Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post


Great one, Sarmatian! Gave him what he deserved!!
Yes, what he deserved for even questioning that the Soviets are not responsible for saving the world! (PS, I am NOT a Stalin sympathizer)

And if not for the ridiculously harsh winter that the Germans were in equipped for, it is very much likely that they would have succeded. Russian resistance was pathetic. Look at the Battle of Kursk.
All of Hitler's generals begged him not to do it, because not only was it useless, but the Russians had every advantage. The Germans had to take a nearly impossible fortified postion, were out number by an outrageous amount, were ill equipped, and fighting Russia's veterans. The Russians had high ground, spent days fortifying it with mines, tank traps, brabed wire, machine gun nests, artillery, etc. The Russians should have won with almost no casualties, instead, they got beaten so badly that if Germans had struck again, they would have had the numerical advantage and closer to even eqipment this time. EI, it is likely that if the Germans had struck again, they would have won. Here are the stats I pulled off of Wiki:

Casualties and losses
German losses according to German sources:
50,000 dead, wounded, or captured
248 tanks destroyed
200 aircraft downed
German losses according to Soviet sources:
500,000 dead, wounded, or captured
900 tanks destroyed
3,000 aircraft downed
Soviet losses according to German sources:
180,000 dead, wounded, or captured
1,600 tanks damaged or destroyed
1,000 aircraft damaged or downed
Soviet losses according to Soviet sources:
863,303 all causes
6,064 tanks damaged or destroyed
1,100-1,200 aircraft damaged or destroyed

The Germans way underestimated how many they had killed, so saw it as a stunning defeat. My point is that throughout the war the Soviet resistance and the performance of the Soviet army was pathetic. They suffered defeat after defeat where they had all advantages, and when the won victories, it was an so much a higher cost than it should have been. Of course they did not do everything wrong, but mostly they wore the Germans down by throwing tons of men at them. (Kind of like what that ***-for-brains gloryhound Nimmitz did in the Pacific Theatre)
Point is, that judging from the performance of the Soviet Army, I think that it is fair to say that it was not Stalin's military capability that defeated Germany, but rather the fact that his propaganda and use of terror would keep the citizens of Russia motivated enough to defend their homeland (similar to Churchill in England). Under different leadership, an army like the Soviet Army should have been able to do a lot better.