re: Do Russian history students learn about WWII the other way around?

Again, the OP's question was how the war is taught in Russia, not how it actually happened. I doubt they spend much time talking about American aid.

quote:

---

Agreed, just pointing out that without American financial might, Russia is a lost cause.

---

They would have not have been able to support their offensives for sure. No way, no how.

Flag-waving, apple-pie eating 'Merican here...

... but the "turning point" of WWII was indeed Stalingrad.

And the Russians DID bear the bigger load. Historical fact is historical fact.

D-Day wasn't the turning point, but the success of D-Day was the nail in the Third Reich's coffin.

quote:

---

Would not the defense of Moscow in late 1941 keeping the Germans from taking Moscow have been as important or even more important than the win at Stalingrad.

---

I mean, yes, halting the German offensive outside Moscow was important in saving the Soviet Union from immediate collapse, but it didn't turn the tide of the war. Stalingrad effectively turned the tide of the war in the Soviets favor. The outcome was still very much in doubt prior to that time with the Germans even having a bit of an advantage. After Stalingrad the Germans would never be in a better position for ultimate victory than the Soviets again.

quote:

---

The Germans could have won the war against the USSR rather easily. All they had to do was appear to the people there as liberators, especially in the Ukraine. Hatred for the Soviets was real and could have been harnessed for the Germans' purposes. Instead, they came as conquerors, enslavers, and murderers, with predictable results.

---

Again, this fact is extremely under-appreciated. The Nazis were greeted with open arms in many Eastern European nations that had been under Stalin's thumb, and then the Nazis instead of recruiting these people as allies, slaughtered and oppressed them for being Slavic. There was no room in their ideology for Slavs living within the Lebensraum of the Reich in Eastern Europe.

No but with Moscow the Germans had a sanctuary for the winter, a key city, the capital and a huge get.

No, the war would not be over.

quote:

---

I don't think the Soviets would have surrendered, even if Moscow had fallen.

---

If Moscow had fallen, for all intents and purposes, the Soviets would have been fricked. It was too essential. It linked northern and southern Russia. There wasn't much between Moscow and the Urals to fall back on. And Stalin proclaimed that he intended to stand in Moscow as Hitler did Berlin. The Soviet government by all measures appeared to be hunkering down in the city. Thus German victory would have effectively liquidated the Soviet leadership and likely resulted in a political collapse.

quote:

---

There wasn't much between Moscow and the Urals to fall back on. And Stalin proclaimed that he intended to stand in Moscow as Hitler did Berlin. The Soviet government by all measures appeared to be hunkering down in the city.

---

It's hard to believe they wouldn't move their brass from Moscow to behind the Urals like they had their industrial capacity. There's a lot of land in Asian Russia to launch a guerilla or resurgent war from. The comparison of Hitler and falling Germany to Stalin and falling Russia and staying in their capital doesn't work so well, since Germany was almost completely out of land it controlled and ability to defend anything. That would not be the case in Russia with the fall of Moscow.

quote:

---

It's hard to believe they wouldn't move their brass from Moscow to behind the Urals like they had their industrial capacity. There's a lot of land in Asian Russia to launch a guerilla or resurgent war from.

---

I'm just telling you what Stalin had expressed to his inner circle. Would they have fled in the final hours if Moscow was due to fall? Who knows. But they had to have known that the Germans were keen on encircling their objectives, thus the decision to stay in Moscow must have been made with the understanding that a later escape may well have been impossible. It is beyond question that Stalin and his government remained in Moscow even when German victory appeared a very real possibility.

And had the Soviets pushed beyond the Urals, their chances of launching any significant operations to dislodge the Germans were very minimal. The Germans didn't intend to chase the Soviets into Eurasia. The goal was to establish German hegemony to the frontier of the Urals. Not to mention Stalin's ability to control his population through organized terror would have been completely compromised under such conditions. He knew this. Moscow had to be held at all costs.

If Moscow fell, then Leningrad would have been lost as well as all northern Russia to the Urals. The southern front then would have been completely isolated and doomed. Not to mention morale would have plummeted in the southern regions as the inevitably of their defeat would have been clear. It's very possible this would have resulted in a rapid collapse and surrender.

It's important to understand that in middle October early November, the German high command was virtually certain of victory. The British felt the exact same way. They all believed Moscow was going to fall and everyone recognized what that would have meant. It was THAT important.

quote:

---

The comparison of Hitler and falling Germany to Stalin and falling Russia and staying in their capital doesn't work so well, since Germany was almost completely out of land it controlled and ability to defend anything. That would not be the case in Russia with the fall of Moscow.

---

I wasn't suggesting the situations were analogous in that respect, I was simply pointing out that like Hitler felt the war was lost if Berlin fell and thus there was no point in him fleeing, Stalin felt this way in respect to Moscow.