rebuilding of Russia's agricultural and commercial infrastructure. It was junked in the end because is was state capitalism and thus LOATHED by most of the die hard Communists in the Politburo.

            So continuing on that trend risks a less industrialized Russia, and thus a greater chance of being beaten by the Nazis, but it also comes without the purges and extreme social costs associated with the 5YP. The Red Army here would be less well supplied with guns, but much better supplied with the logistics of war (food, toilet paper, etc.)Even if that Russian could not march to Berlin, I do not think it would have fallen. Moreover, if a post-war Cold War breaks out, this moderate Russia is both more appealing to the rest of the world and is in much better shape in terms of being able to match spending and growth with the United States (although they'd still lose)

            2. White Russia
            Two caveats: one we are speaking of a liberal Russia, not a reactionary one. And two, I believe Hitler's political career hinged upon fear of Soviet style communism, and this while Hitler would still want to attack Russia, the German populace would have ignored him.

            But, for the sake of argument, let's go. A democratic Russia is going to be able to secure large loans and foreign investment starting in the early 20s. There will be no artificial limits on building industry. This white Russia would recover far faster than any version of the Soviet Union, but it's industry would be consumer oriented, and thus less on steel, artillery, tanks, etc. But given Russia's enormous population it's very likely that come 1941, liberal Russia would have a similar military-industrial complex, just dwarfed by the consumer goods sector. And the fight to the death in the east would be unnecessary as after the first major ass-whopping by the Russian army again the Wehrmacht, the average German soldier and most of the officers would be able to see the Russians as human beings, equal in battle prowess, and without the stigma of being a Godless, Bolshevik Horde. But as I said, I do not think Hitler would ever achieve power, much less sell a war with Russia, without the existence of the Soviet Union.

            In the end, Stalin was kinda superfluous, but at the same time, he didn't screw things up more than necessary after about November 1941. And that does speak well of his competence. Hitler, as a counterpoint, paints a much different picture.
            How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
            275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

            Comment


            • #7
              Stalin was the supreme commander of the Red Army, so to claim he didnt have some role in the Soviet victory is rather absurd.
              "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat."
              --Marshal Józef Piłsudski

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pilsudski View Post
                Stalin was the supreme commander of the Red Army, so to claim he didnt have some role in the Soviet victory is rather absurd.
                Well, Medvedev's never made that claim. Moreover, he mentioned that "under his leadership the country succeeded" - hardly a denial of him not playing any role at all.
                www.histours.ru

                Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                  Well, Medvedev's never made that claim. Moreover, he mentioned that "under his leadership the country succeeded" - hardly a denial of him not playing any role at all.
                  Well Im going by the thread title of the Russian people, not Stalin, winning the war.
                  "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat."
                  --Marshal Józef Piłsudski

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Czin View Post
                    Without Stalin, the soviet union would not have the level of industrialization it needed to defeat Germany. Though that fails to erase the stain of his killing of 5 million soviet people.
                    Russias industrailization was never better than Germany's. That alone was not the cause of Russian being on the winning side.

                    Country % of Total Warmaking Potential
                    United States 41.7%
                    Germany 14.4%
                    USSR 14.0%
                    UK 10.2%
                    France 4.2%
                    Japan 3.5%
                    Italy 2.5%
                    Seven Powers (total) (90.5%)


                    Taken from Combine Fleet
                    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Then how come Russia produced more tanks than the Germans? Theres the famous incident of Hitler freaking out when reports came back of Soviet production outpacing German industry.
                      "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat."
                      --Marshal Józef Piłsudski

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Medvedev said also a very interesting things about Katyń.
                        "[...]

                        While Brittania's Huns with their long-range guns
                        Sailed in through the foggy dew.


                        [...]"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Pilsudski View Post
                          Then how come Russia produced more tanks than the Germans? Theres the famous incident of Hitler freaking out when reports came back of Soviet production outpacing German industry.
                          Well, there's a very good reason for that. Germany was not on a total war footing until mid 43, and by then the Allies were bombing them into ruin. If I remember Overy correctly over half of German steel production in 41 went to civilian use. Nazi economics were corrupt and inefficient and while I don't admire the Soviet's single mindedness in their central planning, a chief cause of their decline and collapse decades later, they made the best use of their (crappy) economic system. This is why the Germans were most productive in September 44, as the Luftwaffe ceased to exist in any real sense and new factories were being built in the ground to avoid the bombers.

                          I advise you to check out Overy's "Why the Allies Won," there 's a whole chapter focused on this question somewhere around the middle of the book. He explains it better than I can.
                          How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
                          275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Those statistics that say Stalin killed 50-60 million are idiotic, they simply do not match Russia's population figures.
                            Standing here, I realize you were just like me trying to make history.
                            But who's to judge the right from wrong.
                            When our guard is down I think we'll both agree.
                            That violence breeds violence.
                            But in the end it has to be this way.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Czin View Post
                              Those statistics that say Stalin killed 50-60 million are idiotic, they simply do not match Russia's population figures.
                              I didn't say 60 million, I don't have the info to say one way or another, but I doubt such a high number was beyond him. The conventional political deaths to the three greatest mass murderes of the 20th century are these:

                              Mao: 60 million
                              Stalin 25-30 million
                              Hitler: 15 million

                              Athough to be fair, Hitler was a more rabid killer with a shorter killing time so he's proably still the scariest, but Stalin is nothing to sneeze at.
                              How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
                              275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • casanova
                                Berlin.1945
                                by casanova
                                The Sowjet T-34 tank against a German Tiger tank in Berlin in the II World War in 1945. ...
                                Yesterday, 23:41
                              • casanova
                                AW 169M
                                by casanova
                                The Austrian minister of defence Klaudia Tanner declared the buy of 18 Italian military helicopters of the type AW 169M for the Austrian army, the Bundesheer....
                                Yesterday, 23:26
                              • JBark
                                What changed?
                                by JBark
                                There was a time not too long ago when this forum was full of discussion, multiple posts, votes and involved discussions on the best of the war, etc.,...
                                Yesterday, 18:54
                              Working...
                              X