Revised casualty figures?

[KG_Soldier]

I would take that as a compliment since Stalin was a master at winning wars and doing the job properly.

That remark isn't meant to be in bad taste, but when you go to war, you go to war, not pussyfoot around. You have to, or else more people could die and suffer.

Well. . . the difference, as I see it, is that Stalin was fighting a war for survival. He had no choice but to win, no matter what the cost, or his nation would cease to exist, literally 10s or 100s of millions more of his citizens would have been killed had the Germans won. Whereas Lincoln's goal was to win the war as quickly as possible for mostly political reasons. After Gettysburg (and really even Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation), the South had no chance of getting the European intervention needed for them to have any chance of winning. It's my opinion that Lincoln's attrition strategy was based on politics and not necessity. And that makes him more of a butcher than Stalin, at least militarily.

[KG_Soldier]

Digby, I am surprised that you regard Stalin as an effective warrior. He continually hampered military operations and ordered front long assaults that were doomed to failure. He was singularly responsible for the state of the Soviet army in 1941. He had shot most of his officers and decided to defend forward when it was cautioned to him that he should set up a defensive line many miles from the border. It was the vastness of Russia, the 1941 blizzard, the United States, and his vast manpower pool that saved him. If you take away just one of the above items then it would have been war over for him.

While there is no question Stalin botched the lead up and early part of the war, the Russians would have lost without his iron fist.

"It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Stalin

[Willard]

Lee consistently lost a higher percentage and sometimes even a higher number of his troops in battle than his Union counterpart.

[Willard]

While there is no question Stalin botched the lead up and early part of the war, the Russians would have lost without his iron fist.

"It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Stalin

Fearing your own leader more than the enemy's is hardly a stunning endorsement.
Had the Germans adapated a much more flexible elastic defensive scheme on the front from 1943 on, the Russians would have run out of men before they reached Berlin. The final assault on Berlin in May 1945 cost the Russians the last of their reserves.

[KG_Soldier]

The Russians lost more men taking Berlin than the U.S. lost the whole war in Europe.

[KG_Soldier]

While there is no question Stalin botched the lead up and early part of the war, the Russians would have lost without his iron fist.

"It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Stalin

Fearing your own leader more than the enemy's is hardly a stunning endorsement.
Had the Germans adapated a much more flexible elastic defensive scheme on the front from 1943 on, the Russians would have run out of men before they reached Berlin. The final assault on Berlin in May 1945 cost the Russians the last of their reserves.

That wasn't meant as any kind of endorsement.

[Saddletank]

The Russians lost more men taking Berlin than the U.S. lost the whole war in Europe.

Not sure how we got to here but the taking of Berlin became an imperative political goal for the Soviets in the spring of 1945 (and had been for at least 12 months prior to that) and had to be achieved before the Allies got there, thus in their minds it required every effort and cost huge numbers of casualties.

None of this bears any relation to the ACW I don't think, although I do agree that the singlemindedness of Stalin and the sense of determination of Lincoln do have some parallels. Their personal politics of course don't enter the discussion.