Great Heros! Geh!

[Watchman]

That's a myth as much as "General Winter" or "General Mud" is... That's all I'm saying...

Those are quite real. Large-scale warfare has always been above all about logistics - to put it bluntly, keeping your soldiers fed, clothed and generally supplied and alive.

Which gets pretty difficult when the supply columns (and for that matter, combat troops) can no longer move owing to the roads having turned liquid, engines and pack animals freezing, men and beasts starving and losing bits to frostbite, heck, even weapon mechanisms freezing solid on a bad day.

Just as an example, when the Germans were checked at the gates of Moscow a very important factor was their logistical chain pretty much collapsing in the early winter weather. Hard to keep fighting at peak efficiency when the fuel and ammunition and w/e plain isn't getting through because the supply trucks and carts are stuck in cold mud, tanks refuse to start in the cold, lubricants freeze in guns and soldiers keep having their fingers fall off...
(Similarly, in the monumental cock-up that was the Soviet first-phase invasion of the Winter War the hapless Red Army troops trapped in the forests of Finland suffered at least as direly, as their supply lines were flatly cut and the winter was of record ferocity.)

On the same vein Napoleon's army more or less starved and froze to death under him. Not that the Russians weren't only too happy to add to the misery and attrition by stepping up their raids and harassement the second they realized the French were screwed...

Comparable cases can be dug up from any number of wars. The cold may be absent owing to geography, but the overwhelming importance of keeping armes supplied - one way or another - remains.

[Sarmatian]

Those are quite real. Large-scale warfare has always been above all about logistics - to put it bluntly, keeping your soldiers fed, clothed and generally supplied and alive.

It seems we are running around in circles here. Climate is a factor, especially harsh climatic conditions, like you would find in Russia. I'm saying it's not an excuse. It's not an excuse in case of German or French invasion on Russia, it's not an excuse in case of Soviet invasion on Finland. What did you expect, that you would need suntan lotion in Finland in winter??? That winter wouldn't have any effect on logistics? If you're mounting an attack in that situation, you have to be prepared for that... Not being prepared is no excuse

It is often used as convenient excuse to why certain armies failed in Russia. It is especially evident in case of French invasion under Napoleon. This diagram represent strength of the French army during its invasion.

EDIT: Sorry, removed because it's hotlinked. Please host it yourself. BG

As you can see, French army lost half of its troops in the first two months of the campaign, before the battle of Borodino, which was on 7th of September. That means that half of the French troops were lost in the summer (August and July).

If you're not adequately prepared, it's not excuse. Like, gee I would have won but I wasn't prepared... An idiotic excuse. It's like saying that you would have won against UK but you didn't have a navy, so all your troops drowned when you ordered them to march across the channel. It's an island, of course you need a navy - it's Russia, of course you need to prepare for winter warfare...

P.S. Happy New Year to everyone...

[CountArach]

Familiar with the term Pyrrhic victory?

Indeed I am. I do not believe that Borodino was one, though Napoleon certainly could have used the extra men. Still, without the winter being present Napoleon would have reached Moscow.

[Sarmatian]

Indeed I am. I do not believe that Borodino was one, though Napoleon certainly could have used the extra men. Still, without the winter being present Napoleon would have reached Moscow.

It's a matter of opinion, yes, but if an army wins a battle and a short time later has to abandon the campaign without any other battle in between, I'd call it a Pyrrhic victory.

And, anyway, Napoleon did reach Moscow and he did it before the winter.

But, we strayed too much off topic. Maybe we should continue this in the monastery...

[Caius]

So, why do they choose Stalin? Because he was a communist or he was a tyrant?

[Incongruous]

@Jag

Are you for real? Lenin had no respect for the people of Russia, he killed them just as easily as he embraced them.

[CrossLOPER]

So, why do they choose Stalin? Because he was a communist or he was a tyrant?

Of all the people who live and lived in the world, Stalin is among the last ones I would see as being so flat.

There were a few posts in the beginning which explored why Stalin's actions in life may have caused him to be so high in the list. Look them over.

[Spino]

So, why do they choose Stalin? Because he was a communist or he was a tyrant?

Because Stalin did what no Russian leader before or after has been able to accomplish; he brought Russia's empire (a.k.a the Soviet Union) closer to the coveted 'Alpha' position than anyone in history. In terms of land mass, raw materials, population and above all, military power, the Soviet Union was one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen. Shortcomings aside the Soviet Union inspired fear and loathing in all their enemies and everyone knew that with the exception of the United States, they could probably beat all comers in a conventional conflict. At least this was the understanding before the Soviet Union's military was exposed for the paper tiger it really was in Afghanistan. But since Afghanistan was considered a campaign and region of little concern few nationalistic Russians are willing to take seriously the terrible lessons learned there.

[CrossLOPER]

At least this was the understanding before the Soviet Union's military was exposed for the paper tiger it really was in Afghanistan.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what went wrong there.

But since Afghanistan was considered a campaign and region of little concern few nationalistic Russians are willing to take seriously the terrible lessons learned there.

The eighties were not a good time for the USSR. They tend to be disregarded as an anomaly.

[Furunculus]

the collapse of the soviet command economy and communism as an ideology was an anomaly?

[LittleGrizzly]

the collapse of the soviet command economy and communism as an ideology was an anomaly?

I think his point was something like it would be similar to basing US military power on thier defeat in vietnam, rather than taking into consideration other factors...

[Watchman]

Meh. The Eighties was just when the chronically dysfunctional Soviet system finally began approaching the end of its self-made leash.

[CrossLOPER]

the collapse of the soviet command economy and communism as an ideology was an anomaly?

I can bring up a mountain of ifs, but it is futile. What happened, happened.

[Caius]

the collapse of the soviet command economy and communism as an ideology was an anomaly?

One word: Perestoika.

[Kralizec]

The Soviet Union would have collapsed without it as well sooner or later. Perestroika was too little, too late, and the paper framework of the economy was to weak to stomach such reforms.

[Watchman]

The way I usually see it narrated, Gorby just went through with what Kruschev planned to (and got thrown out by his peers as a result). Both wanted to rescue the Soviet system from its own failures; the first time around, the rest of the top brass just still cared and/or believed in the cause enough to realize the system was structurally dependent on those selfsame flaws...

Build a house with crappy foundations, and it's going to fall down eventually.

[Furunculus]

In other news, is russia about to suffer complete economic collapse?

http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/33100

[Sarmatian]

In other news, is russia about to suffer complete economic collapse?

http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/33100

Nah. Wishful thinking by some. Russia's economy is suffering from the effect of global recession, like everybody else, that's it... 2009 isn't going to be very enjoyable for any of us, but developing countries will feel its effects more than developed...

[Watchman]

...so which group does Russia count in...?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Second World.

Russia's economy is still shaky and so is its society, neither has deep or settled foundations and th ecenomic slide may topple both. If Putin makes the right decisions Russia will prosper, if not it will be in the same state it was two decades ago.

Of course, the failure of democracy in that country means that it will be difficult to replace Vlad I if he fails. On another note, I wish he would just proclaim himself Tsar, I'd have more respect for him then.

[Sarmatian]

...so which group does Russia count in...?

Developing.

Economic growth of developing countries is still largely influenced by western capital. So in case of Russia, crisis not only impacted the buying power of the western markets, it also limited the amount of western capital flowing to Russia through investments. Also, less foreign currencies enter Russia due to oil prices drop. Good thing for Russia is that natural gas has some lag before it catches up with the oil prices, so the price of gas will still be relatively high during the winter, but if this thing with Ukraine continues, Russia will lose a huge amount of money. Western European countries, the biggest consumers of Russian gas will use reserves for the winter and fill them up in the spring or summer when the price of gas significantly drops.

2009 is going to be really hard on Russia, it is questionable whether their economy will have any growth. In a normal situation they would have 7-10%. But, in the long run, Russian economic perspective is bright. Due to industralization of many large countries, like China and India, energy and raw materials will be in high demand for the foreseeable future. There will be ups and downs regardless, of course.

[Caius]

The Soviet Union would have collapsed without it as well sooner or later.

Would the SU still be standing if the stalinism process would had continuated? What were the differences between Stalin and the governations of Kruschev and Gorbachev?

[Watchman]

Well for one Nikita and Gorby didn't think a good way to ensure your continued domestic popularity is a few-year orgy of runaway police-state terror that nearly tore said state apart from the inside... and oh yeah, dumping thousands after thousands of people into prison camps. (GULAG got run down pretty fast after Stalin kicked the bucket.)

[Caius]

One more question, some said here (IIRC you were Watchman) that the system would fall eventually. Why is that, because the ones in power loved power, they were too incompetent to run a store or the system won't let the country grow? Did some country grow under comunism?