Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
21. I respectfully disagree
Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:01 AM
Feb 2013

Terrorism isn't what allowed Stalin and the Soviets to make a counter offensive against the Germans or how the siege of Stalingrad failed miserably for the Germans. The Germans treatment in the occupied east only made their(Soviet population) resolve stronger. But it was the combination of climate and weather patterns that they were not accustomed to, and the fact that Stalin didn't have to keep Siberian divisions near Manchuria (fearing Japan).

Stalin was a very fearful man, which is why he conducted so many purges of officers, why he didn't trust the United States (and allies), Germany or Japan frankly. Even post WWII he didn't trust the Allies. It is said that the USSR had the Soviet bloc nations as a means to threaten the West. Most historians are starting to agree that the Soviet bloc nations were actually a buffer zone, to thwart any thrust into the USSR itself. Stalin feared the allies would do what the Germans did with a surprise offensive.

It is true that many suffered terrible fates for dissertion in the Soviet army. But the counter offensive was mainly led by the well trained, highly motivated Siberian divisions. Not by the poorly trained red army that was thrust into action. Before the Siberian divisions entered into the fray the Soviets were losing.

Even the threat of being killed for dissertion was still not enough for the Soviets to stop the Nazi blitz deep into the USSR.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Terrorism is not warfare [View all] Harmony Blue Feb 2013 OP
What good does that definition change do? Recursion Feb 2013 #1
Terrorism isn't what won WWII for example Harmony Blue Feb 2013 #2
No, but it's why Ireland is 26/32nds free Recursion Feb 2013 #4
Real political change in Ireland happened Harmony Blue Feb 2013 #6
Yes, terrorism has so far only been effective when combined with politics Recursion Feb 2013 #7
It is not the combination though Harmony Blue Feb 2013 #9
I totally disagree. Neither the ANC nor Sinn Fein would have gotten anywhere without violence Recursion Feb 2013 #11
Not every man, woman and child in Japan was willing to die Art_from_Ark Feb 2013 #10
That's really not true at all. Terror was absolutely critical to the outcome of WWII RZM Feb 2013 #15
I respectfully disagree Harmony Blue Feb 2013 #21
Yes it was RZM Feb 2013 #22
Had Stalin not done the purge of the Soviet air force officers Harmony Blue Feb 2013 #24
Not really. The purge of the military was only part of the story RZM Feb 2013 #31
"hey were willing to die to protect their country down to every man, woman and child. " Bonobo Feb 2013 #19
It is not non sense or propaganda. Harmony Blue Feb 2013 #25
Compounding your lie by pretending that Lemay wasn't intentionally creating a firestorm? Bonobo Feb 2013 #26
They intentionally did know how to generate a firestorm Harmony Blue Feb 2013 #29
the sympathy towards the guerrillas or fear of (your "terrorism") are both tools of war NightWatcher Feb 2013 #3
After WWII using fear on population centers was deeply frowned upon Harmony Blue Feb 2013 #5
Rules for war??? (Geneva aside) NightWatcher Feb 2013 #14
The Chief Point Of Dispute Here, Sir: 'Terrorists' Are Combatants, But Criminal Combatants The Magistrate Feb 2013 #8
I say all warfare is terrorism. MrSlayer Feb 2013 #12
Labeling all warfare as terrorism is a common Harmony Blue Feb 2013 #17
Fair enough. MrSlayer Feb 2013 #20
Why are you pointing out the Greek word for terrorism? Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #13
Fair question Harmony Blue Feb 2013 #16
The S.O.P. for US foreign relations for at least the last century baldguy Feb 2013 #18
This nation was founded by terrorists. The movement toward independence was propelled by terrorists. Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #23
In the modern era we make a distinction Harmony Blue Feb 2013 #27
Nothing new. 18th century England made the same distinction and they weren't Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #32
Three words Fumesucker Feb 2013 #28
That can absolutely fall under the Harmony Blue Feb 2013 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Terrorism is not warfare»Reply #21