Stalins Achievement as A Military Leader: An Analysis of the Second World War - Essay Example

?Stalin’s Achievement as A Military Leader: An Analysis of the Second World War Different researchers have analyzed Stalin Russia and his policies for the country and one fact is fairly certain; Stalin was a brilliant strategist. This is manifested especially in the war games that he played and the way he manipulated opponents to his liking. However, at the time of his reign, Russian people suffered greatly due to his dictatorship and policies. The period in which he reigned saw the beginning and end of the Second World War, in which he played a crucial role in stopping Germany’s intentions in the war. The role played by the Soviet Union in the Second World War can be attributed to Stalin’s strategies in the war. This paper will critically examine Stalin’s achievement as a military leader, using evidence drawn from his participation in the Second World War. The paper will trace the history of the war and the decisions that Stalin made that helped in stopping Germany. This will also be supplemented by the relationship that Stalin had with the Allied Forces and the decisions that he made regarding these forces. After Lenin died as the current leader of Russia, the manipulations by Stalin ensured that he became the next leader of the populous nation. Born in 1879, Stalin was a natural tactician and his takeover of power from Lenin was an example of his planning and cunning execution (Ward, 1999). As a strategist, Stalin understood that he was not the best choice to become the leader after Lenin’s demise, since Trotsky, his main rival, was better placed (Conquest, 1986). In this regard, Stalin made plans that discredited Trotsky. For example, he manipulated the party congress to agree to his plans to expel unsatisfactory members of the party, a decree which allowed him to expel Trotsky’s supporters (McCauley, 2003). Before Lenin died, he understood that Stalin was not the best leader for the country, but he died before he could offer any opposition to Stalin’s rise to power. In this case, Stalin took over as the new leader after Lenin’s death in 1924. According to Conquest (1987), despite Stalin’s fear that Western countries would try to attack the Soviet Union, he also understood that the best way to prevent a German invasion would be by cooperation with the Allied countries in the West. Through his strategy making, Stalin knew that Hitler would not wage war against a United European force, so he tried to convince Chamberlain, the then British Prime Minister to join unite the two countries. However, Chamberlain was deeply distrustful of Hitler and did not agree to the proposition (Litvin and Keep, 2005). However, Churchill was in agreement with Stalin, since he knew that a United Baltic front would be enough to prevent an invasion by Germany into the rest of Europe. Stalin viewed Britain’s rejection of his offer as part of a plot with Germany to attack Russia, and thought that the best way to counter this would be to make a treaty with Hitler himself (Keep, 2002). This was based on the assumption that with a treaty with Germany, Hitler would attack Western Europe instead of opting for a war on two fronts. In 1939, Stalin signed a pact with Germany, stating that the two countries would be neutral if either of them engaged in a war. One of the first wars that Stalin engaged in was the invasion of Finland to reclaim land that was lost in a previous war. The strategy behind this was the closeness of Finland’s border to Leningrad, which made it vulnerable to attack. Despite the size of Finland’s army, the lack of training and equipment in the Soviet army pointed out its army. After this, Stalin upgraded the equipment and training of his army. Despite Stalin’s brilliance as a military strategist, he failed to correctly predict the date in which Hitler would attack the Soviet Union (Ward, 1999). By his calculations, Stalin thought that Hitler would delay his invasion until 1942, but reports from all quarters pointed out that the invasion would come earlier. Stalin’s calculations were based on the assumption that Hitler would wait for surrender from Britain and France before attacking the Soviet Union. Stalin’s military advisers warned him to prepare for an invasion in 1941, and the British also warned him of the same. Despite Stalin’s strategy of drawing out the German invasion until winter, Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941. The German army invaded in three forces, with one force making for Leningrad, the other going for Moscow and one force going for Ukraine. Stalin’s military might was then tested in the war that ensued (Davies and Harris, 2005). An analysis of the war fought by the Soviet Union shows that Stalin was not the best war general (Volkogonov and Shukman, 1991). Despite his successes, the mistakes made by Stalin, including the terror faced by the people in the arm pointed out his mistakes. For example, the first invading German army captured Minsk within the first six days, and as punishment, Hitler had the general fighting in the area shot for incompetence. After this, Stalin made it clear that any part of his army that surrendered or lost would be executed. This strategy, despite its cruelty, helped the Soviet army, since the army and citizens fought to the death in any combat. With the massacre by the German army, the Soviet people had no option but to fight until they were killed by either side. Stalin’s strategy during the war was to hold out the German army until winter came, and the first few months took a massive toll on the Soviet side (Roberts, 2008). Germany managed to inch towards Moscow and surround Leningrad, and Stalin’s resolution not to withdraw from Ukraine led to massive loss of life and equipment. However, with winter fast approaching and the lengthening of the German supply lines, Stalin’s efforts started to pay off. Stalin came up with a strategy which was named the scorched earth policy; in every retreat, the army was ordered to destroy anything that might be of value to the German army, especially food in farms and equipment (Overy, 1998). Coupled with continued attacks on German supply lines, the German army was faced with a lack of provisions. Most of the allied forces believed that any German invasion could not be fought off, and Stalin was able to show them a new strategy (Tucker, 1996). Despite the belief that German troops were invincible, Stalin’s strategy provided the best example for fighting them. This was done by continually attacking the German army, a feat that Stalin accomplished with fresh troops. From this, the allied forces fighting the German war machine in other parts learned a new way of confronting Hitler. This strategy helped in pushing back the German army, which was by then very close to taking Moscow. During the 1941-42 war, Stalin was able to hold off the German offensive through pure strategy and resilience (Tucker, 1996). After the winter, the German troops started advancing again and closed in on Stalingrad. Stalin could not allow Stalingrad to be taken because of two main reasons; it was his city, named after him, and if taken, offered a direct route to Moscow. Stalin realize that the fall of Stalingrad would spell defeat for the Soviet Union since would Moscow would be easily lost. The best achievement by Stalin in this period was being able to hold off the German army in Stalingrad. Before the war, Stalin had put in place his five-year plans for the industrialization of the country, which were touted as leading to Russia’s downfall (Nove, 1964). The five-year plans were a period of rapid and forced industrialization that was tantamount to slavery of the people (Viola, 1996). However, with the standoff in Stalingrad, the industries developed during the five-year plans helped a lot. Stalin threw more than a million Soviet soldiers into Stalingrad as a final defense, and with the munitions and supplies coming from factories built in the country, the army was well supported (Reid, 2012). The German army was encircled and pushed back in Stalingrad, a point that marked the turning point of the war. The other fact that helped the Soviets Union win the war with Hitler was the mass atrocities committed by the Germans (Fitzpatrick, 1999). As the Soviet army pushed back the Germans, they recovered land that had previously been taken over, including prisoner of war camps. They realized that the German army had deliberately starved their prisoners to death, and women and children were killed according to Hitler’s policy of mass extermination to prevent revolt. Therefore, with a choice of being executed, captured or killed fighting, the Soviet soldiers chose to fight to death (Odom, 2000). Civilians also took to the forests and formed guerrilla units that helped cut off German supply lines (Viola, 1996). With the Soviets pushing the Germans back, Stalin became convinced that the best way to win the war was by creating a second front that the Germans had to fight (Tucker, 1996). Stalin convinced Britain and the United States of America that the formation of a second front would help in stopping Hitler’s advance. If the two countries refused, Stalin knew that the Russians would not be able to hold off the Germans on their own. However, Stalin’s manipulations managed to convince the two allied forces to send troops to fight the Germans. Stalin’s strategy also involved taking back a lot of countries from the Germans (Shearer, 2009). With the formation of a second front for the Germans to fight against, the Red Army started advancing into German, and on the way, taking a lot of countries. The Soviet dominion grew increasingly large until the allied got scared of the power that Stalin was getting. After the defeat of Germany, Stalin’s prowess in the war prompted the allies to ask him for help in fighting the Japanese, which Stalin used as a bargaining chip (Tucker, 1996). The war had destroyed the Soviet Economy, but the industrialization done before the war helped in its recovery. However, British were skeptical about getting Soviet help in dealing with the Japanese, probably because Soviet influence was already too much in Europe. With Stalin slowing down his decision on whether to join the war, the United States tested its atomic bomb and successfully forced the Japanese to surrender by dropping it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Stalin’s achievements as a military leader are clearly derived from his feats in the Second World War in fighting the German invasion. His strategizing and manipulations of the Allied forces also helps his achievements, but a look at the strategies involved for his armies casts doubt on these. For example, as has already been noted, any soldiers who deserted or retreated were executed for treason (Shearer, 2009). In Ukraine, when the Soviet army retreated, they left behind weapons that could be used by the Germans. Stalin had them executed and articles published that portrayed the army as incompetent. However, despite these shortcomings, Stalin himself was a notable military leader. In the last stand in Stalingrad, Stalin personally commanded the army that pushed back the German invasion As can be seen from the above analysis, Stalin’s repute as a military leader was developed in the Second World War. This is due to his efforts in pushing back the German army, a feat that the allies had failed to do since the beginning of the war. Despite some failure in strategy, Stalin was still one of the best strategists, be it on the war front or negotiation table. For example as stated by the then British Chief of Staff, Stalin stood out as a brilliant negotiator when dealing with the British prime minister and American president. Stalin’s other main achievement was the development of the Soviet Union into an industrial powerhouse after the end of the Second World War (Kanet, 2007). With the rapid industrialization plan, Stalin managed to make the Soviet Union very industrialized, but the people suffered (Hoffman, 2003). As already stated, some of the plans made by Stalin led to the failure of the state, for example, the collective farming plans. From this analysis, it can be said that Stalin’s achievements both as a national and military leader were flip-sided. He managed to win against the Germans, take over a lot of countries, but the death toll and strategies used cast a dark side on the winning. References Conquest, R 1986. The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine, London: Hutchinson. Conquest, R1987. ‘Revisionizing Stalin's Russia’, Russian Review 46(4), p. 386-390. Conquest, R1990. The Great Terror: A Reassessment, London: Hutchinson. Davies, S and Harris, J 2005. Stalin: A New History. London: Cambridge University Press. Fitzpatrick, S 1999. Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoffmann, DL. (ed). 2003. Stalinism: The Essential Readings, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Kanet, R E 2007. Russia: Re-Emerging Great Power. Boston: Palgrave MacMillan. Keep, J H 2002. Last of the Empires: A History of the Soviet Union 1945-1991. New York: Oxford University Press. Litvin, A and Keep, J 2005. Stalinism: Russian and Western Views at the Turn of the Millennium, London: Routledge. McCauley, M 2003. Stalin & Stalinism, New York: Longman. Nove, A 1964. Was Stalin Really Necessary?: Some Problems of Soviet Political Economy, London : Allen and Unwin. Odom, W E 2000. The Collapse of the Soviet Military. London: Yale University Press. Overy, R 1998. Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort: 1941-1945. Boston: Penguin Books. Reid, A 2012. Leningrad: The Epic Siege of World War II, 1941-1944. New York: Walker and Company. Roberts, G 2008. Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953, London: Yale University Press. Shearer, D R 2009. Policing Stalin's Socialism: Repression and Social Order in the Soviet Union, London: Yale University Press. Tucker, R. 1992. Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1928-1941, New York: W. W. Norton and Company. Viola, L 1996 Peasant Rebels under Stalin: Collectivization and the Culture of Peasant Resistance, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Volkogonov, D and Shukman, H 1991. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. Boston: Grove Press. Ward, C 1999. Reading Stalin’s Russia. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More