In late 1941, in front of Moscow, was the lowest point of the Allies in WW2, much of this was due to the mistakes that Stalin made.
General Zhukov, has stated that Soviet generals were not confident that they could hold the German forces at the Mozhaisk defence line outside Moscow and that Russia might fall was a real possibility.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...dmits-USSR-came-close-to-defeat-by-Nazis.html
However, at the Battle of Moscow, many leaders might have collapsed, run away or made terms. Many armies might have collapsed, many countries might have collapsed. The city might have surrendered, the French surrendered Paris and declared it an open city earlier.
Stalin remained in command, the army under his leadership kept together, the city did not surrender and the battle continued. Although close to one million Russian soldiers died defending Moscow, Barbarossa was stopped.
Now many give the credit for this victory to others, many blame the failure of the German logistics, Hitler's mistakes, etc and certainly much of this is true but what credit should Stalin get.
In his book "The battle of Moscow by Col Albert Seaton" states the following in his conclusion
"It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Stalin was the sole military commander and that the plans for the defence of Moscow, and the subsequent counter-offensive were drawn up at his direction. Except that he was commander of the largest of the four fronts, Zhukov took little or no part in the planning of the counter-offensive ... Far from being dependent on any of his generals, Stalin, caustic and insulting, treated them little better than serfs."
He feels that Moscow was Stalin's victory.
What are your thoughts on this?
General Zhukov, has stated that Soviet generals were not confident that they could hold the German forces at the Mozhaisk defence line outside Moscow and that Russia might fall was a real possibility.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...dmits-USSR-came-close-to-defeat-by-Nazis.html
However, at the Battle of Moscow, many leaders might have collapsed, run away or made terms. Many armies might have collapsed, many countries might have collapsed. The city might have surrendered, the French surrendered Paris and declared it an open city earlier.
Stalin remained in command, the army under his leadership kept together, the city did not surrender and the battle continued. Although close to one million Russian soldiers died defending Moscow, Barbarossa was stopped.
Now many give the credit for this victory to others, many blame the failure of the German logistics, Hitler's mistakes, etc and certainly much of this is true but what credit should Stalin get.
In his book "The battle of Moscow by Col Albert Seaton" states the following in his conclusion
"It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Stalin was the sole military commander and that the plans for the defence of Moscow, and the subsequent counter-offensive were drawn up at his direction. Except that he was commander of the largest of the four fronts, Zhukov took little or no part in the planning of the counter-offensive ... Far from being dependent on any of his generals, Stalin, caustic and insulting, treated them little better than serfs."
He feels that Moscow was Stalin's victory.
What are your thoughts on this?