Thread: Pro or Anti Stalin

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

BM, comparing Nicholas I, a weak willed man, with Stalin, who had a strong will ever since he was Koba, is ridiculous.

Yeah. Nicholas II (I believe you actually mean II, right?) was weak and good by definition, and Stalin was strong and evil by definition. The environment of one was manipulating the ruler by definition, and the environment of the other was manipulated by the ruler by definition again. Way to go, my friend. Any other stereotypes you want to share?

Now, about Stalin. Do you really think that if Stalin hadn't known

Do you even read what I write? I have A-D-M-I-T-T-E-D T-W-O T-I-M-E-S that Stalin probably knew about the numbers. Did he know that the NKVD was abusing the power? How could he know? Do you imagine they told him "yes comrade Stalin, we understand that we've killed too many and we must say that we've killed many without any reason". You say that Stalin was Evil and Dreadful, yet you find it natural that those subordinate to this Evil would admit that they'd made terrible errors. In reality, I think they would say "Yes, we had executed a few, but they were the enemy of the state, which they admitted, please have a look at these papers. The respected comrades of our troikas had scrutinized these papers and found them guilty and they were dealt with in full accordance with the law." Do you even realize that Stalin could (and did!) have business more important than supervising the NKVD all the time? Like I said, you do not seem to know anything about how hierarchies work.

You find such people everywhere; taking matters to the superiors of their superiors just to benefit from it themselves. This never happened. Why? Because it was all ordered and/or condoned by Stalin.

How touching. Assume there was somebody who had the guts (mind you, in front of the Evil and Dreadful one) to advocate the alleged enemy. You can even imagine that you're Stalin yourself. What would you do? If you're sensible man, you'll want to make sure that what is said is true. How? You can delegate the task or you can do it yourself. Let's say you want to make _real_ sure about that. Then you'll do it yourself. So, you go out of your office, get into your car, and, surrounded by escort, arrive at a jail. And you find a Potemkin village there. You don't think that the NKVD types will not try to conceal that they're spending their time fabricating cases, instead of Fighting the Real Enemy of the State, or do you? But even if you find that a particular case is fabricated, does that mean that all are fabricated? Are you going to check them all yourself? So you _have_ to delegate the task. Guess what's gonna happen next. An excercise in "organizational thinking".

You claim he didn't have the power to stop it. That's just a joke. He did have the power to stop Hitler, but not some sadists of the NKVD?

He did much to stop Hitler. He industrialized the country, and gave the country a chance to fight on equal terms with Germany. But the war was won by the country, not by him individually.

Or think about it that way: the "sadists of the NKVD" were internal enemy, essentially criminals. A country that can win over a very powerful external enemy will not automatically win over the crime. Take the USA, for example. They have won many wars, but they cannot win over the crime and corruption inside. But of course "the USA is nice and good by definition, they are weak and cannot fight the crime by definition, Stalin and the USSR are bad by definition, and they are strong and evil and can do whatever they want by definition". Yeah, I know.

And please, you said you didn't want to call Jasper a clown, now you call me a kid.

The attitude that you are demonstrating is indeed not very mature. You ignore the fact that the USSR had one of the biggest bureaucracies in the world, and you attribute all the power to one man. Calling him a dictator does not help, tsars could be called such dictators as well, but "they were weak and Stalin was strong". I know, you needn't repeat.

Is it really that hard to defend your Glorious Leader without name calling? Just pathetic.

So far I've called only one name. Your irony misses the target here, Stalin was not my leader.

So, I can see you're not going to consult the sources you've been given? I can see you're going to repeat "the famine, the 110 million killed" ad nauseum. It's clear like hell you're going to call these sources "communist propaganda" without reading them. Не читал, но не одобряю. I hope you're aware of the origin of this phrase.

BM, you call my sources propaganda by brain washed historians. What gives you the right to tell me your sources are the God given Truth? For every book you give me that says Stalin wasn't a mass murder, I can give you ten well documented books that claim the opposite.

110 million? Did I ever say that? You must be getting senile... I may act like a kid, but you act like an old man who thinks it all used to be better (most of the time due to selective memory). Trashing the intelligentsia for being critical. A little more room for critisizm in Russia's long history might have helped. Also, you forget that Pushkin, Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, the Cadets also belonged to the intelligentsia. For a people that label the thinking, critical part of the nation "whiners", the future looks bleak indeed.

And I didn't claim all Tsars were weak. YOU compared Stalin to Nicholas II, not I. Nicky was weak, not his father, for example. Nor was Stalin.

And in the huge Soviet bureaucracy do you really think Stalin couldn't have found one man he trusted he could make a personal representative to check the facts? Why do you say Stalin industrialized the USSR? That wasn't Stalin, that was the huge Soviet bureaucracy... The bad things were done by others, the good things were done under direct guidance from Stalin, is that it? Like Zeus said, it's just the same old story of the Good Tsar and the Bad boyars.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

@Scorpio

In other words, people starved for their own benefit?

"Yes, poor Ukrainians, now you all are dying of hunger, because we are exporting food, but don't worry, in two years you will all have brand new tractors! Aren't you happy? And you thank it all to our Glorious Leader, tovarish Stalin!"

Yozh, are you sarcastic? Why?
Yes, they were starving for their own (and future generations) benefit. Please, give me an example of any famine in Ukraine, happened between 1945 and 1991. You can't? Aren't their absence somewhat beneficial?

There's the difference between the Stalin's times and present days: I have no idea, for whose benefits people in Ukraine (and in Russia, and other former Soviet republics...) are starving now. Corrupt local authorities? Corrupt western-beloved nation-wide politicians? Corrupt world economy "elite"?
But not for their own benefit, I'm 100% sure.

Than the Jews must be really thanking Hitler right now. Hadn't they been dying in large numbers during WWII, Israel wouldn't have existed....

Look, people who think everything is justified in the name of the Greater Good scare me to death. They are always ready to take innocent lives in their quest for a future Utopia.

Collectivization and before that the mir stood in the way of progress. It wasn't necessary to kill hundreds of thousands (I can feel a fight on numbers coming here...). No collectivization = higher food production. Look at the West or Eastern Europe (more on the same technological level as Russia at that time). Stalin screwed everything up with collectivization (killing numerous so-called "kulaks" in the process) and later "saved" the people by mechanizing the country side. Yeah, right...

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

BM, you call my sources propaganda

Stop spreading the lies. I've never called your sources propaganda. Until now, I have used the word propaganda two times. I'm quoting myself:

1. What Stalinist propaganda have you read to date? I'm afraid you've mostly read anti-Stalinist propaganda, which has a way greater volume, and is by and large the only kind of literature about USSR/Stalin available in the so-called West. [Notice that it is not an affirmative statement but an inquiry. And it was after you called something propaganda.]

2. It's clear like hell you're going to call these sources "communist propaganda" without reading them.

That's it. Would you care to quote me saying _your_ sources _were_ propaganda? BTW, even if I wanted I could not do that, you've never mentioned your sources. What are you sources, eh?

And it is _you_ who calls whatever I write propaganda every second time. Go and check this thread. Or do you want me to quote you on that?

Ditto for "brainwashing". I only used that term once, not at you, but at a clown whose brain was washed to void emptiness.

Summarizing, you have ascribed me what I have never done. Not once, but a few times. Now I think you firmly believe that I use the words "propaganda" and "brainwashing" at anybody and all the time. This is precisely what you and the likes of you have done to Stalin. You have ascribed him a lot of nonsense, then have repeated that a gazillion times, and have convinced one another that he did that. Thank you for demonstrating that process in its entirety. Stalin is bad by definition and 2000000 lemmings cannot be wrong.

For every book you give me that says Stalin wasn't a mass murder, I can give you ten well documented books that claim the opposite.

You have said that a million times now. Go f****** ahead and give me your sources, preferably with direct quotes. Will you?

110 million? Did I ever say that?

Go ahead and say, after all, _what_ number of deaths he caused. So far you have carefully avoided saying an exact number that suits your beliefs. Just don't give me the crap like "1, 5, 10, 20, etc millions, I don't care, he is a mass murderer anyway". 110 millions came from an article by Solzhenitsyn, who I guess you'd love to agree with. The more the merrier, isn't it? Stalin was a filthy murderous swine who killed all of them just for the pleasure of it, right? I wonder what prevented him from killing everybody, would you elaborate? Was it that he wanted to save a few of them so they could kill the entire human race on planet Earth?

A little more room for critisizm in Russia's long history might have helped.

Helped what? The cretins helped the Bolsheviks to get a hold of the country. Would you like them to provide more assistance of the kind?

Also, you forget that Pushkin, Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, the Cadets

You really need a refresher on the Russian history. Pushkin and Tolstoy were noble, that means they could never be intelligentsia. Dostoyevsky was an "intelligent", that's right, so what? The Cadets were a party, they could be anything; besides, what's so special about that particular party of losers?

Nicky was weak, not his father, for example. Nor was Stalin.

By definition again? Just because that axiom makes your theory self-consistent?

And in the huge Soviet bureaucracy do you really think Stalin couldn't have found one man he trusted he could make a personal representative to check the facts?

And that man would be known to nobody in the NKVD, right? Then he would be executed on spot as a spy. If he and his function are known, then every stupid jerk in the NKVD will understand that this guy is as important as Stalin himself. You can reapply my original argument from here.

Why do you say Stalin industrialized the USSR? That wasn't Stalin, that was the huge Soviet bureaucracy... The bad things were done by others, the good things were done under direct guidance from Stalin, is that it?

You may know a few facts about the Russian history, and you are full of misconceptions about it, but you have absolutely no idea about organizations and economy.

Stalin initiated the industrialization. Any doubts about it? Then he could monitor and control its progress by looking at the economic metrics. They cannot be faked. So he initiated and he could monitor and control. He had full control, so he receives the full credit. Simple enough?

Can that be said about the purges? The 1.4 million men killed during 32 years were not noticeable given the timespan and the total population. Russia is losing _more_ than that every year now, and few seem to be concerned about it. (But Stalin is bad by definition, and even though the total population grew up despite the wars and the famine, it must be a figment of our imagination. Stalin is bad by definition. The current Russian government, bad though it is because it’s Russian, by definition, is still better than Stalin because they are killing more people than he did but they do it nicely and without exchanging their deaths for a better life for the rest of the population.)

Like Zeus said, it's just the same old story of the Good Tsar and the Bad boyars.

And because the story is about Russia, it cannot be true. By definition, of course.

Originally Posted by bad manners

That has to be proved yet. Whatever Никита Сергеевич said is not necessarily true. They executed Beria for a ridiculous charge (working for a number of foreign intelligence services). The trial was not held openly, and the materials look very much like fake.

This makes me laugh. Does it matter? The most notorious criminals are always charged for ridiculous offences. Al Capone has been caught for tax evasion, you know

never ever worked even in a medium size organization (long enough)

And on this argument. It's still irrelevant if a high-level manager doesn't know something on lower level. Any failure of his subordinates is his fault anyway. That's why high officers are often resigned because of their inferior's faults. In a word, Stalin can be blamed just for creating (or maintaining, doesn't matter) the system where he didn't know (if that is the argument) vital facts. Nicolas II too, his fall is largely his fault. And don't even say Stalin was technically not in the government.

Originally Posted by bad manners

The world would have been different right enough. I've mentioned the most likely picture.

I'm not sure it's the most likely one. Too simple.

Historically the intelligentsia has played a horrible role in the history of Russia, it brought the Bolsheviks in 1917 and it brought the humiliation in 1985-1992 and ever since. There might be nice people there, they are everywhere, but on the grand scale it looks disgusting.

I don't agree with the concept itself, that intelligentsia (or whoever) as a whole played some role.

The second thing is that, even if so, it's not correct to blame someone in all sins. "We have the government we deserve" is not just empty words. No group, including bolsheviks, can be isolated from the society it is in. If we have 'intelligentsia', then there are historical and cultural reasons for that. It is part of us. Part of you.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

they were starving for their own (and future generations) benefit

Угу. "К светлому будущему, в колонну по два, вперед шагом марш!" Знаем...

Originally Posted by Zeus

Originally Posted by bad manners

That has to be proved yet. Whatever Никита Сергеевич said is not necessarily true. They executed Beria for a ridiculous charge (working for a number of foreign intelligence services). The trial was not held openly, and the materials look very much like fake.

This makes me laugh. Does it matter? The most notorious criminals are always charged for ridiculous offences. Al Capone has been caught for tax evasion, you know

He was caught and charged and found guilty openly. He had a fair trial. Beria was executed, the charge looks like shit, the evidence is a joke. Then some years after they said, "well, you know, he did not really work for foreign intelligence, he was a mass murderer instead. TRUST US on that!". Does that not look strange to you?

[quote:ggpc4qft]never ever worked even in a medium size organization (long enough)

And on this argument. It's still irrelevant if a high-level manager doesn't know something on lower level. Any failure of his subordinates is his fault anyway. That's why high officers are often resigned because of their inferior's faults. In a word, Stalin can be blamed just for creating (or maintaining, doesn't matter) the system where he didn't know (if that is the argument) vital facts. Nicolas II too, his fall is largely his fault. And don't even say Stalin was technically not in the government.[/quote:ggpc4qft]

That's a good argument. Remember, however, that same system existed for ages before him and continues now. Don't say that the Bolsheviks re-created the system. They did, but even before Stalin. He inherited it anyway. And it is remarkable how the system is resistant too all the changes that has happened in Russia.

The argument was not that he did not know, the argument was that 1) it was almost impossible to verify, 2) the scale was not as large as some believe (e.g., there are more held in the Russian penitentiary system now than it was back than; more in the US prisons now than it was in the GULAG), so it might not be as alarming, 3) the general opinion in the USSR was "we're surrounded by enemies" -- which was true -- so finding a big number of spies and saboteurs might seem natural.

Anyway, even if Stalin was guilty in that, that's a totally different can of worms.

Originally Posted by Zeus

Originally Posted by bad manners

The world would have been different right enough. I've mentioned the most likely picture.

I'm not sure it's the most likely one. Too simple.

You can agree or disagree, but the twenty millions of Slavs and Jews killed in Poland, Ukraine and Byelorussia did not have that option. Факты упрямая вещь.

I don't agree with the concept itself, that intelligentsia (or whoever) as a whole played some role.

Fine. If it did not play any role, then what's the fuss about it?

[quote=bad manners]

Originally Posted by Zeus

Originally Posted by "bad manners":l1ry063e

The world would have been different right enough. I've mentioned the most likely picture.

I'm not sure it's the most likely one. Too simple.

You can agree or disagree, but the twenty millions of Slavs and Jews killed in Poland, Ukraine and Byelorussia did not have that option. Факты упрямая вещь.[/quote:l1ry063e]

I don't know how you can be so sure that without Stalin things would've been vastly different (regarding Hitler, that is). Trotsky (I am not in favor of either one, so do not argue against this post as being a pro-Trotsky one, I am simply giving an example) was a much wiser militarist than Stalin not to mention a Ukrainian Jew, so it is doubtful he would've cooperated with Germany at any time during Hitler's rise in power. How can we be so sure? Well, let us compare Stalin's "wait-and-see" attitude with the beliefs held by Trotsky in the years leading up to Hitler's seizure of Germany. We will examine first his opinion of Hitler and second whether or not his control of the USSR would've led to being unprepared for any kind of military defense against the Nazis.

From "For A Workers' United Front Against Fascism" (1931):

Hitler emphasizes that he is against a coup d'etat. In order to strangle democracy once and for all, he wants to come to power by no other route than the democratic road. Can we seriously believe this?

It is quite possible that Hitler's courtesies to democratic parliamentarism may, moreover, help to set up some sort of coalition in the immediate future in which the fascists will obtain the most important posts and employ them in turn for their coup d'etat For it is entirely clear that the coalition, let us assume, between the Center and the fascists will not be a stage in the democratic solution of the question, but a step closer to the coup d'etat under conditions most favorable to the fascists.

Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!

In "Hitler and the Red Army" he warned:

One cannot sow grain and plant cabbages with his back turned to the West, from which, for the first time since 1918, comes the greatest threat, which can be a mortal danger if it is not paralyzed in time.

So it is clear that Trotsky (and probably many others in the Comintern who were too cowardly to say something to Stalin) recognized Hitler as a serious threat, even if Stalin did not. As to whether or not Trotsky would've been able to establish a powerful-enough economy it is hard to say because he was not a nationalist and almost certainly would've focused all of his efforts on toppling the capitalist economies of the rest of Europe--starting with Germany--rather than spend two decades trying to industrialize Russia. It is also impossible to know how strong the USSR's economy would be during this time, but it is fair to say that if Trotsky had stuck to the pseudosocialism of the NEP it certainly would've been stronger than Stalin's USSR of the same time period (though it would be much weaker than the post-WW2 USSR if we assume no other countries were overthrown by the Communists under Trotsky).

The solution Trotsky outlined (in "Germany and the USSR") in the early 30s for eliminating Hitler before he became a serious threat was not as reliant on sheer numbers and industrialization, though, as it was merely to position Red Army troops along the border of Germany and induce the German Communists (and Social Democrats if they were willing) into starting an uprising. He assumed Hitler would've known what was going on and declared the USSR responsible for encouraging it, and this would have given the Red Army an excuse to attack the border as a matter of "self-defense."

Your claim that anybody but Stalin would've been unable to match the threat of the Nazis in World War 2 rests solely on the belief that anyone else would've been stupid enough to repeat Stalin's mistakes prior to the declaration of war.

Originally Posted by mike

As to whether or not Trotsky would've been able to establish a powerful-enough economy it is hard to say because he was not a nationalist and almost certainly would've focused all of his efforts on toppling the capitalist economies of the rest of Europe--starting with Germany--rather than spend two decades trying to industrialize Russia.

That means he would not have been able to establish a powerful economy. As far as I can see, he did not care much about that.

As for his being more military-wise, that does not stand any critique. He failed miserably in Poland, against her laughably weak army. The Germans would have eaten him for breakfast. I suspect that the executions of the military commanders established by Trotsky (Тухачевский et al) were well justified.

It is also impossible to know how strong the USSR's economy would be during this time, but it is fair to say that if Trotsky had stuck to the pseudosocialism of the NEP it certainly would've been stronger than Stalin's USSR of the same time period

And why is that?

Besides, if Trotsky had remained, he would have done something stupid like attacking Germany, just like you say, and that would have been the end of it all.

The solution Trotsky outlined (in "Germany and the USSR") in the early 30s for eliminating Hitler before he became a serious threat was not as reliant on sheer numbers and industrialization, though, as it was merely to position Red Army troops along the border of Germany and induce the German Communists (and Social Democrats if they were willing) into starting an uprising. He assumed Hitler would've known what was going on and declared the USSR responsible for encouraging it, and this would have given the Red Army an excuse to attack the border as a matter of "self-defense."

In the unlikely event that the Red Army had been successful, the great powers would surely have offered support to Hitler. That's quite obvious.

Your claim that anybody but Stalin would've been unable to match the threat of the Nazis in World War 2 rests solely on the belief that anyone else would've been stupid enough to repeat Stalin's mistakes prior to the declaration of war.

I do not see any power that could have stopped Hitler. Nobody actually did. I do not think that if Stalin had not been there, anybody would. If Trotsky had been there instead, then the European countries would have been even more pleased by having a stronger Germany to shield them from him. That leaves only the USSR itself, but it would have been a failure, with or without Stalin. The only way out was to have a strong economy, strong industry, intensive agriculture, and eventually a strong army. Not having them was what brought Russia on her knees in WWI. Stalin or not, that had to be done. I doubt it could be done by NEP alone.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by mike

As to whether or not Trotsky would've been able to establish a powerful-enough economy it is hard to say because he was not a nationalist and almost certainly would've focused all of his efforts on toppling the capitalist economies of the rest of Europe--starting with Germany--rather than spend two decades trying to industrialize Russia.

That means he would not have been able to establish a powerful economy. As far as I can see, he did not care much about that.

Firstly, the economy of Russia in the 1920s and 30s was not powerful anyway. The industrial production output goals of Stalin's five-year plans, while an amazingly leap from the days of Lenin, were rarely if ever achieved. The output that was reaped was of such low quality as to make it a practically unexportable commodity. A Stalin-led economy and one that followed the NEP are impossible to compare because it is impossible to know how the largely agrarian Bolshevik nation would've flourished or perished had it existed for another five or six years. Remember that it was not an industrialized Russia who defeated Napoleon, the 19th century's "unstoppable dictator" who everyone believed would take over the world. Too many people underestimate the ability of a people to defend their homes without being forced at gunpoint to do so.

Second, I was under the impression that the alleged purpose of state socialism is not to create a "powerful economy" but a self-sufficient one.

As for his being more military-wise, that does not stand any critique. He failed miserably in Poland, against her laughably weak army. The Germans would have eaten him for breakfast. I suspect that the executions of the military commanders established by Trotsky (Тухачевский et al) were well justified.

If we are to believe his autobiography, then Trotsky was opposed to the war in Poland from the beginning and believed only a diplomatic solution was possible. It was Lenin who decreed that it be attacked, and assuming that once the Red Army made a few minor victories the peasants of the Polish nation would rise up and conquer the country themselves. They were thus vastly unprepared for the seige of Warsaw with no shortage of the blame resting solely on Lenin's lack of foresight.

Which one of the two was responsible for unifying a national army of 5 million soldiers in roughly 12 months' time? Stalin or Trotsky? And the military commanders you speak of were, although from Tsarist times and thus of questionable loyalty to the Communist Party, absolutely necessary to win the Civil War. Their military experience was drastically needed to defeat the Whites, Polish, Allies, etc. I agree that perhaps they were no longer needed once this war was over, but I have a hard time believing anybody's execution is well justified. This is more of an ideological difference between you and I so there is no point in focusing on it. It will only lead to an off-topic argument that never ends.

By the way, if we are to talk about humilitiating and embarrassing defeats against much weaker and pathetic militaries perhaps we should discuss Stalin's Winter War where, even with the enjoyment of a working industry and modernized army, the Reds were picked off like sitting ducks by a bunch of snipers and biathletes as they stupidly trudged across open terrain and marched into ambushes one after another. In most cases with Russia's own weapons, from the captured arsenals in Helsinki. What were the casualty ratios again? 35:1 or something? Brilliant strategist indeed!

[quote:bf9e45l3]It is also impossible to know how strong the USSR's economy would be during this time, but it is fair to say that if Trotsky had stuck to the pseudosocialism of the NEP it certainly would've been stronger than Stalin's USSR of the same time period

And why is that?[/quote:bf9e45l3]

Because during the early years of Stalin's economic plan the country was actually weaker than it was in the early 1920s. No one is denying the USSR came out of World War 2 a global superpower. But I hope you also have the good sense not to deny that at the time period that our argument rests upon, the years leading to Hitler's seizure of Germany, Stalin's Russia was no stronger than it would have been had it been left under one of Lenin's proselytes.

Besides, if Trotsky had remained, he would have done something stupid like attacking Germany, just like you say, and that would have been the end of it all.

It all depends on many factors, most of which we can only guess and create estimates of rather than argue for sure. Germany after WW1 was nothing. It wouldn't have been much of a battle for the Red Army had it staged an offensive war against the depression-ruined Weimar republic. It wasn't until the mid-30s that it began a serious rearmament policy. Trotsky wanted to attack much earlier than this (at least 1930). If you want to say that had Trotsky been placed in command in the late 1930s on the same path that Stalin had followed then yes, he probably would have lost most of the battles on the Eastern front due to his dependence on foreign heavy industry. But I think under Trotsky most likely Germany would've become a member of the Soviet Union by 1935 at the latest. As for whether or not this would've led to a major conflict with the West, I don't know. They were deep in the Great Depression by then so it is doubtful they would go against it. Remember that they did not bother to confront Hitler until he had already begun invading them. Anyway, this is getting too deep into hypothetical fantasy possibilities and is detracting from any tangible discussion so I will not think about it any further.

[quote:bf9e45l3]
The solution Trotsky outlined (in "Germany and the USSR") in the early 30s for eliminating Hitler before he became a serious threat was not as reliant on sheer numbers and industrialization, though, as it was merely to position Red Army troops along the border of Germany and induce the German Communists (and Social Democrats if they were willing) into starting an uprising. He assumed Hitler would've known what was going on and declared the USSR responsible for encouraging it, and this would have given the Red Army an excuse to attack the border as a matter of "self-defense."

In the unlikely event that the Red Army had been successful, the great powers would surely have offered support to Hitler. That's quite obvious.[/quote:bf9e45l3]

Based on what? And it is not so unlikely to believe, but you are thinking from the wrong angle. The Red Army was meant only to be an offensive support to a catalyzed revolt. Until the 1930s almost half of German voters identified themselves as socialists and communist sympathizers so it is unlikely that any of them would oppose it. Just because the SDP were apologists for the ruling class in the failed revolution in World War 1 does not mean the German masses would be fooled a second time by Social Democrats telling them to give up their arms and seek a mediation with the Chancellor the same way they did with the Kaiser. Their reformist credibility had been shot. I believe this is one reason why their favor declined dramatically in the late 1920s. As for the great powers, what support could they offer in 1930 that would not be met by massive opposition from a public at home who were 20% unemployed, starving, and were suddenly told to go fight against a popular leftist uprising in the burgeoning East?

[quote:bf9e45l3]Your claim that anybody but Stalin would've been unable to match the threat of the Nazis in World War 2 rests solely on the belief that anyone else would've been stupid enough to repeat Stalin's mistakes prior to the declaration of war.

I do not see any power that could have stopped Hitler. Nobody actually did. I do not think that if Stalin had not been there, anybody would. If Trotsky had been there instead, then the European countries would have been even more pleased by having a stronger Germany to shield them from him. That leaves only the USSR itself, but it would have been a failure, with or without Stalin. The only way out was to have a strong economy, strong industry, intensive agriculture, and eventually a strong army. Not having them was what brought Russia on her knees in WWI. Stalin or not, that had to be done. I doubt it could be done by NEP alone.[/quote:bf9e45l3]

But again your argument that no one could have stopped Hitler relies on the belief that whoever was in charge would do the same things as Stalin in regards to foreign policy. Trotsky and the other paleo-Leninists fully supported unifying the Social Democrats (about half of Germany) with the Communist Party against the fascists. Stalin did not. Trotsky et al supported attempting to ignite revolutions in other countries using the Red Army as a mobile means of supporting these revolutions (something that Lenin also encouraged). Until the anarchists and republicans in Spain asked for help fighting Franco in return for giving up control over their country in the late 30s, Stalin did not support this view either. His isolationist policies might have helped Russia defend itself against Germany in World War 2, but whether or not the whole thing could've been avoided by stroking the German proletariat before Hitler abolished the government is the point I am driving at.

Originally Posted by mike

By the way, if we are to talk about humilitiating and embarrassing defeats against much weaker and pathetic militaries perhaps we should discuss Stalin's Winter War where, even with the enjoyment of a working industry and modernized army, the Reds were picked off like sitting ducks by a bunch of snipers and biathletes as they stupidly trudged across open terrain and marched into ambushes one after another. In most cases with Russia's own weapons, from the captured arsenals in Helsinki. What were the casualty ratios again? 35:1 or something? Brilliant strategist indeed!

I'll address the rest of your message later.

This 35:1 is BS. I'll fetch Liddel Hart's WWII and quote what he thinks on the Winter War later on. For the time being, please be aware that the total casualties of the Red Army were ~120 thousand. The Finnish casualties, according to the Finns, were ~50 thousand (and I bet they were higher). That's less than 3:1. Given the character of the environment (winter, hardly passable terrain, bad transport infrastructure on the Soviet side) and the nature of the fortifications the Soviets had to deal with, that is not bad at all.

Let's do some calculations. The Soviets could not have put more than 2 million troops there. The Finns could have easily put 100 thousand. Assume that the Soviets had been wiped out completely; the alleged 35:1 ratio means the Finns would have suffered 57 thousands casualties. They would still have had almost half their army! And they could have easily mobilized 50 thousands more to kill two more millions of the Soviets! So why did they surrender then?

Talking about the 35:1 ratio is just the typical, no, archetypical kind of BS one so often finds in "democratic" accounts on the Russian history. Similar to 10, 20, 110 millions killed by the NKVD and evil Stalin.

The only real problem the Soviets had at that war was the lack of good transportation; they had only one narrow-gauge railway, which did not even go close to Finland, and they could not switch and mass troops as easily as the Finns did, who enjoyed a developed railway network that ran in multiple layers along the frontier.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by mike

By the way, if we are to talk about humilitiating and embarrassing defeats against much weaker and pathetic militaries perhaps we should discuss Stalin's Winter War where, even with the enjoyment of a working industry and modernized army, the Reds were picked off like sitting ducks by a bunch of snipers and biathletes as they stupidly trudged across open terrain and marched into ambushes one after another. In most cases with Russia's own weapons, from the captured arsenals in Helsinki. What were the casualty ratios again? 35:1 or something? Brilliant strategist indeed!

I'll address the rest of your message later.

This 35:1 is BS. I'll fetch Liddel Hart's WWII and quote what he thinks on the Winter War later on. For the time being, please be aware that the total casualties of the Red Army were ~120 thousand. The Finnish casualties, according to the Finns, were ~50 thousand (and I bet they were higher). That's less than 3:1. Given the character of the environment (winter, hardly passable terrain, bad transport infrastructure on the Soviet side) and the nature of the fortifications the Soviets had to deal with, that is not bad at all.

You tell people they have to back up their claims with evidence or else such claims are worthless, yet you provide none yourself! Excellent work, really excellent. When you say "the total casualties of the Red army were ~120 thousand" what are you basing that on that you know with such certainty? You have to give some sort of a citation if you are going to make such a specific claim. As far as I know most historical estimates range from 200,000 at the lowest to 600,000 at the highest for Soviet casualties. Actually, Kruschev estimated it at 1m, but of course, nothing he said was true so I will not bother mentioning him. And you question the legitimacy of the Finnish numbers but not the official Soviet ones? Which country would have more to gain by fabricating its casualty lists? The outnumbered victim or the humiliated aggressor with a less than perfect record of honesty? I'm sorry, not to be prejucided or anything, but I would not even ask the Soviet government to look at its watch and tell me what time it was. Forget about accurate numbers of its losses in a war.

Let's do some calculations. The Soviets could not have put more than 2 million troops there. The Finns could have easily put 100 thousand. Assume that the Soviets had been wiped out completely; the alleged 35:1 ratio means the Finns would have suffered 57 thousands casualties. They would still have had almost half their army! And they could have easily mobilized 50 thousands more to kill two more millions of the Soviets! So why did they surrender then?

Talking about the 35:1 ratio is just the typical, no, archetypical kind of BS one so often finds in "democratic" accounts on the Russian history. Similar to 10, 20, 110 millions killed by the NKVD and evil Stalin.

I don't think you will find this ratio in any accounts on Russian history. It was merely an exaggeration of the staggering differences to illustrate a point about the sloppiness of Stalin's failure in Finland. I had no idea what the actual ratio was other than it being grossly disproportionate in favor of the Finns. And the reason they surrendered is because they were drastically outnumbered and running out of supplies. To call the Winter War a Soviet success is a pretty narrow and subjective conclusion of what happened in my opinion. If you think losing this many men and coming out of it with 10% of the land that you intended to conquer is a victory then do me a favor and don't ever become a military leader. That is psychotic. By the way, I don't deny the "20 million killed by Stalin" statistic is bullshit. This is often quoted from the "Black Book of Communism," the authors of which later admitted they added the number of people who died due to natural disasters (they actually include drownings and heat exhaustions from floods and droughts!) and wars to along with the genuine deaths. I am neither a supporter of capitalism nor of authoritarian leftism, and I understand that both sides have something to gain by "fudging" the facts of each other's crimes. But we will not go into what that something is.

The only real problem the Soviets had at that war was the lack of good transportation; they had only one narrow-gauge railway, which did not even go close to Finland, and they could not switch and mass troops as easily as the Finns did, who enjoyed a developed railway network that ran in multiple layers along the frontier.

Great. I really do not want to spend my time thinking of all the logistical reasons why Stalin lost his evil, imperialist war against Finland. But I think it shows he is not the tactical genius you seem to believe he was.

To Mike

I can suggest the Krivosheev's statistics book

On-line version is available here http://www.rus-sky.org/history/library/w/

About Russo-Finnish war and casualties:
http://www.rus-sky.org/history/library/w/w04.htm#008

AFAIK this book was translated to English and considered as serious source.

Hm, if I am reading this correctly (if I am not, forgive me) then the relevant data is this part:

Сводная таблица людских потерь советских войск в советско-финляндской войне 30.11.1939-13.03.1940 гг. (составлена по первоначальным донесениям)
Виды потерь Командиры Младшие командиры Бойцы Всего
Безвозвратные
Убито и умерло на этапах санэвакуации Количество 5027 9741 48010 65384 [ 442 ]
% к потерям 19,6
Пропало без вести Количество 830 2042 16024 19610 [ 443 ]
% к потерям 5,9
Попало в плен Количество - - - -
% к потерям
Небоевые потери Количество - - - -
% к потерям
Итого безвозвратных потерь Количество 5857 11783 64034 84994 [ 444 ]
% к потерям 25,5
% к численности личного состава Все потери 10,0
Среднемесячные 2,95
Санитарные
Ранено, контужено, обожжено Количество 11780 23675 145755 1 86584 [ 445 ]
% к потерям 56,0
Заболело Количество 335 635 5792 51892 [ 446 ]
% к потерям 15,6
Обморожено Количество 257 729 8315 9614 [ 447 ]
% к потерям 2,9
Итого санитарных потерь Количество 12372 25039 159862 248090 [ 448 ]
% к потерям 74,5
% к численности личного состава Все потери 29,2
Среднемесячные 8,6
Всего потерь Количество 18229 36822 223896 333084 [ 449 ]
% к потерям 100
% к численности личного состава Все потери 39,3
Среднемесячные 11,55

If this doesn't show up right you can search for it in the webpage to see the table better formatted. The significant part is that it says in all Russia lost 333,084 troops. Can we all agree on that as a number for the Soviets losses then? If we take the estimate bad manners gave for the Finns of 50,000 then this comes out to a ratio of 6.7:1 (rounded up from 6.661693). I actually saw a Finnish website earlier that gave a number of 69,000 for Finnish casualties. This comes out to a ratio of about 5:1. Either way it is much higher than the 300% that bm was estimating earlier.

Krivosheev wrote:

По финским источникам людские потери Финляндии в войне 1939-1940 гг. составили 48 243 чел. убитыми, 43 тыс. чел. ранеными [ 488 ]. По другим официальным источникам финская армия потеряла в этой войне 95 тыс. чел. убитыми и 45 тыс. чел. ранеными [ 489 ].

So at least Finns lost 48,243 KIA and 43,000 wounded.

Soviets lost 333,084 KIA, MIA and wounded.

Maximal figures of Soviets KIA is 126,875.
This figure we can compare with(minimal) Finnish - 48,243 KIA.

Originally Posted by mike

You tell people they have to back up their claims with evidence or else such claims are worthless, yet you provide none yourself! Excellent work, really excellent.

I told you I'd fetch the book and give you a quotation; I just do not have it at hand now. Thanks to N, you have the sources now.

120 KIA versus 50 KIA
330 total versus 100 total

It is a normal ratio of casualties when attacking a heavily fortified area. Why do you think anyone planning an offensive wants at least triple numerical superiority?

As far as I know most historical estimates range from 200,000 at the lowest to 600,000 at the highest for Soviet casualties.

That's why I like these "estimates" so much.

Actually, Kruschev estimated it at 1m, but of course, nothing he said was true so I will not bother mentioning him.

That would have been wise.

And you question the legitimacy of the Finnish numbers but not the official Soviet ones? Which country would have more to gain by fabricating its casualty lists? The outnumbered victim or the humiliated aggressor with a less than perfect record of honesty?

I question the legitimacy of the Finnish numbers. I'm not aware of any attempts by Finland to correct the outrageous lies about the performance of the adversaries and the casualties. As for the record of honesty, this whole discussion centers around the lies about the USSR, and there are a lot of them. Who has a perfect record of honesty, BTW?

I don't think you will find this ratio in any accounts on Russian history. It was merely an exaggeration of the staggering differences to illustrate a point about the sloppiness of Stalin's failure in Finland.

A failure. Nice. The country won the war, got more than it asked before the war, yet it is a failure. What kind of absurd is that?

To call the Winter War a Soviet success is a pretty narrow and subjective conclusion of what happened in my opinion.

It was a success. The USSR prevailed.

If you think losing this many men

The losses are entirely within the normal limits for military operations of that kind.

and coming out of it with 10% of the land that you intended to conquer

The USSR never wanted to get the whole of Finland. It wanted a small piece of it only. And it got more than what was asked before the war.

is a victory then do me a favor and don't ever become a military leader. That is psychotic.

Any war results in casualties. An offensive against a strongly fortified area results in greater casualties. So what? That's war for you. Stalin wanted to get that without waging a war, but the Finns were stubborn.

Great. I really do not want to spend my time thinking of all the logistical reasons why Stalin lost his evil, imperialist war against Finland. But I think it shows he is not the tactical genius you seem to believe he was.

Did I ever say he was a tactical genius? He had his generals and marshals for it. Strategically, the winter war was a success. As far as I know, it was the world's first large offensive on that (difficult) kind of terrain, in that kind of climate, and against that kind of fortifications. Even if a few mistakes were made in the beginning, that was because nobody had done it before. Not to mention that the experience derived from that war could be more important than the immediate results of the war.

But we were comparing with Trotsky. Poland was a real failure, both in political and military terms. It was what stopped the "world revolution" once and for all. And I'm afraid the losses were heavier, because the army was beat.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by mike

You tell people they have to back up their claims with evidence or else such claims are worthless, yet you provide none yourself! Excellent work, really excellent.

I told you I'd fetch the book and give you a quotation; I just do not have it at hand now. Thanks to N, you have the sources now.

Save your energy. I regret being the last one on the forum to recognize how pointless it is discussing Stalin with N and bad manners. It is my fault for not bothering to fully read the rest of the topic until now.

120 KIA versus 50 KIA
330 total versus 100 total

It is a normal ratio of casualties when attacking a heavily fortified area. Why do you think anyone planning an offensive wants at least triple numerical superiority?

For one thing, the legitimacy of these numbers is not out of the woods yet. The numbers for the Finnish casualties are attributed to "Finnish sources," yet the endnote refers vaguely to an article in a Soviet magazine from the 80s and another from the early 90s. There is no indication of what these sources were or when/how the numbers were obtained. I just don't understand the double standard you have here, bad manners. The Finns' numbers are skewed because they were the enemy, Kruschev's numbers are skewed because he hated Stalin, so apparently the only person in the world whose figures we can rely on are the pro-Soviet military leader Krivosheev--who, by the way, claims to have based his casual figures on "official Finnish numbers." One cannot really know what that means since: A) while he spends a paragraph explaining the origin of the Red Army statistics he attributes a whole two endnotes to two Russian magazines from 1989 and 1993 for his resources in obtaining the Finnish figures, B) I'm having a hard time finding any numbers similar to these that don't come from the book itself (in other words these mysterious "official Finnish statistics" are nowhere to be found), and C) to my knowledge the Finnish government has never stated that they know for sure the amount of casualties. So either Krivosheev has a really liberal definition for the word "official" (as in, maybe he just asked some guy from Finland once) or he has contact with somebody who for some reason knows these exact casualty numbers down to the ones' place for the Finnish losses yet refuses to reveal himself to the government of Finland. Again, it is just completely insane how you two will refuse to believe anything critical of the position you already have while naively accepting anything that supports such position as the God's truth (which is an ironic choice of words on my part since you remind me of a certain other group that acts like this).

[quote:20k9v3sx]As far as I know most historical estimates range from 200,000 at the lowest to 600,000 at the highest for Soviet casualties.

That's why I like these "estimates" so much.

Actually, Kruschev estimated it at 1m, but of course, nothing he said was true so I will not bother mentioning him.

That would have been wise.

And you question the legitimacy of the Finnish numbers but not the official Soviet ones? Which country would have more to gain by fabricating its casualty lists? The outnumbered victim or the humiliated aggressor with a less than perfect record of honesty?

I question the legitimacy of the Finnish numbers. I'm not aware of any attempts by Finland to correct the outrageous lies about the performance of the adversaries and the casualties. As for the record of honesty, this whole discussion centers around the lies about the USSR, and there are a lot of them. Who has a perfect record of honesty, BTW?[/quote:20k9v3sx]

The whole discussion did center around the lies about Stalin, but all of the people defending this point (you, N, Tupolev) have turned everyone off. All that is left is me because I got here late, and I couldn't care less about this topic. Stalin killed a million people, Stalin killed 200,000 people...Who cares? Arguing about what degree of being an stupid asshole Stalin was is like arguing over which animal is responsible for the mess that you stepped in. Either way you're still talking about a piece of shit. And which do you think is the reason nobody is talking? Because you are right and the vast majority of the world are wrong...or something else that I will be polite and not say?

[quote:20k9v3sx]
I don't think you will find this ratio in any accounts on Russian history. It was merely an exaggeration of the staggering differences to illustrate a point about the sloppiness of Stalin's failure in Finland.

A failure. Nice. The country won the war, got more than it asked before the war, yet it is a failure. What kind of absurd is that?[/quote:20k9v3sx]

You're right. It's not a failure. Any time 330,000 die needlessly for the sake of imperialism and paranoia it is a glorious victory for the misunderstood Дядя.

[quote:20k9v3sx]To call the Winter War a Soviet success is a pretty narrow and subjective conclusion of what happened in my opinion.

It was a success. The USSR prevailed.[/quote:20k9v3sx]

And that is indeed a rather narrow and subjective conclusion of what happened.

[quote:20k9v3sx]If you think losing this many men

The losses are entirely within the normal limits for military operations of that kind.[/quote:20k9v3sx]

No, they aren't. You're thinking of a conventional war, not global conquest. There was no strategic military value in controlling Karelia save that it gave Stalin an easy way to launch an offensive against the capital later. The Winter War was the equivalent of the US involvement in Korea or Vietnam, only they lost a lot more soldiers than the US did in a fraction of the time.

[quote:20k9v3sx]and coming out of it with 10% of the land that you intended to conquer

The USSR never wanted to get the whole of Finland. It wanted a small piece of it only. And it got more than what was asked before the war.[/quote:20k9v3sx]

Once again you are the most gullible person in the world. It "wanted" just a small piece of Lithuania too. What happened there? This is how Stalin annexed countries. It was standard practice for him. Maybe he learned it from Hitler with the Sudetenland, I don't know. You can't possibly be that naive though to believe Stalin was not planning to invade Finland. He spent most of the 1930s trying to bolster a Finnish revolution and subvert the government. When the USSR declared war on Finland part of the declaration even stated that the Red Army would march to Helsinki and seize its power. Had the Finns not given such a surprisingly strong resistance in one of the worst winters in history it is hard to believe this would not have come true.

[quote:20k9v3sx]is a victory then do me a favor and don't ever become a military leader. That is psychotic.

Any war results in casualties. An offensive against a strongly fortified area results in greater casualties. So what? That's war for you. Stalin wanted to get that without waging a war, but the Finns were stubborn.[/quote:20k9v3sx]

Aw, so Stalin was trying to do it the easy way! It was Finland's fault for not giving up their territory to him. This is so idiotic. You are apparently nothing but an empty-headed apologist for every crime ever committed by this man. How you can even come to the conclusion that a country is to blame for defending its interests against someone who wants to annex part of their land is beyond me. I tell you what: Let Washington make a nice offer to Moscow for a piece of Russia with half a million inhabitants living on it and we'll see if you defend our President for wanting to do things the peaceful way while your country was too stubborn to acquiesce. When we lose a great deal of soldiers but Russia is weak and gives in, you can write all you want in here defending our country to all the naysayers poisoned by propaganda from other "democratic nations" and use the unbiased, impartial resources by the neocon patriots like Wall Street Journal and Fox News.

[quote:20k9v3sx]Great. I really do not want to spend my time thinking of all the logistical reasons why Stalin lost his evil, imperialist war against Finland. But I think it shows he is not the tactical genius you seem to believe he was.

Did I ever say he was a tactical genius? He had his generals and marshals for it. Strategically, the winter war was a success. As far as I know, it was the world's first large offensive on that (difficult) kind of terrain, in that kind of climate, and against that kind of fortifications. Even if a few mistakes were made in the beginning, that was because nobody had done it before. Not to mention that the experience derived from that war could be more important than the immediate results of the war.[/quote:20k9v3sx]

Don't care.

But we were comparing with Trotsky. Poland was a real failure, both in political and military terms. It was what stopped the "world revolution" once and for all. And I'm afraid the losses were heavier, because the army was beat.

We were...but you never replied to my last argument pertaining to him. You began talking only about the Winter War. I am still waiting for this response. And the world revolution never existed to begin with. It was all in the Communist Party's imagination because the foreign representatives were too gutless to tell the Bolsheviks that the masses in the Western world were not going to come and save them from the blockades. Instead they would just say, "Yeah...any day now we are expecting the revolution here in France/England/US. The workers there have seen what can be accomplished and are becoming restless." With the exception of Germany it was total bullshit. So Trotsky stopped nothing that didn't already fail to exist, and it is no surprise the Red Army failed to secure Warsaw. Trotsky openly protested being sent there at all, considering the entire thing to be a disaster waiting to happen.

Originally Posted by bad manners

I told you I'd fetch the book and give you a quotation; I just do not have it at hand now.

I have it now. There are no numbers in it, though, but I will quote much of its account, because it shows with utmost clarity that the statements of “stupid Russians killed 35 to 1” and “its being a failure” are not even propaganda, they are science fiction about a parallel universe. Like many other statements on the USSR.

Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War
Originally published: NY, Putnam 1971. ISBN 0-306-80912-5.

Chapter 5 The Finnish War

Following the partition of Poland, Stalin was anxious to safeguard Russia’s Baltic flank against a future threat from his temporary colleague, Hitler. Accordingly, the Soviet Government lost no time in securing strategic control of Russia’s old-time buffer-territories in the Baltic. By October 10 it had concluded pacts with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania which enabled its forces to garrison key-points in those countries. On the 9th conversations began with Finland. On the 14th the Soviet Government formulated its demands. These were defined as having three main purposes.

First, to cover the sea approach to Leningrad […]. For this purpose the Finns were asked to cede the islands of Hogland, Seiskari, Lavanskari, Tytarskari, and Loivisto, in exchange for other territories; also to lease he port of Hangoe for thirty years so that the Russians might there establish a naval base with coastal artillery, capable, in conjunction with the naval base at Paldaski on the opposite coast, of blocking access to the Gulf of Finland.

Second, to provide better cover on the land approach to Leningrad by moving back the Finnish frontier in the Karelian Isthmus, to a line which would be out of heavy artillery range of Leningrad. The re-adjustments of the frontier would still leave intact the main defences on the Mannerheim Line.

Third, to adjust the frontier in the far north ‘in the Petsamo region, where the frontier was badly and artificially drawn’. It was a straight line running through the narrow isthmus of the Rybachi peninsula and cutting off the western end of that peninsula. This re-adjustment was apparently designed to safeguard the sea approach to Murmansk by preventing an enemy establishing himself on the Rybachi peninsula.

In exchange for these re-adjustments of territory the Soviet Union offered to cede to Finland the districts of Repola and Porajorpi – an exchange which, even according to the Finnish White Book, would have given Finland an additional 2,134 square miles in compensation for the cession to Russia of areas totalling 1,066 square miles.

An objective examination of these terms suggests that they were framed on a rational basis, to provide a greater security to Russian territory without serious detriment to the security of Finland. They would, clearly, have hindered the use of Finland as a jumping-off point for any German attack on Russia. But they would not have given Russia any appreciable advantage for an attack on Finland. Indeed, the territory which Russia offered to cede to Finland would have widened Finland’s uncomfortably narrow waistline.

[…] The Finns, however, refused this offer. […] On the 30th [of November] the Russian invasion began.

The original advance ended in a check that astonished the world. A direct push from Leningrad up the Karelian Isthmus came to a halt in the forward layers of the Mannerheim Line. An advance near Lake Ladoga did not make progress. At the other end of the front the Russians cut off the small part of Petsamo on the Arctic Ocean, as a mean of blocking the entry of help to Finland by that route.

[…]

Another effect of Finland’s early successes was that it reinforced the general tendency to underrate the Soviet military strength. This view was epitomised in Winston Churchill’s broadcast assertion of January 20, 1940, that Finland ‘had exposed, for the world to see, the military incapacity of the Red Army’. His misjudgement was to some extent shared by Hitler – with momentous consequences the following year.

More dispassionate examination of the campaign, however, provided better reasons for the ineffectiveness of the original advance. There was no sign of proper preparations to mount a powerful offensive, furnished with large stocks of munitions and equipment from Russia’s vast resources. There were clear signs that the Soviet authorities had been misled by their sources of information about the situation in Finland, and that, instead of reckoning on serious resistance, they imagined that they might have to do no more than back up a rising of the Finnish people against an unpopular Government. The country cramped an invader at every turn, being full of natural obstacles that narrowed the avenues of approach and helped the defence. Between Lake Ladoga and the Arctic Ocean the frontier appeared very wide on the map but in reality was a tangle of lakes and forests, ideal for laying traps as well as for stubborn resistance. Moreover, on the Soviet side of the frontier the rail communications consisted of the solitary line from Leningrad to Murmansk, which in its 800-mile stretch had only one branch leading to the Finnish frontier. This limitation was reflected in the fact that the ‘waistline’ thrusts which sounded so formidable in the highly coloured reports from Finland were made with only three divisions apiece, while four were employed in the outflanking manoeuvre north of Ladoga.

Much the best approach to Finland was through the Karelian Isthmus between Lake Ladoga and the Gulf of Finland, but this was blocked by the Mannerheim Line and the Finn’s six active divisions, which were concentrated there at the outset. The Russian thrusts farther north, though they fared badly, served the purpose of drawing part of the Finnish reserves thither while thorough preparations were being made, and fourteen divisions brought up, for a serious attack on the Mannerheim Line. This was launched on February 1, under the direction of General Meretskov. Its weight was concentrated on a ten-mile sector near Summa, which was pounded by tremendous artillery bombardment. As the fortifications were pulverised, tanks and sledge-carried infantry advanced to occupy the ground, while the Soviet air force broke up an attempted countermoves. After little more than a fortnight of this methodical process a breach was made through the whole depth of the Mannerheim Line. The attackers then wheeled outward […] Once a passage was forced and their communications menaced, eventual collapse was certain. […]

On March 6, 1940, the Finnish Government sent a delegation to negotiate peace. Beyond the earlier Soviet conditions, Finland was now asked to cede areas in the communes of Salla and Kunsamo, the whole of the Karelian Isthmus, including Viipari [now Viborg, Russia], and also the Finnish part of the Fisher Peninsula [Rybachi]. They were also asked to build a railroad from Kemijarvi to the frontier (which was not yet established) to link up to the Russian spur. On March 13 it was announced that the Soviet terms had been accepted.

In the radically changed circumstances, particularly after the disastrous collapse in the Summa sector of the Mannerheim Line on February 12, the new Soviet terms were remarkably moderate. […] In raising his requirements so little, Stalin too showed statesmanship, while evidently anxious to be quit of a commitment which had occupied more than a million [sic!] of Russia’s troops, as well as a high proportion of her tanks and aircraft, at a time when the crucial spring of 1940 was looming near.

Whereas conditions in Poland were more favourable to a Blitzkrieg offensive than anywhere else in Europe [sic!], Finland offered a most unsuitable theatre for such a performance, especially at the time of the year when the invasion was staged [now compare Trotsky’s failure in Poland with Stalin’s success in Finland].

[…]

In Finland, by contrast, the defender profited by having a much better system of internal communications, both rail and road, than the attacker possessed on his side of the frontier. […] The Russians would have to advance anything from 50 to 150 miles from the railway before crossing the frontier, and considerably father before they could threaten any point of strategic importance. That advance, moreover, had to be made through a country of lakes and forests, and over poor roads that were now deep in snow.

[…]

Moreover, beyond the strategic difficulties of assembling any large forces on the apparently exposed parts of the Finnish frontier and pushing them deep into the enemy’s country, lay the tactical difficulty of overcoming the resistance of defenders who knew the ground and were able to exploit its advantages. Lakes and forests tend to shepherd an invading force into narrow channels of advance where it can be swept by machine-gun fire; they offer innumerable opportunities for concealed flanking manoeuvres as well as for guerrilla harassing. To penetrate into such a country in face of a skilful foe is hazardous enough even in summer; it is much more difficult to attempt in the Arctic winter, when heavy columns are as clumsy as a man in clogs trying to grapple with an opponent in gym-shoes.