Joesph Stalin,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,did he win ww2 for the europeans in your opinion?

Answer 1

No.

Answer 2

As Sinterion and others mentioned, the Russians took the lions share in dealing with the German Army. Without the Red Army life becomes very difficult for the rest of the Allied powers.

That being said I believe that Joseph Stalin was responsible for the victory of the Red Army.

During the 1930's Stalin purged any threat (perceived, potential, or actual) to his power from Soviet society. This did two things relevant to this discussion. First it removed a large part of those capable of training and leading an army. This allowed the massive German advances early in the war. One should note that Germany had the same results in WWI - better technology and leadership created victory. Secondly, the purges left Stalin in complete control of the country. There was no one left who could mount a coup or say 'That's insane'. This allowed Stalin to rapidly industrialize the USSR. This industrialism gave the Red Army the material to push back once the Germans had exhausted their attack outside Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad. No one could complain or say no to relocating entire factories beyond the mountains. No one could point to the mounting casualties and say "Holy smoke we should save ourselves and surrender". As officers and men became veterans, and more material reached the front lines, the Red Army became an effective, if not efficient, killing machine.

And for the guy who said Stalin hid behind his 'cannon fodder', keep this in mind. For much of that first winter and resulting campaigns Stalin spent a good amount of time at the front lines. More than I feel can be expected from someone trying to lead a nation the size of the USSR. Stalin also lost one son who was captured by the Germans and died in a POW camp. I think he may have lost another, but don't quote me on that.

Answer 3

If by "win it for the Europeans" you mean that he sacrificed his people and fought for the cause of liberating Europe because of his benevolence, then no.

If you mean that the USSR was the primary force in ending the war in the European theatre, then yes.

It is true that Stalin is one of the monsters of history both before and after the war, and that he and Hitler were allies until the inevitable German betrayal (which could be seen coming well in advance, although Stalin refused to listen to any intelligence advising him of this). This doesn't negate the fact that, by a staggering degree, the most overwhelming portion of the military efforts in Europe on both sides took place on the Eastern front. It was there that the German army was ultimately broken, most notably at Kursk but also at the failed sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad, at the latter of which Paulus and the remnants of the Sixth Army surrendered.

Certainly, the other Allies played critical roles, and a German defeat might not have been possible without them (Stalin was desperate for the Americans and British to make continental landings in the west to open up a new front and divert German forces, and it's widely acknowledged that significant shipments of arms and goods were made to Russia through the convoys to Archangel and Murmansk). But it's as difficult to see how the Anglo-American forces could've prevailed without the huge contribution of the Soviets.

Bluntly put, they did the vast majority of the killing and ultimately were able to field huge numbers of soldiers to roll back the Germans. The battlefield statistics quoted in a post above should be most illuminating.

Answer 4

I might get a lot of critiscm for this but i think he did. He pushed the German borders right the way back to Berlin after the Battle for Stalingrad and this made Hitler and the other Nazi COs pull troops from the Western Front to the Eastern Front and so made it easier for the British and American forces to get through the German lines. the sheer ferocity of the Russian army was in numbers and they were able to smash Nazi morale and allow those Allied soldiers on the Western Front to get through. And he did after all reach Berlin before us. Therefore i do believe that he did help in winning the war but not all the credit should go to him as the American forces also did a lot.

NB. I'm not a Socialist sympathiser or indeed a Socialist nor a Communist etc.

Answer 5

No. Without large scale supply in the earliest years after the german attack they may well have lost most of European Russia and prolonged the war much more. Yet due to their massive sacrifice they ultimately ground down the Germans until they arrived in berlin. The Americans obviously contributed to victory in Europe through material and manpower once they decided that it was time to stop watching the war and take part yet theycould not have done anything without Britain who had provided the base for the invasion of Europe.

The role of the Poles and British Empire troops, sailors and airman should also not being forgotten as it was very important.

France failed to contribute significantly to the conquest of Europe although according to De Gaulle they were instrumental. Then the bigger the lie the more people believe it!

Answer 6

Welllll...The Germans invaded Russia and nearly captured Moscow. Stalin decided that they would never surrender, no matter what the cost. The result was Germany lost way more soldiers fighting the Russians than any other country, and was not able to stop both the Russians on the east and the Allies on the west. Stalin was such a bad man, I just can't say he did anything good. Lets just say the 26 million Russians who died in the war, won it for Europe.

Answer 7

Every ally played its part fighting the Axis powers- take away any one of the major allies, and the Axis would have taken longer to beat, might even have won.

Nazi Germany's big error was taking on a war on two fronts... well, probably the blame rests securely at the Feuhrer's feet, he thought he was invincible and bit off way more than he could chew... and he had so much power, his staff couldn't reign him in- a more sane warlord would probably have at least made sure the UK was conquered before heading East... and wouldn't have bother allying with the Japanese- what use were they to the Germans? They were the other side of the world, for goodness sake. Suppose Britain would have been able to pull round more troops from the far colonies to European theatre without having to contend with the Japanese, maybe... unless the Germans made a blitz attack, wehrmacht shipped en masse across the channel, supported by heavy bombers/fighter cover, then drive straight to London. UK must capitulate, and all the troops in India, Australia and Canada couldn't've helped. (Unless the cabinet/Churchill etc made it out and established a kind government in exile... but I think Winston would have gone down fighting to tell the truth) Anyway, instead of trying to take London, they just bombed it, broadcasted Lord HawHaw messages to incite surrender, and took on Russia in addition. So you can say that Russia was decisive in preventing a resolution on the Western Front in addition to everything else that was going on.

So, basically, it took all the allies together to win the war, but if it wasn't for that lunatic Hitler, the allies wouldn't have been together at all- attacked Russia, took on Commies in wintertime (doh)
-allied with Japanese, who attack US, who attack Germany (doh)

Pretty fatal behaviour.

Answer 8

Millions of people in the Soviet Union were taken prisoner and sent East during the war.
After the war, 6 million Eastern Europeans,who had escaped out of the USSR were hauled back to serve the Soviet Union. The lucky ones committed suicide. This was called operation keelhaul.
Compassion for Europe was not part of Stalin's motivation.

Answer 9

No.

Russia played a huge part in WWII. If it wasnt for Russia then western Europe would have faced the brunt of Hitlers forces and they may well have overwelmed the beleagured allies in the west, but Russia and Josef Stalin were not soley responsible for winning the war.

Britain and its continued resistance also played a major part in the war, holding out long enough for America to get their assess into gear, and long enough for the allies to rally and re organise themselves.

The US also played a major role, with the lend lease scheme and then with eventually joining in with the fighting.

My History tutor used to say "World War II was won with British time, Russian blood, and American money"

To attribute victory to one particular country or person is not fair to say as it ignores the sacrifces made by millions of people from many nations throughout the world. WWII was as it is named, a WORLD WAR, with involvement of millions of people from many different nations, all of whom spilt their blood in defence of freedom.

It would be a much fairer comment to say that the forces of many countries united in a common cause won the war for Europe AND the world.

Answer 10

No single country won the war.It was a joint effort by the Allies.
Don't let anybody tell you that one country won it.All the countries that took part,played a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany and the Japanese.They all made huge sacrifices,relative to their contribution.In that respect,Russia
made a bigger sacrifice than any other nation; in terms of loss
of life.But Joe Stalin,was way back from the front line,just like all the other leaders.He was safely tucked away behind rows and rows of 'cannon fodder'.They were the ones who won the war for Russia,not him.

Answer 11

The Russian Bear was awoken by the German threat. That gave the Allies time to plan and execute a Western front, hence the Germans were defeated and the Bear controlled most of Eastern Europe. The bear then went into hibernation, (cold war), but now i think the spring has come and now she awakes.