WW2 The necessity of Stalin's actions

[TeletubbyPrince]

Wow what's with these steaming pile of shit threads today. The USSR had the same industrial potential regardless of Stalin's mucking about, in fact he probably hampered his country's output due to his inneficient use of quotas and killing 20,000,000 workers. The new equipment he brought in was a likely course for any government to make and other than that his policies achieved nothing.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wow what's with these steaming pile of shit threads today. The USSR had the same industrial potential regardless of Stalin's mucking about, in fact he probably hampered his country's output due to his inneficient use of quotas and killing 20,000,000 workers. The new equipment he brought in was a likely course for any government to make and other than that his policies achieved nothing.

Oh it did, huh? How do you know?

[Titanic]

Wow what's with these steaming pile of shit threads today. The USSR had the same industrial potential regardless of Stalin's mucking about, in fact he probably hampered his country's output due to his inneficient use of quotas and killing 20,000,000 workers. The new equipment he brought in was a likely course for any government to make and other than that his policies achieved nothing.

Lol, you know nothing. Please carry on and explain in detail.

[Phatscotty]

Not necessary, probably hurt the Soviet Union more than it helped.

"In order to prepare for war, let's kill all our officers."

Stalin was a paranoid freak.

That being said, what happens if the Soviets have a counter-revolution before Germany invades?

Yeah buddy, Stalin was paranoid, and killing so many officers wasn't too good for morale, but that's just part of the package deal with Stalin. He quickly modernizes the country, kills millions of civilians, and then kills tens of thousands of officers--so it's not beneficial but it can't be separated from Stalin's package deal.

yeah, I don't know why I would read anything past the first paragraph.....

The jury has reached a verdict

Evil on all counts.

[Qwert]

That being said, what happens if the Soviets have a counter-revolution before Germany invades?

This Scenario its all ready hepend in 1917,but with imperial Russia.
German sign treatie with Comunist,and get free troops for Western Front,and we know how this end,.Central Powers are defeated,but Germany not fully capitulate,because Allies its not be prepared for invasion on Germany,and hes capacity for WWII its only slow down,and bad political situation are clear way for Nazi party to come in power.

But Hipotetic,who know what will hepend if Eastern Front its finish in 1944, and that 3,1 milion(or more)German Soldier its ready to be transfered to Western Front. They will outnumbered Western Allies,and war will be much much longer.

[thegreekdog]

I guess my point is, were the killings a byproduct of modernization, or a byproduct of Stalin being a crazy fool? I think the latter more than the former.

[Titanic]

I guess my point is, were the killings a byproduct of modernization, or a byproduct of Stalin being a crazy fool? I think the latter more than the former.

I think its more to do with the modernisation, but including the fact that Stalin held no regard for life. The primary and main purpose for the actions that led to their deaths was not Stalin going mad but for modernisation, the deaths were just a by-product of a madman in charge of these modernisation policies. Thats my take on it anyway.

But Hipotetic,who know what will hepend if Eastern Front its finish in 1944, and that 3,1 milion(or more)German Soldier its ready to be transfered to Western Front. They will outnumbered Western Allies,and war will be much much longer.

This is my the most interesting hypothetical of WWII imo. I'm no military expert but as the Luftwaffe could not beat the RAF then the allies would have had to play the first hand whilst the Nazis sat back, but at a guess I think they would have finished of the North Africa to Italy campaign but then pushed through Italy (assuming Mussolini still gets lynched) and into Vichy France or Austria that way whilst also committing to D-Day (maybe USA goes through Italy and the British Empire and others push through Normandy). Opening up 2 fronts would have been essential if the countries could get the man power and heavy artillery (inc.planes) to back them up.

One of the more interesting things from this is that the war in Europe would have lasted much longer meaning things like the V2 once it was fully developed could achieve its true potential (which it could only do in small numbers at the end of the war), the first atomic bombs would have been destined for Berlin, the German nuclear plan may have eventually succeeded, and most importantly, all of Hitlers secret ultra-weapons that all these history documentaries come up with may have actually been used!

[TeletubbyPrince]

I guess my point is, were the killings a byproduct of modernization, or a byproduct of Stalin being a crazy fool? I think the latter more than the former.

What killings are you fucking talking about? The purges had nothing to do with the USSR's modernization and the Gulags provided an excellent form of labour. Neither of those methods even came close to killing as many people as the famines did, and those famines were necessary for acquiring capital. I guess your argument is rendered impotent on all fronts

Luftwaffe could not beat the RAF

Durr, maybe if we forget the part of how it did

Opening up 2 fronts would have been essential if the countries could get the man power and heavy artillery (inc.planes) to back them up.

Oh look the uneducated, inbred American thinks he has an opinion on something Tell me, John Wayne, how exactly are you drawing these conclusions? Opening two fronts kind've interferes with the, you know, logic behind D-Dayesque invasions

One of the more interesting things from this is that the war in Europe would have lasted much longer meaning things like the V2 once it was fully developed could achieve its true potential (which it could only do in small numbers at the end of the war)

Full potential? SMALL NUMBERS?! You'd best learn yourself some books, boy.

the first atomic bombs would have been destined for Berlin

Atomic bombs would've ended the war before any of your KRAZY predictions could come to be. Way to totally undermine yourself LOL

[Baron Von PWN]

A few questions.

1.In what way was the Russia economy and modernised?
By how much (and what measurement are you using) was Russia's industrial capacity increased during this period.


2.How would (human considerations aside) losing 40mio of the workforce help boost the economy, let alone be necessary?

3.In what ways did Stalin gear up for war? Do you think losing 40mio potential soldiers (including many experienced militiary leaders) helped?

4.The massive purges that didn't really help in the beginning. Are you suggesting they helped in the end? Are you suggesting that the purges ultimately helped the Russian war effort. How and why?

5.Finally, the modernisation policies that saved Russia and helped defeat the Nazi's. What were they?

My major in school is Russian studies, I will see if I can't answer some of your questions.

1.The Soviet Union was massively industrialized in a very short period of time. To give you an idea the city of Magnitagorsk didin't realy exist before revolution, by 1945 it was pumping out hundreds of tanks a day as well propudcing tones of steel. Of course due to the quotas and the consequences of failing to meet them there were many ineficencies, factory managers would lie about output and they would cut corners so quality suffered terribly. Meanwhile they were financing everything by exporting grain, this is what caused the famine and is in my opinion the biggest crime of the soviet union. Stalin collectivized the farms so he would control the grain, output fell but grain in state hands vastly increased, the grain secure he exported it while the countryside starved. This was heavily targeted at Ukraine an area which had been particularily resistant during the Civil war.

2. Stalin had this idea it went something like this " we must tie the people to us so thoroughly, that the alternative would be destruction" Basicly he wanted to implicate evryone with the regime and make it so that if anyone else were to take control they would all be implicated in the crimes of the regime. The murder of 40 million of his citizens and workers was done deliberatly to instill fear and ensure loyalty. They starved the peasants to raise money for the factories. The communists viewed this as serving a double purpose. The peasants were viewed as unreliable and possible class enemies and as result had to be supressed. It aslo gave them the finances needed to idustrialise. The Soviet Union at the time had no shortage of manpower the "benefits" increased revenue from grain (less peasants to feed) and loyalty (due to fear and killing anyone unreliable) were seen to more than compensate for the loss.

3. Stalin geared up for war by greatly increasing his industrial capasity especialy in way which could be used for military purposes. While the anhilation of his officer class is often cited as a grave mistake many were old Tsarist officers who were simply being held hostage out of necessity and were of dubious loyalty, by wipping them out Stalin ensured a much more loyal and devoted military cast, one which stood by him even after the stunning defeats of 1941. They also ammased massive amounts of war matterial, however they lost most of it because they hd it all massed on very close to the border and the german blitzkrieg took them completly by surprise allowing the germans to capture vast sums of weponry.

4.It's difficult to tell whether or not the purges helped or hindered. It is my beleife that the purges ensured the loyalty needed by the Soviets to overcome the severe chalenges they faced in industrialisation and surviving the german onslaught. The purges were also beneficial in an economic sense, they provided a source of cheap labour and kept people working. These considerations are of course devoid of the human factor and in the long run the purges likely poisoned the soviet union so badly it created a powerfull condition for failure.

5. it involved a concentration in heavy industry, part of the communist idealogy calls for the development of "wastelands" this led the soviets to establish industrial centers where non had existed before, many were built in what is now Kazakhstan, siberia and east of Urals, this would later prove vital in defeating the Nazi's as it created massive strategic depth in terms of industrial capacity. (In contrast german indsutry was heavily concentrated). To pay for the massive industiral program they exported grain which had been "appropriated" from "kulaks". They also had many labour camps known as the GULAG(an acronym) which provided cheap labour.

I hope this answers your questions.

[Titanic]

Durr, maybe if we forget the part of how it did

When? The RAF won the Battle of Britain...

Oh look the uneducated, inbred American thinks he has an opinion on something Tell me, John Wayne, how exactly are you drawing these conclusions? Opening two fronts kind've interferes with the, you know, logic behind D-Dayesque invasions

I'm not American. Just actually reading my posts rather then trolling would tell you that as I frequently reference UK stuff as I know it in a much greater detail. The D-Day "logic" was created in a world where the USSR was finally winning the battle against the Nazis and where the Nazis had 80-90% of their soldiers and equipment on the eastern front. If they had won that there is no doubt that France (esp North France) would have been built up as one huge military base so any invasion would have to reinforce at an incredible rate just to maintain their foothold. If you actually knew any basic military knowledge you would not have raised the points that you did.

Full potential? SMALL NUMBERS?! You'd best learn yourself some books, boy.

Ummm...prove me wrong? My comments on the V2 were perfectly valid.

Atomic bombs would've ended the war before any of your KRAZY predictions could come to be

Really? Atomic bombs first dropped in August 1945. The allies conquered Sicily and could have been on the mainland way before that. D-Day happened way before that. The V2 if allowed development without hassle of retreating from allies and material shortages would have been much more prolific and damaging (esp. with the extra months between VE day and August). The German nuclear plan has been hypothesised as being only 2 years of a bomb, so maybe not August 1945 but not lightyears away. German advances in technology would have been more relevant, especially in submarine warfare as they would still have been in control of the bases in Eastern France.

[thegreekdog]

What killings are you fucking talking about? The purges had nothing to do with the USSR's modernization and the Gulags provided an excellent form of labour. Neither of those methods even came close to killing as many people as the famines did, and those famines were necessary for acquiring capital. I guess your argument is rendered impotent on all fronts

I puffy heart you for making my point for me. Kisses.