# Suppose Stalingrad was Not a German Defeat? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 29, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-stalingrad-was-not-a-german-defeat/741637 "2015-12-29T13:18:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2016, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-stalingrad-was-not-a-german-defeat/741637/41 "2016-01-02T16:50:31Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yeah, but Stalin’s appointments diary? Dairy notations can be faked or filled in after. Khrushchev knew Stalin better than anyone. True, but there was also motive for Khrushchev to exaggerate as well as his account was given during the time when they were knocking down the cult surrounding his predecessor. However, all of this is still neither here nor there, because we were discussing Stalingrad and that wasn’t until late 1942, a fact you keep conveniently neglect to address. This was well past a year after whatever Stalin’s reaction was, and it is completely absurd to suggest that Stalin could have collapsed in late '42. > [@](#): > > It doesnt make any difference how many troops you have in reserve if moral or leadership collapses. As was noted, Stalingrad was a critical moral turning point.“\*Regardless of the strategic implications, \*”(redundant quote snipped) You really like that quote, using it twice in the same thread. It’s not an argument suggesting that the Red Army or the the leadership were anywhere in danger of collapse at the point of the war, which they weren’t. > [@](#): > > I dont know if you believe that "There are scenarios where Germany could have defeated the Soviets, " I have never seen you posit anything other than WWII was foregone conclusion. I could not help but notice that you failed to address several key points in my argument and instead chose to go off on this tangent. Should we assume that you are abandoning your bizarre argument that because tiny, out manned, out gunned and outmatched Czechoslovakia (population of about 14 million, including 3.2 million ethnic Germans, in contrast to Germany 68 million, and do we really need to get into the size of their respective armed forces?) collapsed, the Soviet Union, (1937 population of 170 million) would also roll over? Do we need to rehash that Britain sealed the fate of the Czechs? That I can swat a mosquito is no indication that I can knock out my next door neighbor. And, yet once more, this has absolutely zilch do with this thread, where we (or most of us) are discussing late 1942 and not the summer of 1941.[/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Nelson\_Pike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Nelson\_Pike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nelson_Pike)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2016, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-stalingrad-was-not-a-german-defeat/741637/42 "2016-01-02T17:52:46Z")
Pantastic does not dispute the thesis of my reply #14. Therefore I take it he agrees with me that Western attitudes toward the contribution and sacrifice of the WWII USSR constitute a form of intellectual criminality. Now for some comments on the details of his own irrelevant post: (reply #16) [Quote= Pantastic] I think that the East should be faulted for its virtually complete lack of appreciation for the Soviet contribution to Nazi early war victory, which led to terrible cost in blood to the people of Europe, and later to the Soviet union itself. They joined the Nazis in invading Poland, supplied them with war materials throughout the stunning victories of 1938-1941, and allowed them to leave only a bare garrison on the Eastern border while dealing with France and trying to deal with the UK. The If you’re going to accuse someone of ‘intellectual criminality’, you probably should remember 1938-1941 in addition to 1941-1945. [/quote] 1938? You aren’t confused about what year the war began, are you? It so happens that the outstanding non-Nazi criminals of 1938 were Britain and France, whose behavior at Munich has entered the language as a synonym for treachery. Not only was the USSR not a party to this criminal behavior, it spent most of the crisis period beseeching the criminals to join with it in a real commitment to real military deterrence. In 1939 prior to Molotov-Ribbentrop the USSR tried, again, to get a commitment to offensive measures against Germany, but Britain and France would have none of it, and Britain exhibited its lack of interest by dispatching a mere colonel to lead a negotiating mission. Hence, the USSR accurately viewed its choices as follows: (1) Let Germany take over ALL of Poland unopposed, and hope that the next round, in the West, would see both sides fight to an exhausting stalemate a la 1914-1917. (2) Oppose Germany in effect alone while Britain and France sat on their asses behind their fortifications, letting Germany and the USSR do the worst they could to each other. (3) Make the best deal it could with Germany, and hope for the same next round result as in (1). The USSR quite reasonably chose (3). Unfortunately for it, things did not go as hoped for in the West, but at least the 1941 German invasion was launched from 200 miles further west than it would have been absent Molotov-Ribbentrop. Now, there is absolutely no disputing that the USSR’s treatment of its new Polish subjects was criminal, and the outstanding criminal act was probably the Katyn massacre. For those who wish to identify a Russian parallel to my thesis, post-Soviet Russian response to Katyn fits the bill- it was not until 2010 that the Russian government finally owned up to unambiguous Soviet responsibility for that crime of mass murder. [Quote= Pantastic] The Soviets didn’t have any allies on continental Europe because they helped the Nazis defeat everyone else in the area, not because the West abandonded them. The Soviets took high casualties initially because of Stalin’s purges and reorganizations, not because of anything the West did to them - he in fact ignored direct warnings about Barbarossa. It’s not really reasonable to expect a medal for shooting yourself in the foot twice. [/quote] The 1940-1941 Germany Army was the best in world history up to then, probably by far, and would have been without any contributions from the USSR. Furthermore, although the RAF was nearly as good as the German Air Force, the 1941 Soviet AF was not close. Thus besides not enabling German victories pre-6/22/41, USSR could probably not have stopped the Germans from penetrating deep into its territory. Fortunately for the USSR Germany kept about 45 divisions (out of about 200 total) in the West, the Balkans, and Africa. ---
**Author:** ![Nelson\_Pike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Nelson\_Pike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nelson_Pike)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-stalingrad-was-not-a-german-defeat/741637/43 "2016-01-02T18:00:24Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > To be fair, the Ruskies probably get more notice for their part in WWII, in the US, than the French get for their part in the American Revolutionary War. The American people probably would have been just as happy to have had Lafayette as the first POTUS as Washington, and now the French are Cheese Eating Surrender Monkies. At least the USSR earned their low position in our minds. The French haven’t done anything but be French. I agree the French contribution to the USRW effort is underappreciated, I agree that 21st century American animosity toward the French is unjustified, and WWII aside I agree that the low reputation of the USSR is deserved. Such was Washington’s transcendent stature that the American people would have been happy with any other first President. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-stalingrad-was-not-a-german-defeat/741637/44 "2016-01-02T18:28:00Z")
> [@Nelson\_Pike](#): > > Pantastic does not dispute the thesis of my reply #14. Therefore I take it he agrees Let me know when you’re willing to debate honestly and I’ll engage in discussion with you. ---
**Author:** ![Nelson\_Pike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Nelson\_Pike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nelson_Pike)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-stalingrad-was-not-a-german-defeat/741637/45 "2016-01-02T18:33:54Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > I’m talking about boosting the ratio in favor of the ‘German soldiers were super elites fighting the mindless Russian hordes’ myth. If you have 3 million Germans and 1.5 million allies facing 5 million Russans, you can say ‘look at how awesome the Wermacht was, they were outnumbered by more than 3:2 and still did all this,’ even though the actual ratio of troops on each side was almost even. If in a given time period Germany took 1 million casualties, her allies took .5 million, and Russia took 2 million, you can say ‘Germany dished out twice as many casualties as she took’, even though it was really 4:3. On the first anniversary (3/22/42) of the war in the East the USSR admitted to 4.5 million casualties, and on 6/30/42 the Chief of the German General Staff reported 1.332 million German casualties. See p370 _Russia at War_ by Alexander Werth hardcopy. That would be a ratio of 2.45:1 if 500k casualties to German allies are included. ---
**Author:** ![Nelson\_Pike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Nelson\_Pike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nelson_Pike)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2016, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-stalingrad-was-not-a-german-defeat/741637/46 "2016-01-02T18:37:27Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Let me know when you’re willing to debate honestly and I’ll engage in discussion with you. Every word I wrote was honest, and your reply is typical of someone who is desperate for an excuse to escape from a real beating. ---
**Author:** ![Nelson\_Pike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Nelson\_Pike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nelson_Pike)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-stalingrad-was-not-a-german-defeat/741637/47 "2016-01-02T20:04:13Z")
> [@Nelson\_Pike](#): > > On the first anniversary (3/22/42) #!^\*!?& typos. The first anniversary was **June** 22 1942. ---
**Author:** ![Nelson\_Pike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Nelson\_Pike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nelson_Pike)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-stalingrad-was-not-a-german-defeat/741637/48 "2016-01-02T20:08:10Z")
> [@Nelson\_Pike](#): > > Such was Washington’s transcendent stature that the American people would have been happy with any other first President. Jeeez another typo. Honest I was cold sober and well rested when I clicked “Submit Reply”. The American people would have been **UN** happy with any other than George Washington as first President. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-stalingrad-was-not-a-german-defeat/741637.md?page=2)