how could the soviet union have been a success?

[Johnny Canuck3]

Btw, before 1776, those dead slave totals go toward the British Empire's tally.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Stalin killed that many just in a couple of decades.

Post up your sources then.. I think he killed less than that,

 

[Lock&Light]

.. I think he killed less than that,

That would make it alright then?

 

[CNT36]

You kill one person its a tragedy you kill millions and its an internet slanging match.

 

[gorski]

Stalin had to kill many more than Hitler to gain the kind of control both of them wanted. Germany allegedly "civilised" and Russia a seriously "backward" country. Pause for thought...

 

[nino_savatte]

thread over

This is only your first post on Urban and yet you seem to know an awful lot about the place.

 

[jonH]

I would have urged the Russian tank battalions to have taken on the Americans. They built some fantastic bridgeheads on the Elbe but never really gained the benefit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I would have urged the Russian tank battalions to have taken on the Americans. They built some fantastic bridgeheads on the Elbe but never really gained the benefit.

By the time the SU had consolidated their position in eastern Germany, the US had also dug in. If they'd tried to push on when they first arrived, they'd have had exactly the same supply problems that Germany had during Barbarossa, only they'd have probably ended up fighting the British, French and US armies, as well as the rump of the German land forces. Even uncle Joe's ego wasn't big enough to assume he could pull that cat out of the bag.

 

[dylanredefined]

I would have urged the Russian tank battalions to have taken on the Americans. They built some fantastic bridgeheads on the Elbe but never really gained the benefit.

Also the soviet Army relied on a lot of allied supplies would have got a bit
embrassing for them very quickly .They admitted without spam wouldn't have been able to feed their army .

 

[dylanredefined]

I would have urged the Russian tank battalions to have taken on the Americans. They built some fantastic bridgeheads on the Elbe but never really gained the benefit.

Considering the amount of casualties they took taking berlin think going up against well equipped army with massive air support would have been
horrible .

 

[david dissadent]

Considering the amount of casualties they took taking berlin think going up against well equipped army with massive air support would have been
horrible .

Hmmmm, you are compairing apples and oranges. Berlin was a city that was heavily fortified and fanaticaly defended by men fighting to stop there daugters getting raped.

T-34s vs Shermans is not a fight I would have wanted to be in a sherman in. How would the allies have reacted to having to face 10 000s of Shturmoviks? The allies lacked anything quite as effective. The Thurdbolt took a bloody high casualty rate even in '45 against Germany and the Typhoon was good but just not available in the numbers needed.

The allies would have also had to face communist partisans behind lines for the first time. The heavy bombers would have had to face

The Soviets anihaletd the Wemacht as an effective mobile army in 1943. The obliteration of Army Group Center (a force far in excess of anything the allies ever faced) durning operation Bagration should stand as a stark lesson to what the Red Army could do.

I guess no one knows who would have won, but humanity would have lost.

Edited: Going on wikipedias figures, Army Group Center was 800 000 for Bagration and Army Group B plus OKW reserve only amounted to 380 000 about half of that For the Normandy campaign.

 

[Andy the Don]

Edited: Going on wikipedias figures, Army Group Center was 800 000 for Bagration and Army Group B plus OKW reserve only amounted to 380 000 about half of that For the Normandy campaign.

Bagration was fought on the steps (plains) of White Russia. Much easier country to conduct massed tank operations than the Bocage country of Normandy. Where the land is sub-divided into small fields with thick hedgerows dividing the fields.

Back to the original question. Could the Soviet Union have been a success? No, because it did not attempt to meet the aspirations of its population. Within the Soviet Union there were competing pressures. The religious nationalism of the central Soviet "'stans". The highly literate/cultured main population centres. You had a totally intrusive one party state which impacted on every facet of Soviet life. This would have given rise to a deep dislike/distrust of the state/party. The Soviet Union was proof that one size does not fit all. It did not devolve enough decision making power to those at the "coal face". all decision making power was held by middle management officials who were too afraid or did not have the nous to make the relevant decision at the correct time.