Carrol
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On
> Behalf Of andie_nachgeborenen
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 10:24 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] The effect of drones
>
> Both versions of the Soviet victory are correct. Once Hitler lost his
chance for a
> quick win at both or either Leningrad and Moscow, material factors vastly
favor
> the USSR in the long run. But as with the Union in the the US Civil War,
the long
> run can be long, bloody, and tricky. Stalingrad was really the hinge of
fate
> (Churchill), the destruction of a whole German Army that also closed off
Nazi
> access to the oil in the the Caucasians and ultimately sealed the doom of
the
> Nazis. The battle back to Berlin was still incredibly bloody and chancy.
Kharkov
> might have turned things around again, for example. But both Soviet
material
> superiority, backed by Lend-Lease, and the brilliant victory at Stalingrad
were key.
>
> There is simply no question that Stalin made a very hard and concerted
effort to
> create a Soviet-Western anti-Nazi alliance in the 30s before, rebuffed, he
made
> the Soviet-nazi Pact to buy time and steal territory. He thought he would
have
> longer before the Nazis attacked than he did, and ignored solid and
indisputable
> very specific evidence of the details of Barbarossa, as well as issuing
destructive
> orders like No Step Back that came close to losing the war in the early
days. But
> the attempted pacts with France and Britain were real and their failure,
not Stalin's
> direct fault, a very great tragedy. They might have stopped the war
altogether.
> We will never know.
>
> I have seen reliable figures if up to 50 million Soviet dead, although
20-25 is
> probably more accurate and we will never really know. There is no question
that
> either way the destruction visited on the FSU was Biblical in proportion
and on a
> scale not suffered by any nation since the Mongols invaded Russia eight
hundred
> years before, worse with modern warfare,
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 9:54 AM, // ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Thank you all for the responses to my question(s) on the below thread.
> >
> > -ravi
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 28, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Mark DeLucas <mkdelucas at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know very well the history of the lead-up to the Hitler-Stalin
pact
> >> (if that's what you're referring to), but as to the significance of the
> >> USSR's involvement in defeating Nazi -- uncontroversially, it was
decisive.
> >> Western material aid to the USSR was important, but the latter's
success in
> >> transporting the bulk of its industry east of the Urals, and therefore
> >> beyond the reach of the German army, was more or less sufficient to
meeting
> >> the long-term armament needs of the Red Army -- the sheer size of which
the
> >> German's had little long-term chance of overcoming. Indeed, the true
> >> turning point of the war, I've always thought, was the failure of the
> >> Wehrmacht's final push on Moscow in late 1941; having failed in what
has to
> >> be considered their only good chance of effecting the collapse of the
> >> Soviet regime, the Germans were thereafter (from '42 to '45) fated to
be
> >> ground down by the overwhelming manpower and material might of the USSR
> >> (and, of course, tipping the scales further, the United States).
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM, // ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 2:13 PM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
> >>>> The U.S. didn't defeat the Nazis. The Soviets did.
> >>>
> >>> I was just going to ask about this. At least the version of history I
was
> >>> taught put the Battle of Stalingrad at the centre of the
turnaround/victory
> >>> and attributed the bulk of the credit to the Soviets (of course we in
India
> >>> had our special relationship with the SU and reasons not to buy too
much
> >>> into the Churchill worship). Which version is truer? It seems beyond
> >>> question that the Soviets took the brunt of the battle with ~ 20
million
> >>> dead (9 million or so of that being military).
> >>>
> >>> The other Western meme that I learnt after I left the old country was
the
> >>> story that Stalin struck a deal with Hitler, going against the West -
newer
> >>> investigation seems to show that if at all he did so, that was after
his
> >>> overtures to the West had been rejected. What's the modern consensus
on
> >>> that?
> >>>
> >>> Apologies for the thread fork,
> >>>
> >>> -ravi
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk