LogFAQs > #968403323

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Yeah no, Stalin was an active detriment to the Soviet war effort and it was only after Zhukov went off on him and Stalin started butting out of military affairs more that the war turned decisively in their favor. Zhukov paid dearly for that post-war, of course.

But even so, the Nazis were also poorly-directed and switched objectives with the seasons, failing even to finish off so horribly stricken a city (and so vital a strategic objective) as Leningrad. Only a much more focused strategy and a much more thoroughly prepared force would have had any chance of success, but fascists are definitionally bad at all of those things. Nazi Germany never had much of shot at beating Soviet Russia, and it was mostly a product of Stalins (baseless) stubborn belief that Hitler would honor Molotov-Ribbentrop and the utter mess he made of the Red Army that the Nazis had any shot at all.

I agree. Stalin was a horrible military leader. But there's one important thing people are missing: his refusal to surrender even when they were getting crushed bad. I feel like any other person in that same leadership position would have surrendered after so many encirclements and defeats. To compare, France surrendered shortly after Paris was taken. Someone can correct me if I'm way off on this.