NationStates Jolt Archive

If it wasnt for stalins ruthlessness in order to achieve rapid industrialisation cos he said something like "we are 50-100 years behind the world. we must cath up or be destroyes" would world war two have had a different outcome?

If the nazis werent fighting a war on 2 fronts its likely that Britain (yes i know it was occupied a bit) and possibly the USA would have been made nazi

Britain (yes i know it was occupied a bit)

Now, do you mean Britain (the UK), or the Channel Islands (not the UK)?

Now, do you mean Britain (the UK), or the Channel Islands (not the UK)?

Hopefully the latter. As to the OP's question, specify please. A neccessary evil to whom? The Soviet people? The Allies? Who exactly?

Stalin is responsible for the deaths of over 20 million Russians. I think that any Russian leader would have eventually industrialized Russia sufficiently, but Stalin utilized the labor of millions of polical opponents in prison camps to do so and used murder as a means for retaining power. I don't think it's a question of "necessary" or not, it's just plain evil, no matter your feelings on communism.

Stalin is responsible for the deaths of over 20 million Russians. I think that any Russian leader would have eventually industrialized Russia sufficiently, but Stalin utilized the labor of millions of polical opponents in prison camps to do so and used murder as a means for retaining power. I don't think it's a question of "necessary" or not, it's just plain evil, no matter your feelings on communism.

Whilst it was an evil act, it was neccessary. Stalin had the power and skills neccessary to get the Soviet Union moving and become industrialised to the extent neccessary to defend itself against a highly mechanised invasion.

Thus, whilst evil, it can be said that through killing millions, Stalin saved many, many more by allowing the Soviet Union to survive the Nazi onslaught and keep the majority of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe occupied in the East. Not the most appealing of thoughts, but one that can be made.

Stalin is responsible for the deaths of over 20 million Russians. I think that any Russian leader would have eventually industrialized Russia sufficiently, but Stalin utilized the labor of millions of polical opponents in prison camps to do so and used murder as a means for retaining power. I don't think it's a question of "necessary" or not, it's just plain evil, no matter your feelings on communism.

I don't see anyone disputing the 'evil' part... but was it 'necessary'? That really IS the question. (In terms of THIS thread, at least).

This puts me in a tricky position since I really dislike Stalin. However, most recent estimates and historiography show that the suggestions that Stalins purges were responsibe for the deaths of 13 million an up are heavily inflated and the result of a Cold War mentality. More recent estimates (from proper historians like Chris Read and Edward Acton and not simply trash that you can pull off websites) show that the figure is more likely to be in the low millions, say 2-3. I'm no apologist for Stalin or Communism by any stretch but I feel this is a point that has to be made.

What is true however is that the enormous industrial and agricultural drive of the 1930s was only achieved via the enforced process of forced savings upon the population at large which led to a depression in living standards without comparison in peacetime. Millions were employed in slave labour camps, Russian culture and education was subjugated to the demands of the party, and a cloak of fear descended on many portions of Russian society in particular the party itself.

Whether the end's justify the means is another question since the Nazi atrocities committed in Russia were truly horrendous as would have been a post-war world where Nazism was the only remaining European power. In this respect I suppose some aspects of Stalinism can be justified although it was a cruel and twisted ideology nonetheless.

If it wasnt for stalins ruthlessness in order to achieve rapid industrialisation cos he said something like "we are 50-100 years behind the world. we must cath up or be destroyes" would world war two have had a different outcome?

If the nazis werent fighting a war on 2 fronts its likely that Britain (yes i know it was occupied a bit) and possibly the USA would have been made nazi


YOUR making a huge assumption...that is was necessary to murder , kill rape and torture 20 million Russians to achieve his goal . Who is to say that the same or better results could not have been achieved by a less RUTHLESS method ?

Stalin WAS NOT a NECESSARY evil ...he was just EVIL .

YOUR making a huge assumption...that is was necessary to murder , kill rape and torture 20 million Russians to achieve his goal . Who is to say that the same or better results could not have been achieved by a less RUTHLESS method ?

Stalin WAS NOT a NECESSARY evil ...he was just EVIL .

It's not an assumption - it is the question that is being asked...

Was the ruthlessness 'necessary'? WOULD Russia have industrialised that quickly, through other means? Could the whole area have been dragged along, cohesively, without Stalin's iron fist?

Could it all have been done in the short period of time that it WAS done - to make Stalin a threat on the world stage when one was needed...?

No, most of stalin's excesses were indefensible.

Born a georgian peasant thug, died a georgian peasant thug.

I hate Stalin even though I support Marxism. He abused his authorities to make the USSR suit himself. He caused the speration of Mongolia from China. His problematic way of adminstration still harms the Communist States today (like my motherland China) as these state adopted his system of socialism when they first started. Stalinism is not socialism since there is no element of democracy in it.

I hate Stalin even though I support Marxism. He abused his authorities to make the USSR suit himself. He caused the speration of Mongolia from China. His problematic way of adminstration still harms the Communist States today (like my motherland China) as these state adopted his system of socialism when they first started. Stalinism is not socialism since there is no element of democracy in it.

Stalinism is the inevitable outcome of Marxism. The traditional communist theory debases key constitutional elements like a separation of powers, the supremacy of law and a parliamentary body reflective of the will of the people in favour of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and offers no clear means by which the transition from Capitalism to Communism will occur. Stalinism is not some twisted perversion of Marxism - it is the inevitable outcome of implementing the doctrine.

Im saying, if Stalin hadnt of rapidly industrialed russia (at great human cost), the Nazis wouldnt be fighting a war in two fronts and we could all be speaking German right now. Thereore, however much we hate stalin, we owe him our liberty (lol)

sure staling was a very evil bastard but without him the whole of europe would have fell to the nazi's the only reason britain was not taken is because hitler shifted his attention to the soviets instead of attacking us. without him, all of europe, would have fell to the nazi's and then africe, asia to the japanese and even america would have been defeated.

is it right to sacrifice all those russian for the good of the rest of the world

i know its harsh but i say yes

Thereore, however much we hate stalin, we owe him our liberty (lol)
how thoughtfully ironic

No, Stalin was not neccessary.
If it hadn't been for Stalin, the USSR would have been at least prepared for the Nazi onslaught.
Along with the terrible atrocities he committed, he also recieved excellent intelligence that Germany was going to invade, and as it became painstakingly more obvious, Stalin still refused to allow the Red Army to prepare for war.
It wasn't Stalin who won the war, it was the will of the Russian people.
I'd say, however, that perhaps Communism, or at least a very strong leader, was neccessary to industrialize Russia in time to defeat Germany.

or at least a very strong leader

and that is exactly what stalin was

It wasn't Stalin who won the war, it was the will of the Russian people.

yes the will egged on and greatly influenced by their faith in stalin

Stalinism is the inevitable outcome of Marxism. The traditional communist theory debases key constitutional elements like a separation of powers, the supremacy of law and a parliamentary body reflective of the will of the people in favour of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and offers no clear means by which the transition from Capitalism to Communism will occur. Stalinism is not some twisted perversion of Marxism - it is the inevitable outcome of implementing the doctrine.

No - Stalinism is ONE possible outcome... based entirely on a cult of personality.

The Tzar, to my knowledge, was being far more efficient in his industrialisation and less evil, as in, he didn't have to murder a whole bunch of people.

As far as freedoms go, I don't see the russians having anymore freedoms under the Tzar than they did under Stalin.

Stalin was not necessary. A large number of people could have done it better than he did.

I'll just ignore Lenin here.

This puts me in a tricky position since I really dislike Stalin. However, most recent estimates and historiography show that the suggestions that Stalins purges were responsibe for the deaths of 13 million an up are heavily inflated and the result of a Cold War mentality. More recent estimates (from proper historians like Chris Read and Edward Acton and not simply trash that you can pull off websites) show that the figure is more likely to be in the low millions, say 2-3. I'm no apologist for Stalin or Communism by any stretch but I feel this is a point that has to be made.

That's bull. Over seven million died in the Ukrainian Forced Famine alone.

I love the whole "We all could be speaking German/Japanese/Chinese/Russian/Martian" when we talk of a foreign invasion that was repelled, it's so great.

I just want to point out that America would have never been invaded or defeated, an invasion of the Americas would be the largest miltiary blunder of all time.

and that is exactly what stalin was

Stalin was a meglomanical, paranoid thug, who, unlike Hitler, avoided defeat by keeping his forces fighting on one front.

Since I think that 'evil' is a very uncommon occurence, I believe that Stalin was just cruel, and the cruelty resulting from his decisions didn't deter him.

Was it necessary? Well, Stalin's cruelty began before Hitler's menace. If Hitler didn't exist, Stalin's cruelty remains doing no good to anyone.

In the end, I think it was rather useful (for the rest of the Allies) than really necessary. It was just a circumstance.

I just want to point out that America would have never been invaded or defeated, an invasion of the Americas would be the largest miltiary blunder of all time.

no it would not, it would have been a large success, the japanese would have destryoed you on the west coast, and nazis on the east. ( and then they met in the middle and had a huge battle royal, that would be cool)
you would have no way of reinforcing one side with those from the other, as there is a huge gap between the two fronts

Stalin was a meglomanical, paranoid thug, who, unlike Hitler, avoided defeat by keeping his forces fighting on one front. im not denying it, and i agree he was. but he was one heck of a leader, he knew how to get things done.

No - Stalinism is ONE possible outcome... based entirely on a cult of personality.

Slight slip on my part, by Stalinism I meant a corrupt, tyrannical, centralised absolutist state with no respect for democracy or human rights.

That's bull. Over seven million died in the Ukrainian Forced Famine alone.

Fair point, I speaking about the red terror and wasn't including famines.

No, Stalin was not neccessary.
If it hadn't been for Stalin, the USSR would have been at least prepared for the Nazi onslaught.
Along with the terrible atrocities he committed, he also recieved excellent intelligence that Germany was going to invade, and as it became painstakingly more obvious, Stalin still refused to allow the Red Army to prepare for war.
It wasn't Stalin who won the war, it was the will of the Russian people.
I'd say, however, that perhaps Communism, or at least a very strong leader, was neccessary to industrialize Russia in time to defeat Germany.

Stalin, personally, made some gigantic errors at the start of the war, yet that is not the same as a critique of the Stalinist system. Not to take away from the achievement of the Russian people and the immense courage they showed in the face of tremendous adversity I don't agree that their efforts would have been successful without the overall support of the system.

The Stalinist system enabled more than 50% of GDP to be geared towards the demands of war, facilitated and coordinated the evacuation of 1500 factories to the east in the wake of the German advance, established a collective farm system that provided a reliable source of food and enabled the pumping out of approximately 2500 tanks a month at a time where the Germans were only producing just over 1000. Without the enormous centralisation that occurred under Stalinism I think Russia would have gone under.

Fair point, I speaking about the red terror and wasn't including famines.

Ah, okay.

And famines in general are a large gray area, but the UFF was a deliberate assault on the Ukrainian people, and a lot of people see it as a genocide (I know I do).

Just wanted to see what you were thinking, that's all.

Theres no denying that when every westerner was starving in the depression Russias industrial output was like 2 or 3 times that with the tzar

Slight slip on my part, by Stalinism I meant a corrupt, tyrannical, centralised absolutist state with no respect for democracy or human rights.

Still not inevitable. If Stalin had been Gandhi, Soviet Russia would have had a 'cult of personality' leader, with a very different outcome.

I can't believe the ignorence in this thread, there are otherways to industrialise a country other then stalin's method.

I can't believe the ignorence in this thread, there are otherways to industrialise a country other then stalin's method.

No one said otherwise. But Stalin managed it quickly, and fairly comprehensively.

No one said otherwise. But Stalin managed it quickly, and fairly comprehensively.

The point is, his horendous regieme was not needed. Russia could have been sorted out quickly without all the mass murder and opression etc..

It's not an assumption - it is the question that is being asked...

Was the ruthlessness 'necessary'? WOULD Russia have industrialised that quickly, through other means? Could the whole area have been dragged along, cohesively, without Stalin's iron fist?

Could it all have been done in the short period of time that it WAS done - to make Stalin a threat on the world stage when one was needed...?



Japan did it...and they started from medevil...


Stalin didnt so much as win anything as much as Hitler blundered away certain victory...you forget Stalin signed a peace treaty with Hitler and allowed Germany to remove a second front....he killedd all his officers but a few and put his top military scientist in gullags...the SMART thing he did was to move his industry out of the range of German bombers...and he again lucked out when germany failed to capitalise on its ALLY Japan and allowed them to assure Stalin that they wouldnt invade from Manchuria..Where do you think Zuchov came from with all the freas divisions ands tanks ???????
If Hitler didnt divide his armys and stuck to his GENERALS winning plan ...Russia was doomed .

Stalin sowed the seeds of the counter-revolution, to use a Marxist turn-of-phrase. He over brutalised his people and destroyed any hope of communism succeeding.

So I guess those opposed to the Soviet Union, who believed that it was inherently evil, could argue that Stalin's reign helped bring it to an end.

Still not inevitable. If Stalin had been Gandhi, Soviet Russia would have had a 'cult of personality' leader, with a very different outcome.

Stalin rose to power through an adherence to administrative detail, an exploitation of the bureaucratic machinery of state, use of the Cheka, the OGPU and the NKVD, the ruthless manner in which he dealt with his rivals and sheer cynicism among other things. The likes of Gandhi would never have risen to the role of General Secretary since the characteristics needed to get someone there would be more akin to those of Stalin than those of a liberal minded pacifist.

It's important not to overemphasise the role of Stalin either - Soviet Russia was a dictatorial one party state with scant regard for the freedom or wellbeing of his population long before Stalin came to power.

The point is, his horendous regieme was not needed. Russia could have been sorted out quickly without all the mass murder and opression etc..

Maybe... that is the topic...

COULD they? That is the question? They were not far from feudal. They were a huge expanse of land, largely surviving on subsistence farming.

How do you industrialise that kind of landmass? Quickly. Efficiently. How do you put the people where you NEED them... when a lot of what you NEED is unpleasant?

Stalin sowed the seeds of the counter-revolution, to use a Marxist turn-of-phrase. He over brutalised his people and destroyed any hope of communism succeeding.

So I guess those opposed to the Soviet Union, who believed that it was inherently evil, could argue that Stalin's reign helped bring it to an end.

I don't agree, by the end of the Second World War, support for Stalin and for the regime generally was enormous among the Soviet population and whilst there were popular yearnings for democratic reform and greater freedoms victory over Nazi Germany was viewed by Russians as not merely a vindication of Stalin, but of the regime generally. Even today Stalin has a reasonably high approval rating among Russians - at least, as much as a mass murdering dicator can do.

Japan did it...and they started from medevil...


Stalin didnt so much as win anything as much as Hitler blundered away certain victory...you forget Stalin signed a peace treaty with Hitler and allowed Germany to remove a second front....he killedd all his officers but a few and put his top military scientist in gullags...the SMART thing he did was to move his industry out of the range of German bombers...and he again lucked out when germany failed to capitalise on its ALLY Japan and allowed them to assure Stalin that they wouldnt invade from Manchuria..Where do you think Zuchov came from with all the freas divisions ands tanks ???????
If Hitler didnt divide his armys and stuck to his GENERALS winning plan ...Russia was doomed .

Japan indstrialised largely by 'buying' expertise from overseas. Russia lacked that capacity. Japan also had a society JUST this side of theocracy - an important tool in pushing unpleasant realities as necessary.

Russia lacked the mecahnism of control. Russia lacked the compact space. Russia lacked the ready resources and contact overseas.

Regarding Russia in the Second World War... I'm not sure you are talking about the same war as me. Hitler made errors, yes - you do NOT invade Russia by land, in winter. That was just stupid.

But Russian partisanship, salted-earth guerrilla strategy, and the way the Russians fought urban war - were large contributors to the downfall of Germany in Russia.

I'm not saying that makes Stalin a great general - but the Germans got caned on the Soviet front, not just by bad judgement, but because they met a serious resistance that they had underestimated completely.

Stalin rose to power through an adherence to administrative detail, an exploitation of the bureaucratic machinery of state, use of the Cheka, the OGPU and the NKVD, the ruthless manner in which he dealt with his rivals and sheer cynicism among other things. The likes of Gandhi would never have risen to the role of General Secretary since the characteristics needed to get someone there would be more akin to those of Stalin than those of a liberal minded pacifist.

It's important not to overemphasise the role of Stalin either - Soviet Russia was a dictatorial one party state with scant regard for the freedom or wellbeing of his population long before Stalin came to power.

If everything were as cut-and-dried as you say, there could never be reform, anywhere. There is never just ONE avenue to success. Gandhi would have had to follow a different route to power, this is true. It just so happened that the 'hero of the hour' in this case, was a man who COULD capitalise on the weaknesses you identify - and THAT man came to power with those 'gifts'.

Another man might have come to power by a different route, and brought different 'gifts' to the office.

If everything were as cut-and-dried as you say, there could never be reform, anywhere. There is never just ONE avenue to success. Gandhi would have had to follow a different route to power, this is true. It just so happened that the 'hero of the hour' in this case, was a man who COULD capitalise on the weaknesses you identify - and THAT man came to power with those 'gifts'.

Another man might have come to power by a different route, and brought different 'gifts' to the office.

I don't think there is just one avenue from success and am way of grand historical narratives, I just think that the seeds of Stalinism were sown in the ideological framework of Marxism. Perhaps a word like "inevitable" is a little to strong, but I think setting out to achieve some ill-defined utopia on the basis of a vague and ambiguous transitional plan that would encourage a democratic vacuum, a lack of political transparency and an increasingly powerful central government it is hardly surprising that Stalin was the end result.

I don't think there is just one avenue from success and am way of grand historical narratives, I just think that the seeds of Stalinism were sown in the ideological framework of Marxism. Perhaps a word like "inevitable" is a little to strong, but I think setting out to achieve some ill-defined utopia on the basis of a vague and ambiguous transitional plan that would encourage a democratic vacuum, a lack of political transparency and an increasingly powerful central government it is hardly surprising that Stalin was the end result.

The seeds of Stalinism WERE sewn in the framework of Marxism. Marxism is a flawed creation. But Stalinism was not the ONLY set of seeds sown.

A different person could have made something beautiful of it.

If one looks at MOST political models, for MOST of history... bad, or corrupt rulers are the rule, with GOOD rulers as a notable exception... and an average somewhere around... "Well, not TOO bad".

It is inherent in 'people'. Not in any given 'model' of government or production.

The seeds of Stalinism WERE sewn in the framework of Marxism. Marxism is a flawed creation. But Stalinism was not the ONLY set of seeds sown.

A different person could have made something beautiful of it.

If one looks at MOST political models, for MOST of history... bad, or corrupt rulers are the rule, with GOOD rulers as a notable exception... and an average somewhere around... "Well, not TOO bad".

It is inherent in 'people'. Not in any given 'model' of government or production.

Well I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree on this one since I believe Marxism was fundamentally doomed. When the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 they were a weak minority and were only capable of maintaining power and implementing what they deemed Marxist policies by restricting democratic institutions, censoring the media, centralising the state and depriving the population of its freedoms. Marxism in Russia was never a mass movement and the only way in which it could have been sustained was by the methods of brutal coercion used by the Bolsheviks, and most notoriously - by Stalin.

If it wasnt for stalins ruthlessness in order to achieve rapid industrialisation cos he said something like "we are 50-100 years behind the world. we must cath up or be destroyes" would world war two have had a different outcome?

If the nazis werent fighting a war on 2 fronts its likely that Britain (yes i know it was occupied a bit) and possibly the USA would have been made nazi


Without provoking Russia, yes, the Nazis could have occupied Britain. The United States, I am not so sure.

The one with the rifle shoots - the other one follows! When the one with the rifle is killed, the other one picks up the rifle and shoots!

Without provoking Russia, yes, the Nazis could have occupied Britain. The United States, I am not so sure.

The United States weren't an economic superpower until after the war when their military began to increase exponentially during World War II. Not to mention their weakened navy after the brawl with Japan, a German land force coupled with a strengthened Luftwaffe would have crushed America.

However, I am certain Canada will never fall. Nobody bothers about us, so we'll be here, drinking our Canadian Beer and eating bacon while the rest of you burn under 'ichs' and 'heils'.

Without provoking Russia, yes, the Nazis could have occupied Britain. The United States, I am not so sure.
Actually, there was a wargame carried out by Sandhurst in 1974 between top German WW2 commanders on one side, and top WW2 British commanders on the other side. They implemented Operation Sealion.

The result? The Germans never got far inland before being driven stopped, surrounded, and forced to surrender.

The system of stop-lines etc. was too good.

Here's a quote from the Wiki article on Operation Sealion: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion#Test_of_the_plan)
In wargames conducted at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1974, which assumed the Luftwaffe had not yet won air supremacy, the Germans were able to establish a beachhead in England by using a minefield screen in the English Channel to protect the initial assault. However, the German ground forces were delayed at the "Stop Lines" (e.g. the GHQ Line), a layered series of defensive positions that had been built, each a combination of British Home Guard troops and physical barriers. At the same time, the regular troops of the British Army were forming up. After only a few days, the Royal Navy was able to reach the Channel from Scapa Flow, cutting off supplies and blocking further reinforcement. Isolated and facing regular troops with armour and artillery, the invasion force was forced to surrender.

If it wasnt for stalins ruthlessness in order to achieve rapid industrialisation cos he said something like "we are 50-100 years behind the world. we must cath up or be destroyes" would world war two have had a different outcome?

If the nazis werent fighting a war on 2 fronts its likely that Britain (yes i know it was occupied a bit) and possibly the USA would have been made nazi

The USA would have never been a nazi nation, or even close. German actions were completely against traditional american ideals such as liberty and freedom. To boot we had deep british roots, and saw them as the underdog in the fight against a tyrannical dictator.

Without provoking Russia, yes, the Nazis could have occupied Britain. The United States, I am not so sure.

The United States - definitely not, the logistical problems of getting an army across the Atlantic and then occupying a nation the size of America would have been totally beyond them. And that's even before you even begin to talk about the economic and military strength of the US.

As for Britain, I think the time when we stood alone against the Nazis was one of the darkest points in world history and possibly our finest hour. But I think we would have gone under had the Nazis not attacked the USSR.

Actually, there would have been a much simpler way to prevent Hitler's winning the war, without all the deaths in Russia: American corporations could have decided not to support the rise of the Nazi war machine in the 1930s. Without the trade with American corporations, the Germans would not have such a well-equipped military, nor nearly as many tanks, planes, and u-boats (all critical factors in the military successes of Germany in WWII)

Well I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree on this one since I believe Marxism was fundamentally doomed. When the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 they were a weak minority and were only capable of maintaining power and implementing what they deemed Marxist policies by restricting democratic institutions, censoring the media, centralising the state and depriving the population of its freedoms. Marxism in Russia was never a mass movement and the only way in which it could have been sustained was by the methods of brutal coercion used by the Bolsheviks, and most notoriously - by Stalin.

So, you are confusing the execution with the idea?

The USA would have never been a nazi nation, or even close. German actions were completely against traditional american ideals such as liberty and freedom. To boot we had deep british roots, and saw them as the underdog in the fight against a tyrannical dictator.

You're joking, right?

"Traditional american ideals such as liberty and freedom" are, even as we speak, traded away on an almost daily basis. Sure we have Mexicans, homosexuals and 'the war on terror' instead of 'regaining Aryan greatness' and Jews - but the poles-apart world you envision is only within your mind.

Some of his views on the economy were good. I like how he nationalized and collectivized everything, he just used brutal tactics that I hate. As a leader, he was an egotistical failure, but he did some good.

Violence tends to be the answer.
Look at World War 2, it solved the greatest Western devestation of the 20th Century.

So, you are confusing the execution with the idea?

My last post did kind've stray into that trap I suppose, but they are not easily separated. I will say however, that when you have an ideology that talks about a "dictatorship of the proletariat", that regards guardians of liberty such as parliament, the independent courts system and the very idea of personal independence or private property as essentially bourgeois and that offers no clear program as to how this utopia is to be achieved one ought not be surprised when such an ideology instigates a slide into tyranny. The fact that almost every state that has attempted to implement Marxism has demonstrated broadly similar trends seems to bear this idea out.

Some of his views on the economy were good. I like how he nationalized and collectivized everything, he just used brutal tactics that I hate. As a leader, he was an egotistical failure, but he did some good.

The only way the peasantry were ever going to go along with collectivisation was if they were forced to. They had fought for what they felt was their rightful claim to the land against the Tsars for centuries, finally in lieu of the first world war and the civil war they had acheived their goal and now it was being taken away from them again. The collectivised system had some good points and some bad, but it could never have been achieved without the use of violence and the threat of violence.

You're joking, right?

"Traditional american ideals such as liberty and freedom" are, even as we speak, traded away on an almost daily basis. Sure we have Mexicans, homosexuals and 'the war on terror' instead of 'regaining Aryan greatness' and Jews - but the poles-apart world you envision is only within your mind.

And your practical equivalence is also only within your mind.

However, the Nazis still couldn't hold America, as American Nationalism would triumph.

The chances of the Nazis ever capturing the US were about the same as me suddenly turning into an ice-skating hungarian mongoose and dancing the bolero. It is counter-factual history at its most absurd.

I Stalin even though I support Marxism. He abused his authorities to make the USSR suit himself. He caused the speration of Mongolia from China. His problematic way of adminstration still harms the Communist States today (like my motherland China) as these state adopted his system of socialism when they first started. Stalinism is not socialism since there is no element of democracy in it.

It seems odd that you would mention these things instead of the atrocities Stalin executed( e.g. gulags, the Ukraine famine etc.)

I'd advise any and all apologists for despicable dicators to remember:

"The descent to Hell is easy; those who worship power soon worship evil"

C.S. Lewis

I find it very ironic that in trying to realize the utopian ideal of Communism, many of it's leaders( Stalin and Lenin stick out in my mind) emulated their enemies, the ts. Think about it: The whole censorship of media. The secret police forces. There seem to me to be many parallels.

The United States weren't an economic superpower until after the war when their military began to increase exponentially during World War II. Not to mention their weakened navy after the brawl with Japan, a German land force coupled with a strengthened Luftwaffe would have crushed America.

However, I am certain Canada will never fall. Nobody bothers about us, so we'll be here, drinking our Canadian Beer and eating bacon while the rest of you burn under 'ichs' and 'heils'.


Germany couldnt even cross the English Channel to invade Britain...they could not even get air superiority...you have no clue what so ever on what it would have taken for Germany to invade Britain...YET you already HAVE the Germans CROSSING the ATLANTIC...with NO NAVY...and somehow getting the Luftwaffe to fly the thousands of miles ..when they could even fly the hundreds or less over Britain ?????????...to attack tthe US ???


Weakened Navy ?????? The US in the Atlantic had a Navy about twenty times the size of Germany...not to mention an Air force that would have had to be reckoned with.

When you wrote that stuff....did you actually bother to think about anything ?


The Germans couldnt even crush Russia ...and that was with Russia having one hand tied behind its back and suffering from a chest wound.

yet you have the moving an ARMY accross the Atlantic ocean and invading the US...:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

The United States - definitely not, the logistical problems of getting an army across the Atlantic and then occupying a nation the size of America would have been totally beyond them. And that's even before you even begin to talk about the economic and military strength of the US.

As for Britain, I think the time when we stood alone against the Nazis was one of the darkest points in world history and possibly our finest hour. But I think we would have gone under had the Nazis not attacked the USSR.


You forget Germany tried...operation Sealion...the battle of Britain sorted that all out. They could'nt get the transport needed to get an army accross the english channel to in vade Britain ...not without total air superiority and a way to nutralise the British navy.
How do you cross the channel with a few battleships sinking everything in the water ????????????:D :D

Germany needed to destroy the British airforce and take controll of the water to be able to transport troops to invade...they had no navy worth talking about...and the transports they were trying to assemble were under constant attack by the British...they never even got enough toghether to begin with. Thats why even that dope Hitler just gave the idea up...he figured he would create his " fortress Europe and Britain would die on the vine ....he knew the British couldnt put the effort on there own to invade HIM for the same reasons .

look at what it took JUST to invade NORMANDY...??? Now how do expect Germany to put that kind of effort toghether ?

You forget Germany tried...operation Sealion...the battle of Britain sorted that all out. They could'nt get the transport needed to get an army accross the english channel to in vade Britain ...not without total air superiority and a way to nutralise the British navy.
How do you cross the channel with a few battleships sinking everything in the water ????????????:D :D

Germany needed to destroy the British airforce and take controll of the water to be able to transport troops to invade...they had no navy worth talking about...and the transports they were trying to assemble were under constant attack by the British...they never even got enough toghether to begin with. Thats why even that dope Hitler just gave the idea up...he figured he would create his " fortress Europe and Britain would die on the vine ....he knew the British couldnt put the effort on there own to invade HIM for the same reasons .

look at what it took JUST to invade NORMANDY...??? Now how do expect Germany to put that kind of effort toghether ?

Whilst I don't think the German navy was anything to be sneezed at I'll agree that ours was superior and that Sealion could not possibly have been a success without total aerial domination. That said British forces were on the verge of losing the battle of Britain before Hitler irrationally switched his primary target from the airfields to the city of London. Had Hitler continued to concentrate on the airfields it is quite likely that we would have been worn down attritionally. This is not to mention how dependent Britain was on American supplies during the period or indeed the fact that the fall of France had demonstrated how ill prepared for war our soldiers were.

When Germany invaded Russia it is estimated that the 3rd Reich and its allies deployed between 4 and 5.5. million men and approximately 3300 tanks. At that point in history it was the largest invasion force ever seen - more than 10 times the number of allied troops used in D-Day. They certainly did not lack the resources for an all out land assault - merely the aerial and naval support.

At their peak, the Nazis were a force to be reckoned with and I believe that we came a lot closer to defeat in 1941 than most people imagine.

Whilst I don't think the German navy was anything to be sneezed at I'll agree that ours was superior and that Sealion could not possibly have been a success without total aerial domination. That said British forces were on the verge of losing the battle of Britain before Hitler irrationally switched his primary target from the airfields to the city of London. Had Hitler continued to concentrate on the airfields it is quite likely that we would have been worn down attritionally. This is not to mention how dependent Britain was on American supplies during the period or indeed the fact that the fall of France had demonstrated how ill prepared for war our soldiers were.

When Germany invaded Russia it is estimated that the 3rd Reich and its allies deployed between 4 and 5.5. million men and approximately 3300 tanks. At that point in history it was the largest invasion force ever seen - more than 10 times the number of allied troops used in D-Day. They certainly did not lack the resources for an all out land assault - merely the aerial and naval support.

At their peak, the Nazis were a force to be reckoned with and I believe that we came a lot closer to defeat in 1941 than most people imagine.




Ok....When Germany invaded Russia it is estimated that the 3rd Reich and its allies deployed between 4 and 5.5. million men and approximately 3300 tanks. At that point in history it was the largest invasion force ever seen - more than 10 times the number of allied troops used in D-Day. They certainly did not lack the resources for an all out land assault - merely the aerial and naval support.




Thats like saying we merely need air to breathe .

Land battle vs . Invasion by sea...its not even apples vs oranges ..

All those divisions are worthless if you cant get them to where you need them ...ASK the French ..they outnumbered the Germans. But were out manuvered badly .

Hiltler made tons of mistakes....you cant just pick ONE ...cripes ...he had Russia beat...but he split his ARMY ...YOU NEVER SPLIT..or dilute your forces...like that and expect to win...he got cocky ...seeing how easy he was rolling over the Russians and went for the Caucus oil fields.....then he compounded the pronblem by insisting that Stalingrad and Lenningrad be leveled and invaded instead of surrounded and bombarded until they starved to death . I could list a few hundred more Hitler blunders ...but hey...its amazing the Germans did as well as they did with that moron in charge .

hey if britain didnt have Chamberlain..Hitler might have gotten his ass kicked over the Checzs ! He would have been shot after that and WWII need not have been fought.


What ifs...meh .


According to Churchill the Germans were very close to beating the British...but by Submarine..at one point food and war supplies were almost to the point of exhaustion...until the US and Britain got there anti sub war tactics toghether. Once The US entered the war germany had no chance beating Britain. The US could send the men and material to prevent any invasion attempt..



Normandy invasion took almost 7000 vessles and 19 divisions.47 divisions ended up fighting in Normandy.
And clost to 10,000 air craft of all types .

Germany had nothing even remotely like it ....maybe in ten or fifteen years..they may have been able to put something like it toghether...if they beat Russia...and even the if the war had gone on another 6 months to a year Germany and not Japan would have been Atomic bombed into rubble..the Ruhr would have been vaporized...any and all oil fields ...vaporized...BERLIN...vaporized .

Sanity, your name is well deserved.

Many historians credit Hitler's irrationality with a number of problems. First, his upbringing was not the most genial. He failed at his dream of becoming an artist. He served with honor in WWI, and while I do not wish to be called anti-semitic, Hitler believed that German Jews had sold out Germany to save their businesses, a fact that would prove true only in the latter, but in fact, many Jews fought with pride for Germany. Finally of course, there is the syphilis. For once in history, a deadly disease saved people from oppression. Hitler was totally irrational at his pinnacle. Yes, Germany was a force to be reckoned with. But Hitler brought it down. Hitler was a disillusioned man, he spoke with a lisp his entire life, he was of only average appearance, he lost a testicle, and what he fought for in the First World War he lost entirely. do not pity this tryant, but understand what made him who he was to recognize him in the future.

Was Stalin a necessary Evil? Was he Evil?

To the second question, even that is debatable. Yes, he caused the deaths of many of his political opponents. Some say that seperating Mongolia was a crime. But the Mongols were, are, and will be a seperate cultural identity from the Chinese. Nobody wants to be dominated by a foreign power, and those that think Mongolia should not have been free from China are simply those that are too disillusioned with their own sense of nationalistic pride to recognize it.

Few think that the Soviet Union would have been able to fight the long war necessary to beat Hitler had Stalin not bent it to his Iron will. The 50-100 year gap in technology cost Russia the First World War, and Stalin was determined not to let the Soviet Union follow the same route. Stalin may have been brutal, but he was similar to Hitler in more ways than one. He felt that Democracy would allow an uneducated peasant class to put stupid people in power, something that would destroy the USSR. He thought that only he was able to usher in a new age for his country, and he had to do it in the most direct way possible.

However, Stalin caused the deaths of anywhere from 3 million to 30 million people. Any statistic you choose still shows the sam thing. Stalin was a Georgian thug (Nice remembering that he was Georgian, New Granada. Stalin=Georgian, Hitler=Austrian. The two of them even changed their names. Stalin=Jughashvili, Hitler=Schicklgruber, though that is sketchy.) Stalin killed those that opposed him, and he represents the ultimate extreme and eventuality of Socialism.

Finally, it is important to consider the military necessity of the Soviets. As long as Hitler fought Stalin, then the Nazis were too preoccupied to knock out Britain. If that had happened, then Germany would have been able to get the one thing it needed most: natural resources. Britain, the USSR, and America were all large nations with vast land holdings (Britain still had its colonies) and access to the materials needed to build tanks and battleships. If Hitler had managed to knock out the USSR or the British, then he would have been unstoppable. Stalin kept him occupied.

Was that necessary though? Did we need Stalin to keep Hitler occupied? Stalin was the only bulwark againts Hitler, a fact caused not by his actions, but by America. America refused to rally against Hitler in the early years of the war. America was under Congress's instructions to not involve itself in European affairs during the 1930s. America refused to join the League of Nations, a refusal that ultimately deprived the organization of the only country that was more powerful after WWI than before WWI. Wilson's dream would have been a bulwark against Hitler, against Stalin, against Mussolini, against them all.

Was Stalin a necessary Evil? Was he Evil? Whose fault is it?

I brought in information, explaining only the Why's that nobody ever truly asks. Stalin was evil, he caused the deaths of countless people, and there is no excuse for that. Yet he was necessary, for if Hitler had to deal with only Britain, then eventually he would have been able to take control of the vast resources Britain had at its disposal, and he would have let the island whither on the vine. Britain was down to a six-month food supply when the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor. It was closer than any could have imagined. Yet, in all fairness, it was the belligerence of the 1920s American public that allowed men like Hitler and Stalin to rise to power, to perform horrible acts of genocide, and to become the men/monsters that they were.

I don't know if you can call a person who killed millions of people necessary.

The dynamic that he added to Hitler's thought process might have changed his path to power, remember, one of Hitler's early targets were the commies. If Stalin never existed, the commies might not have grown to so great an influence, and maybe Hitler has one less enemy to focus the National Socialists against, so they are, ironically, less focused. I dunno, but it's just a thought.

Who knows. Maybe if France was less flabby with the fear of communism, maybe if Poland had been less worried about it's eastern flank...

Hell, maybe if German conservatives were less terrified of the red menace, they would have been more resistant to the Nazis. Perhaps if the USSR had been weak, Hitler never would have had the impetus to come to power.

yeah but would you rather hitler won ww2 cos he wasnt fighting on two fronts?

If so the holocost could have been continued and we could all be speaking german right now.

A prime example of how russia led to germanys downnfall was kursk.

In the winter of 1942–1943 the Soviets conclusively won the Battle of Stalingrad. One complete German army had been lost, along with about 500,000 Germans and Axis allies, seriously depleting the Axis strength in the east. With an Allied invasion of Europe clearly looming, Hitler realized that an outright defeat of the Soviets before the western Allies arrived had become unlikely, and he decided to force the Soviets to a draw.

In 1917 the Germans had built the famous Hindenburg line on the Western Front, shortening their lines and thereby increasing their defensive strength. They planned on repeating this strategy in Russia and started construction of a massive series of defensive works known as the Panther-Wotan line. They intended to retreat to the line late in 1943 and proceed to bleed the Soviets against it while their own forces recuperated.

In February and March 1943 German Field Marshal Erich von Manstein had completed an offensive during the Third Battle of Kharkov, leaving the front line running roughly from Leningrad in the north to Rostov in the south. In the middle lay a large 200 km wide and 150 km deep Soviet-held salient (bulge) in the lines between German forward positions near Orel in the north, and Manstein's recently captured Kharkov in the south.

[edit]
German plans
Von Manstein pressed for a new offensive based on the same successful lines he had just pursued at Kharkov, when he cut off an overextended Soviet offensive. He suggested tricking the Soviets into attacking in the south against the desperately re-forming 6.Armee, leading them into the Donets Basin in the eastern Ukraine. He would then turn south from Kharkov on the eastern side of the Donets River towards Rostov and trap the entire southern wing of the Red Army against the Sea of Azov.

The OKH did not approve von Manstein's plan, and instead turned their attention to the obvious bulge in the lines between Orel and Kharkov. Three whole Soviet armies occupied the ground in and around the salient, and pinching it off would trap almost a fifth of the Red Army's manpower. It would also result in a much straighter and shorter line, and capture the strategically useful railway town of Kursk located on the main north-south railway line running from Rostov to Moscow.

The eastern front at the time of the Battle of Kursk. Orange areas show the destruction of an earlier Soviet breakthrough that ended with the Third Battle of Kharkov. Green areas show German advances on Kursk.In March the plans crystallized. Walther Model's 9.Armee would attack southwards from Orel while Hoth's 4.Panzer-Armee and Armee-Abteilung "Kempf" under the overall command of Manstein would attack northwards from Kharkov. They planned to meet near Kursk, but if the offensive went well they would have permission to continue forward on their own initiative, with a general plan to create a new line at the Don River far to the east.

Contrary to his recent behavior, Hitler gave the General Staff considerable control over the planning of the battle. Over the next few weeks, they continued to increase the scope of the forces attached to the front, stripping the entire German line of practically anything remotely useful for deployment in the upcoming battle. They first set the attack for May 4, but then delayed it until June 12, and finally until July 4 in order to allow more time for new weapons to arrive from Germany, especially the new Panther tanks.

The basic concept behind the German offensive was the traditional (and usually successful) double-envelopment, a Cannae-style attack the German Army had long favored. The tools of blitzkrieg made these types of tactics even more effective. Blitzkrieg depended on mass, shock and speed to surprise an enemy and defeat them through disruption of his command and supply rather than by destroying all his forces in a major pitched battle. Blitzkrieg-type breakthroughs were easier to achieve if they hit an unexpected location – hence the Germans had attacked through the Ardennes in 1940, and towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus in 1942.

The OKH's conception of the attack on the Kursk salient, Operation Citadel violated the principle of surprise. Anyone with a map could confidently predict the obvious point of attack. A number of German commanders questioned the idea, notably Heinz Guderian who asked Hitler:

Was it really necessary to attack Kursk, and indeed in the east that year at all? Do you think anyone even knows where Kursk is? The entire world doesn't care if we capture Kursk or not. What is the reason that is forcing us to attack this year on Kursk, or even more, on the Eastern Front? Perhaps more surprisingly Hitler replied: I know. The thought of it turns my stomach. The interview ended categorically, Operation Citadel was postponed till mid-June.
Simply put, Operation Citadel embodied a limited plan. However, there was no reason to doubt whether it would be successful. Until Kursk, no major WW2 German offensive had ever been defeated. It is only in retrospect that the outcome seems preordained; at the time, most leaders on both sides expected that the German attack would probably succeed, at least in the breakthrough stage. Guderian's objections were at the strategic level, i.e., whether Germany should attack at all, not whether the plan itself was sound.

The German force included a total of 50 divisions, including 17 panzer and panzergrenadier divisions. These included the elite Wehrmacht division Großdeutschland (Greater Germany) and the Waffen-SS tank divisions Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler (Life Guard Adolf Hitler), Totenkopf (Death's Head), and Das Reich (The Reich). The High Command concentrated all their new armor, the Tiger and Panther tanks, and the mighty new Elefant tank destroyers, which had a front armor thicker than a battleship's armor. They also concentrated all available air units and artillery, and despite the problems of the German plan it was a formidable concentrated mobile armor force with great offensive potential. Still, Guderian's plan should have been accepted, and this tremendous force used to batter and slow the Soviet recovery. The Soviets by this time were substantially outproducing the German Army in tanks and other armour. Moreover, the incredible defenses being built in the Kursk area made a classic panzer attack impossible.

[edit]
Soviet plans
The Red Army had also begun planning for their own upcoming summer offensives, and had settled on a plan that mirrored that of the Germans. Attacks in front of Orel and Kharkov would flatten out the line, and potentially lead to a breakout near the Pripyat Marshes. However, Soviet commanders had considerable concerns over the German plans.

All previous German attacks had left the Soviets guessing where it would come from, but in this case Kursk seemed obvious for the Germans to attack. Moscow received warning of the German plans through the Lucy spy ring in Switzerland. This was almost unnecessary since Georgy Zhukov had already correctly predicted the site of the German attack as early as April 8th, when he wrote his initial report to Stavka. In this report he also recommended the strategy eventually followed by the Red Army.

Stalin and a handful of the Red Army Stavka (General Staff) wanted to strike first. The pattern of the war up until this point had been one of German offensive success. The blitzkrieg tactic worked against all opposing armies, including the Soviet Army. No army had succeeded in stopping a German blitzkrieg breakthrough. On the other hand, Soviet offensive actions during both winters showed their own offensives now worked well. However the overwhelming majority of the Stavka, and notably Zhukov, advised waiting for the Germans to exhaust themselves in their attack first. Zhukov's opinion swayed the argument.

The German delay in launching their offensive gave the Soviets four months in which to prepare, and with every passing day they turned the salient into one of the most heavily defended points on earth. The Red Army and thousands of civillians laid about one million landmines and dug about 5,000 kilometers of trenches, with positions as far back as 175 km from the front line. In addition they massed a huge army of their own, including some 1,300,000 men, 3,600 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces and 2,400 aircraft. The Red Army could build up forces faster than the Germans; each month they pulled further ahead in men and weapons systems.

Many of the troops assigned to the defense of the salient were recent veterans of the Battle of Stalingrad, but the Red Army also added over one million new men to its ranks in the first half of 1943. Thus the Army was larger than in 1942, even after the losses at Stalingrad. The long delay between the identification of the likely site of the German attack and the beginning of the offensive gave the new units an unusually long time to train.

The density of artillery in the salient was unusual; there were more artillery regiments in the salient than infantry regiments. The Soviets were determined to attrit attacking German units with a combination of mines and artillery fire. Indirect fire from howitzers would stop the German infantry while direct fire from 45 mm, 57 mm, and 85 mm towed anti-tank guns and 76.2 mm divisional field guns would destroy the tanks. In the 13th Army sector (facing the German Ninth Army on the northern face of the salient) the density of anti-tank guns was 23.7 guns per kilometer of defended front. In the 6th and 7th Guards Armies sectors in the south, the density was lower at about 10 guns per kilometer.

The engineer preparation of the battlefield was thorough. Soviet reports indicate that 503,993 Anti-tank mines and 439,348 anti-personnel mines were laid in the defended area. On average, 1,500 antitank mines and 1,700 antipersonnel mines were laid per kilometer of front. In the sectors that were eventually attacked, densities were never lower than 1,400 mines per kilometer and sometimes reached as high as 2,000 per kilometer. Soviet engineers also constructed miles of trenches, laid barbed wire, built antitank obstacles, and constructed thousands of gun and mortar positions. Dummy positions were built to attract German artillery fire. Camouflage of these positions and minefields was excellent; the first warning most German units would have of the presence of Soviet minefields or dug-in guns was their own vehicles exploding.

Set in the larger vista of the war on the eastern front, Kursk is significant because it demonstrated that the Soviet high command and staff worked more effectively than the OKH - largely due to Stalin finally being prepared to act on the advice of his professional staff officers and his intelligence staff; the defeat of the blitzkrieg in summer campaigning weather - albeit at a very high price; and the ability of the Soviet forces to move from defensive to offensive operations due to better staff work, larger reserves and better planning. In these senses Kursk, and not Stalingrad, can be viewed as the turning point in the war: certainly the initiative passed decisively from the OKH to the Stavka.

[edit]
Operation Citadel
[edit]
Preliminary Actions
Waffen-SS Panzergrenadiers and Tiger tanks of the SS Panzergrenadier Division Totenkopf during the start of Operation ZitadelleIt took four months before the Germans felt ready, by which time they had collected 200 of the new Panther tanks (only 40 available at the beginning of the battle due to technical problems with the new type), 90 Elefant Panzerjägers and every flyable Henschel Hs 129 ground attack aircraft, as well as 270 Tiger Is, late model Panzer IVs and even a number of captured T-34s. In total they assembled some 2,700 tanks and assault guns, 1,800 aircraft and 800,000 men. It formed one of the greatest concentrations of German fighting power ever put together. Even so, Hitler expressed doubts about its adequacy.

By this time Allied action in Western Europe was beginning to have a significant impact on German military strength. Although actions in North Africa hardly constituted the Soviets' longed for second front, the battle there did begin to tell and in the last quarter of 1942 and the first half of 1943 the Luftwaffe lost over 40% of its total strength in the battles over Malta and Tunisia. Luftwaffe air superiority was no longer guaranteed. The Soviet airforces far outnumbered the Lutwaffe and were quickly gaining in technology as well with a very effective series of ground attack aircraft capable of decimating German armor.

The start date for the offensive had been moved repeatedly as delays in preparation had forced the Germans to postpone the attack. Finally, On July 1st the orders to attack on July 5 were issued. The following day, Marshal Vasilevsky warned the Front commanders (Vatutin, Rokossovsky and Konev) that the long-awaited German offensive would begin sometime betwen July 3 and July 6. For months, the Soviets had been receiving detailed information on the planning of the offensive, i.e. from their espionage organization Red Orchestra [not chapel] with sources including officers in the Nazi administration, among others in Goering's aviation ministry.

Preliminary fighting started on 4 July 1943 in the south. The Fourth Panzer Army had elected to try to take the Soviet outposts prior to the main assault on July 5th. Thus they deliberately sacrificed tactical surprise. However, the Soviet forward positions were on small hills overlooking German assembly areas, so it is likely surprise would have been lost in any case.

In the afternoon Junkers Ju 87 Stukas bombed a two-mile-wide gap in the front lines on the north in a short period of 10 minutes, and then turned for home while the German artillery opened up to continue the pounding. Hoth's armored spearhead, the III.Panzerkorps, then advanced on the Soviet positions around Zavidovka. At the same time the Panzergrenadier-Division Großdeutschland attacked Butovo in torrential rain, and the 11.Panzer-Division took the high ground around Butovo. To the west of Butovo the going proved tougher for Großdeutschland and 3.Panzer-Division, which met stiff Soviet resistance and did not secure their objectives until midnight. The II.SS-Panzerkorps launched preliminary attacks to secure observation posts, and again met with stiff resistance until assault troops equipped with flame-throwers cleared the bunkers and outposts.

At 22:30 the Soviets hit back with an artillery bombardment in the north and south. This barrage, by over 3,000 guns and mortars, expended up to one-half of the artillery supply for the entire operation. The goal was to delay and disorganize the German attack. In the northern face, the Central Front artillery fired mostly against German artillery positions and managed to suppress 50 of the 100 German batteries they targeted. The result was much weaker German artillery fire on the opening day of the attack. Also, German units attacked at staggered times on July 5th due to the disruption caused by this bombardment. In the south, the Soviets chose to fire largely against the German Infantry and tanks in their assembly areas. This was partially successful in delaying the German attack, but caused few casualties.

[edit]
Main Battle
[edit]
The Northern Face
The real battle opened on 5 July 1943. The Soviets, now aware even of the exact time of the planned German offensive, commenced a massive attack by the Soviet Air Force on the Luftwaffe airbases in the area, in an attempt to turn the tables on the old German "trick" of wiping out local air support within the first hour of battle. The next few hours turned into possibly the largest air battle ever fought. Neither side was able to establish air superiority over the battlefield.

The 9.Armee in the north fell far short of its objectives on July 5th. The attack sector had been correctly anticipated by the Soviet Central Front. Attacking on a 45-kilometer-wide front, the Germans found themselves trapped in the huge defensive minefields, and needed engineering units to come up and clear them under artillery fire. Although a few Goliath and Borgward remote-control engineering vehicles were available to clear lanes in the minefields, they were not generally successful. Even when the vehicles cleared mines, they had no on-board marking system to show following tanks where the cleared lanes were. Soviet units covered the minefields with small arms and artillery fire, delaying and inflicting losses on German engineers clearing mines manually. Thus German losses in the Soviet minefields were high. For example, the German 653rd Heavy Panzerjäger Battalion began the attack with 49 Ferdinand self-propelled guns and lost 37 of them in minefields before 5pm on July 5th. Although most of the lost vehicles were mobility kills rather than permanent losses, they were out of action until they could be repaired. While idle they added nothing to German combat power and were easier for Soviet artillery to knock out permanently. Since the Germans were advancing, any repairable vehicles could be fixed and put back into action.

There are a number of factors that explain the German Ninth Army's lack of progress. Soviet defensive planning and preparation was the major factor. The Soviet Central Front under Marshal Rokossovski had correctly anticipated the likely areas of German attack and had fortified those areas very heavily, holding other areas more thinly. The 13th Army, which bore by far the heaviest weight of the German attack, was far stronger in men and antitank guns than the other Central Front units, and indeed held the strongest defensive positions in the entire salient. Ironically, a major Soviet planning error was their expectation that the main weight of the German attack would come in the north on the Central Front. Thus they concentrated more strength there. Also, the Central front chose to defend the tactical zone (to a depth of 20 km) very heavily, leaving far fewer units in the depths of the defense. Model's army had fewer tanks than Manstein had in the south. The Ninth Army also committed major units piecemeal due to the disruption caused by the Soviet preparatory fire. Finally, the Ninth Army led with reinforced Infantry Divisions that were already in the line facing the Soviets, rather than attacking with uncommitted units.

Review of attack frontages and depth of German penetration shows clearly that the Soviet defensive tactics were succeeding. Beginning with a 45-kilometer-wide attack frontage on July 5th, on the 6th the Ninth Army attacked on a 40-kilometer front. This dropped to 15 kilometers wide by July 7th, and only 2 kilometers each on July 8-9. Each day, the depth of the German advance slowed: 5 kilometers on the first day, 4 on the second, never more than 2 km each succeeding day. By the 10th, the Ninth Army was stopped in its tracks.

After a week, the Wehrmacht had moved only 12 km forward, and on the 12th the Soviets launched their offensive against the 2.Armee at Orel. The 9th Army had to withdraw, their part in the offensive over. Their casualty rate versus the Red Army stood at about 5:3 in their favour. German tank losses were about 300 Pzkw III & IV, half a dozen Tiger I's and 50 tank destroyers. However, this fell short of the usual figures, and failed to keep up with the steady influx of new soldiers and matériel for the Red Army. Few Soviet guns were captured, and those Soviet units that did retreat did so on orders; they were not overrun. The German attack failed to penetrate beyond the Soviet tactical zone.

[edit]
Southern Face
In the south, the Voronezh Front fared less well against the Germans. The German II SS Panzer Corps attacked on a narrower frontage against two Soviet rifle regiments. The armored spearhead of Hoth's 4.Panzer-Armee forced its way forward, and by the 6th had reached some 15 km past the lines. Again, Soviet planning played a big role. In the south the Soviets had not been able to pinpoint the German attack sectors; this forced them to spread out their defenses more evenly. For example, three of the four Armies of the Voronezh Front had about 10 antitank guns per kilometer of front; this contrasts sharply with the Central Front's distribution of guns, which was twice as heavy in the active sectors. Also, the Voronezh Front made the decision to hold the tactical zone much more thinly, leaving a much higher proportion of units in deeper positions compared to the Central Front. Finally, the Voronezh Front was weaker than the Central Front, yet it faced much stronger German forces.

The German forces made steady progress against the Soviet defenses, but, as in the north, attack frontages (width) and penetration depth tended to drop as the attack proceeded. The trend was not as marked as in the north, however. Beginning with a 30-kilometer-wide attack frontage on July 5th, this dropped to 20-kilometers wide by July 7th and 15 km by July 9th. Likewise, the depth of the penetration dropped from 9 km on July 5th to 5 km on July 8 and 2-3 km each day thereafter until the attack was cancelled.

Soviet minefields and artillery were again successful in delaying the German attack and inflicting losses. The ability of dug-in Red Army units to delay the Germans was vital to allow their own reserves to be brought up into threatened sectors. Over 90,000 additional mines were laid during the battle by small mobile groups of engineers, generally working at night immediately in front of the expected German attack areas. There were no large-scale prisoner caches nor any great loss of artillery, again indicating that Soviet units were giving ground in good order.

German losses can be seen in the example of the Grossdeutchland Division, which began the battle with 118 tanks. On July 10th, after five days of fighting, the Division reported it had 3 Tigers, 6 Panthers, and 11 Pzkw-III and Pzkw-IV tanks operational. The XLVIII Panzer Corps reported, overall, 38 Panthers operational with 131 awaiting repair, out of the 200 it started with on July 5.

Nevertheless it was obvious that the threat of a German breakthrough in the south had to be reckoned with. The Steppe Front had been formed in the months prior to the battle as a central reserve for such an eventuality. Units of the Steppe Front began movement to the south as early as July 9th. This included the 5th Guards Tank Army and other combined-arms armies.

The German flank, however, stood unprotected as the Soviet 7th Guards Army stalled Kempf's divisions, aided by heavy rain, after the Germans had crossed the Donets River. The Fifth Guards Tank Army, reinforced with two additional Tank Corps, moved into positions to the east of Prokhorovka and had started to prepare a counterattack of their own when II.SS-Panzerkorps arrived and an intense struggle ensued. The Soviets managed to halt the SS - but only just. Little now stood in the way of the 4th Panzer Army, and a German breakthrough looked like a very real possibility. The Soviets decided to deploy the rest of the 5th Guards Tank Army.

[edit]
Prokhorovka
Main article: Battle of Prokhorovka

On the morning of July 12, SS-Panzerkorps advanced on Prokhorovka at the same time that 5th Guards Tank Army launched a series of attacks in an attempt to catch the Germans off balance. The SS and Guards units collided west of Prokhorovka in open country punctuated by farms, rolling hills and gullies. What happened next is open to debate with the release of new information from archives.

The battle can best be described as a very costly tactical loss but an operational draw for the Soviets. Neither the Fifth Guards Tank Army nor the II SS Panzer Corps accomplished their missions that day. Tank losses have been a contentious subject ever since. Soviet losses have been claimed as low as 200 or as high as 822 tanks, but the loss records now show that they were probably between 150 and 300 complete losses, with an additional number like that damaged. Likewise, German loss claims have reached as low as 80 or into the hundreds, including "dozens" of Tigers. This number is impossible to establish because of the German philosophy in counting lost tanks. The number of complete losses for the period 10-13 July for LSSAH and Das Reich divisions was 3 (three). Additional to that is an unknown number of damaged tanks, many of which would have been lost in repair depots during the subsequent retreat as a consequence of the Soviet post-Kursk counteroffensive Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev. Nipe puts the number of operational tank reductions in the whole Corps at 70-80, but it is unclear how many of these would have been in short-term or long-term repair.

[edit]
The End in the South
Significantly, earlier in the battle the attacking German units had been squeezed into ever-narrowing frontages by the defenders. Elite Soviet Guards Airborne units were holding firm on the flanks of the very narrow German penetration. The Germans could not squeeze many units into this narrow front, nor did they have the combat power to widen the penetration. Thus as the attacking Corps moved forward, they continually lost strength due to the need to hold their own flanks.

While the German offensive had been stopped in the north by July 10th, in the south the overall battle (of Kursk) still hung in the balance, even after July 12th. German forces on the southern wing, exhausted and heavily attrited, nevertheless had breached the first two defensive belts and believed (wrongly) that they were about to break through the last belt. In fact at least five more defensive zones awaited them, although they were not as strong as the initial belts. Soviet defenders had been weakened, and major parts of their reserve forces had been committed. Still, the available uncommitted Red Army reserves were far larger than the few available German reserves.

[edit]
Allied landing on Sicily
There is a historical point of view holding that the western Allied invasion of Sicily caused Hitler to call off Citadel. On 10 July, in the midst of Citadel, US, Canadian and British forces landed on Sicily during Operation Husky. Hitler called Günther von Kluge and von Manstein to his Wolfsschanze headquarters in East Prussia and declared his intention of calling off Operation Citadel. Von Manstein argued that one final effort could win Kursk, but Hitler disregarded it, particularly as the Soviets had launched their counteroffensive in the north.

Opposing this point of view, the fact is the offensive had already failed and further attempts to break through were likely to incur very high casualties. The northern pincer had been stopped cold, and Red Army units were already breaking through in their own counteroffensive. In the south, the maximum efforts of the most elite German units had failed to achieve a breakthrough into the Soviet rear despite some tactical success.

In the end, only one German division, Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, departed for Italy, leaving all their equipment behind for their sister units. However, initially the Germans had decided to send the entire II SS Panzer Corps, the formation that had spearheaded their push in the south.

Limited attacks continued in the south, to get rid of a Soviet force squeezed between two German armies.

[edit]
Soviet counteroffensive
Operation Kutuzov, the Soviet counteroffensive at Orel decisively changed the situation. German Ninth Army units had to be redeployed to resist this attack instead of continuing their own offensive; units from the southern pincer were given warning orders on July 15th to withdraw back to the start lines held on July 4th. The purpose of the withdrawal was to shorten the front, enabling the Germans to re-form a reserve.

To the south the Red Army needed more time to re-group after July, and could not open their counterattack until 3 August when Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev commenced. Aided by diversionary attacks on the Mius river further south, they took von Manstein's hard-won Belgorod. Fireworks in Moscow marked the capture of Belgorod and Orel, a celebration that henceforward became an institution with the recapture of each Soviet city. On 11 August the Red Army reached Kharkov, a city Hitler had sworn to defend at all costs. The German units had reduced manpower and shortages of equipment.

[edit]
Battle ends
A cathedral on the Field of Prokhorovka. It commemorates the Soviet victory in the Battle of Kursk.Field Marshal v. Manstein believed the outcome of the offensive phase of Kursk to be much more grey than black and white. For although the Germans were forced to withdraw, the Germans "managed to, at least, partly destroy the mobile units of the enemy's operational reserves". This view is short-sighted and too narrow however, since it fails to mention that despite the losses suffered in the defensive phase of the battle of Kursk, the Red Army managed to go over to a very successful offensive within two weeks, pushing the Germans back to the Dnepr and towards western Ukraine.

By 22 August, utter exhaustion had affected both sides and the battle of Kursk ended. It was followed by a series of successful Red Army Operations that led to the crossing of the Dnieper, and the liberation of Kiev during the autumn of 1943.

The campaign was a decisive Soviet success. For the first time, a major German offensive had been stopped prior to achieving a breakthrough. The Germans, despite using superior armour, simply could not break through the in-depth defensive of the Red Army, and were surprised by the significant operational reserves available to the Red Army in this battle. This was an outcome that few confidently predicted, and it changed the pattern of operation on the eastern front. The victory had not been cheap however. The Red Army, although preventing the Germans from achieving the goals of Zitadelle, lost more men and materiél than the Wehrmacht. In terms of actual dead, on the Central Front the Red Army fatalities outnumbered the Germans by 4 to 1. On the Voronezh front, the fatalities were 7 Red Army soldiers to every German.

From this point on, a new pattern emerged. The initiative had firmly passed to the Soviets, while the Germans spent the rest of the war reacting to their moves. A new front had opened in Italy, diverting some of Germany's resources and attention. Both sides had their losses, but only the Soviets had the manpower and the industrial production to recover fully, as well as the appreciated aid from the American lend-lease program. The Germans never regained the initiative after Kursk and never again launched a major offensive in the East.

Moreover the loss further convinced Hitler of the incompetence of his General Staff. He continued his interference in military matters progressively, so that by war's end he was involved in tactical decisions. The opposite applied to Stalin, however. After seeing Stavka's planning justified on the battlefield, he trusted his advisors more, and stepped back from operational planning, only rarely overruling military decisions.

Predictable results ensued for both sides: the German army went from loss to loss as Hitler attempted to personally micromanage the day-to-day operations of what soon became a three-front war, while the Soviet army gained more freedom and became more and more fluid as the war continued.

JamesandLuke, you have just made my head implode.

That post was waaaaaaayyyyyy too long.

Im saying, if Stalin hadnt of rapidly industrialed russia (at great human cost), the Nazis wouldnt be fighting a war in two fronts and we could all be speaking German right now. Thereore, however much we hate stalin, we owe him our liberty (lol)

Fuck off liberty. Eastern Europe under communism? Liberty my ass.

Fuck off liberty. Eastern Europe under communism? Liberty my ass.
Well we weren't thinking of you guys!

Gosh... :rolleyes:

What a load of BS. Like all the "what if" history. Stalin's way of conduct was layed out by the Revolution, and all the implications it had, nothing else. There are very few bifurcation points in history, where the "what if" rule can be applied. Stalin is not one of them. Revolution is. It was not necessary, and we can talk, what would have happened to world and Russia (my country) had it not happened. All else (incl. Stalin) is derivative. There is no question of "evil and necessity". It just COULD NOT have been another way after the Revolution.

My last post did kind've stray into that trap I suppose, but they are not easily separated. I will say however, that when you have an ideology that talks about a "dictatorship of the proletariat", that regards guardians of liberty such as parliament, the independent courts system and the very idea of personal independence or private property as essentially bourgeois and that offers no clear program as to how this utopia is to be achieved one ought not be surprised when such an ideology instigates a slide into tyranny. The fact that almost every state that has attempted to implement Marxism has demonstrated broadly similar trends seems to bear this idea out.

Again - though - the problem is execution, not the idea. The model is no more corrupt than any other, and much less than some.

If one looks, for example, at the way parliamentary models USUALLY work, what one ends up with is a modern monarchy and aristicracy. The parliamentary politician USUALLY becomes something of a lifetime politician... and this 'title' is often (effectively) hereditary... The Bush family being a clasic example... the Kennedy's another. These 'modern lords' are often more than comfortable, while they represent constituencies that are, on average, poor. The politicians 'job' becomes chiefly a pursuit of maintaining his/her job - which means pandering to special interests, rather than actually working to cooperate or compromise and get things DONE.

The logic of removing this heirarchy is obvious.

The 'idea' is perfect... and the 'execution' should not be that hard - so why does it fall down? Partly because some people WANT to be told what to do... but mostly, because the sort of people that actively WANT power, are those least suited to weilding it equitably.

So - the large-scale model of Marxism needs to be directly democratic at every level - locl administrators should be those selected BY the local people, based on being suited to the job, not 'political aspiration', and the same should be true accross the board. But - it requires the population to be engaged in the process. The execution CAN match the idea, if the power is applied from the bottom, up.

And your practical equivalence is also only within your mind.

However, the Nazis still couldn't hold America, as American Nationalism would triumph.

The equivalence is only in my mind? This year alone, I have heard political statements telling me that Mexicans are a threat to national security, to our jobs, to our economy. That homosexuals are a threat to our families, and our 'american' way of life. This year alone I have heard 'speeches' talking about our 'superior' history and culture, and how we should take these values and export them.

It all sounds shockingly familiar.

What a load of BS. Like all the "what if" history. Stalin's way of conduct was layed out by the Revolution, and all the implications it had, nothing else. There are very few bifurcation points in history, where the "what if" rule can be applied. Stalin is not one of them. Revolution is. It was not necessary, and we can talk, what would have happened to world and Russia (my country) had it not happened. All else (incl. Stalin) is derivative. There is no question of "evil and necessity". It just COULD NOT have been another way after the Revolution.

Of course it could... and was. Until the Trotsky/Stalin situation was resolved it could easily have been very different.

Oh pray tell me how it could have been different. With arguments please.

What if as lennin had intended Stalin was " purged" and Trotski took control ?
Russia contrary to what you think DID have an idustrial base ..in fact Peter the great started Russia on the road to modernization. In WWI the Russian army initially kicked major ass on the Eastern front...then they made a bunch of BAD tactical moves and got the crap kicked out of them ..those huge loses of man power helped jump start the revolution as much as the political climate. They had a first class army In WW I ...equal to Austria in every way...no one was equal to Germany at the time ..in tactics or equipment.
German doctrine ..machine gun tech and artillery was superior tto the allies ..with the exception of the French 75. Anyone who has studied WWiI knows the brithsh didnt even have the right type of artillery shells for trench warfare for a YEAR ...and it contributed greatly to the slaughter .

trotski , Lev Kamenev ,Grigori Zinoviev,Bukharin ...etc. What of them ?

Especially Trotski who wanted to consolidate all the unions and had a great plan for FURTHER industrialation of the Soviets ? He just didnt think it was nessary to kill people to re-educate them . In the trade-union debate (1920–21) within the party, Trotsky clashed with Lenin by demanding strict state control of unions.

Stalin was about power ...HIS power..other more qulified statesmen were killed for him to achieve HIS goal .
Who knows if Stalin had not assumed power...TAKEN ...power the whole history of " communism " and how we see it today may be much different .

Just keep in mind that the US was out of European politics by the will of the people of the US . Thats what Democracy is . WW I and the slaughter made most think that Europe was just a crazy place that Americans went to die .
It was a very shortsighted view of things and had its roots in the reasons America was founded ...to get AWAY from Europe and its problems ..but considering how the world had changed ...no ocean could shelter you..as most Americans soon found out .

Britain and France had Germany by the short hairs...THEY alone let Hitler gain power and IN FACT supported HITLER as a BULWARK against the Bolshevicks. Reaad Chamberlains own quotes on the matter..Read Churchills biographys...The British government along with the French ...OWNED Germany and could have smashed Hitler at any point UP to The Sudetanland.
Racism and the foolish policy of appeasement DOOMED them .
Hitler could have been crushed like a worm ..in the Rhineland ..Smashed like a bug if Austria had been given a show of support...You musst ask yourself WHY ? Why was Hitler given a free pass ?

The Answer is STALIN .

Stalin was seen as the Greater evil ....Hitler was seen as a counter to STALIN ...so the game was played and the world lost millions ..


So saying Stalin was a neccessary evil amuses me greatly .

So - the large-scale model of Marxism needs to be directly democratic at every level - locl administrators should be those selected BY the local people, based on being suited to the job, not 'political aspiration', and the same should be true accross the board. But - it requires the population to be engaged in the process. The execution CAN match the idea, if the power is applied from the bottom, up.

If local people had been allowed to select their poitical representatives they would not have chosen Marxists/Bolsheviks whose political program was at odds with the peasantry, who at this point made up something like 70% of the population. Furthermore given that the peasantry were a backward, socially conservative, religious class, such pressure could not be applied from the bottom up since their political awareness would not have been sufficient. Power could not be applied from the bottom without the regime empowering social groups that would have overthrown it.

It wasn't Stalin. He was a backstabber to Trotsky. Communism and a strong leader? Yes. Stalin sucked the Democracy out of Russia's Communism. Stalin was responsible for many many horrible happenings, which is the reason people often dismiss Socialist ideas, especially Communism. They only remember Stalin, Mao, and Castro. These jerks killed the respectibility of their ideals and countries. The Nazi's could never fully take Russia. No one could. The Russian winter was powerful enough without a dictator. Russia will always have military strategists, Stalin or not.

Guys, you just don't know a shit about Trozky. You probably just read what is know from his autobiography. If after the revolution Stalin had his hands awash with blood, Trozky (and Lenin) were covered in it from head to toe, and willingly. If there was a candidate absolutely inacceptable for the broad masses as the leader of state after the Civil War in Russia, it was Trozky. He counted millions killed by his order long before Stalin rose to any kind of power, so please, cut it out. Trozky and democracy in the party, my ass. Go read a book.

It wasn't Stalin. He was a backstabber to Trotsky. Communism and a strong leader? Yes. Stalin sucked the Democracy out of Russia's Communism. Stalin was responsible for many many horrible happenings, which is the reason people often dismiss Socialist ideas, especially Communism. They only remember Stalin, Mao, and Castro. These jerks killed the respectibility of their ideals and countries. The Nazi's could never fully take Russia. No one could. The Russian winter was powerful enough without a dictator. Russia will always have military strategists, Stalin or not.

Give me a break.
Lenin was just as evil as Stalin was.
He may not have killed as much people, but that was probably because he didnt live long enough to do it.
And Trotsky wasnt exactly a saint either.
Even though their interpretations of Communism differ slightly, all of their hands are stained with blood.

I believe the USSR could have won WWII without Stalin. I notice people started to pull Trotsky out of the hat. While I agree with the sentiment that Trotsky was a hard-nose to, I do imagine him slightly more competent in military matters than Stalin by any means. But would he have industrialized as rapidly? It was Stalin's cruelty that made the succes of the Soviet industry possible. Without that industry at the same levels as under Stalin the USSR would never have stood a fighting chance. While the winter might have prevented the Germans from taking all of Russia I do not think they'd go to the end of the eart for a naval base like Vladivostok. The Japanese would beat them to it anyway, even if they waited for their non-aggression treaty to expire. The nazis could have just staked their claim, there would have been no armed soldiers to oppose them. So it's clear the Soviets needed to industrialize. Unfortunately you don't just do such a thing. Either a dictator implemented all this change or you'd have a bickering elititarian party go yes/no over the plans. Or worse, you'd have someone who spend more money on himself than on the betterment of the country. So a country like Russia needed someone like Stalin. But did they need gulags and forced starvation and raids? No, I believe much of the state terror was an overreaction.

And I'd like to mingle in the German invasion of the Allies debate a bit. If the USSR did not have Stalin it seems likely they would have been even less ready. Valor, skill and loyalty from the people would have meant nothing without the guns and butter. And once the Germans where done bitch slapping the communists around there was only one meaningful direction left: west. They lost the Battle of Britain the first time. But that doesn't mean that they'd lose a second time with Russia out of the way. Germany would have all the time in the world to prepare. And with the whole industry of Europe at their disposal they would easily outproduce Britain in anything. They had the finest technology ready and being developed. What they couldn't accomplish themselves yet they could copy from subjugated nations. They had some of the greatest military commanders in the history of modern warfare right there. And by then a veteran army. Despite its merits the British could not compete in many fields and would lose their remaining advantages sooner or later. A subjugation of Britain would have been far from unrealistic. And as for America, they'd be next on the list. And without Britain the US couldn't win. Germany on the other hand could if they already had outwitted the UK and gained even more power. At this point USA would have been behind in industrial terms. Its leadership might not be up to the task. And its fighting doctrine wouldn't get them far against a focussed Blitzkrieg (take into account that USA actually copied this whole doctrine and adapted it to modern inventions. Its last application was Iraq, 2003). Even if the nazis could not sail to America they still had their fearsome rocket technology. A stalemate between the US and Germany, in the end, would be decided by the range of rockets. Definately Germany had the edge.

Guys, you just don't know a shit about Trozky. You probably just read what is know from his autobiography. If after the revolution Stalin had his hands awash with blood, Trozky (and Lenin) were covered in it from head to toe, and willingly. If there was a candidate absolutely inacceptable for the broad masses as the leader of state after the Civil War in Russia, it was Trozky. He counted millions killed by his order long before Stalin rose to any kind of power, so please, cut it out. Trozky and democracy in the party, my ass. Go read a book.

Well put, I find it deeply irritating how many people seem compelled to scapegoat Stalin for the failings of an entire system and make the case that the Soviet Union could have been some kind've idyllic utopia until the big bad Georgian came along and spoilt everything.

Well put, I find it deeply irritating how many people seem compelled to scapegoat Stalin for the failings of an entire system and make the case that the Soviet Union could have been some kind've idyllic utopia until the big bad Georgian came along and spoilt everything.

EVen with assuming Marx is correct, the USSR couldn't have survived anyways. You simply cannot skip the capitalist stage and succeed.

They only remember Stalin, Mao, and Castro. These jerks killed the respectibility of their ideals and countries.

Fidel Castro was a nationalist. He only called himself a Communist so the Russians would give him some measure of protection against America.

ultimately stalin died and the country broke up, not sterling example of good statesmanship or leadership

btw remember all the russians he killed - didn't that upset the industrial revolution there a little????

:gundge: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: