Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
I would have to review the history of the war in some detail to give an opinion on the point at which a rational man (Hitler not being one) would have realized that it was time to sit down and negotiate.
But as for Stalingrad and the general campaign in the Soviet Union: while what you write about Paulus, the inability to bring tanks into the battle, and desperation is all true, as is the "not a step back order," it behooves those of us interested in history's lessons not to forget another factor. Regardless of one's personal view of the Soviet Union, we should not underestimate how powerful a motivator it is to fight for an ideal. At that point, most Russians still believed in the October Revolution (even if only in the abstract, and despite the political terror wrought by Stalin and the failure of the leadership to provide most basic necessities for people) and considered that a Nazi victory would be the equivalent of returning the country to czarist-like rule. There are, according to historians (and not only apologists for Stalin), at least as many, if not quite a few more, stories of amazing determination and heroism on the part of the rag-tag fighters left in Stalingrad and elsewhere on the Eastern Front as there are of the "grim choices" you mention being played out.
I am curious, tslust: what compelled you to pose the initial question in particular (besides "all that talk about Hitler on the political landscape thread")?
|
I heard a memorable quote, "We [the Russians] were given the choice of two dictators, we chose the one who could speak Russian."
I remember speaking with a retired military man. He said "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics". That got me to thinking about Rommel's campaign in North Africa. Then I started looking at the European Theatre as a whole.