Who hurt their military more, Hitler or Stalin?

[regnak]

I have started reading

When Titans Clashed

On first publication, this uncommonly concise and readable account of Soviet Russia's clash with Nazi Germany utterly changed our understanding of World War II on Germany's Eastern Front, immediately earning its place among top-shelf histories of the world war. Revised and updated to reflect...

books.google.com

and the author believes that the USSR could have destroyed Army Group Center in winter 1941-1942. However he asserted that Stalin got overconfident nd tried to start a larger offensive which dispersed the Soviet efforts against AGC. So Hitler’s various mistakes are well known as is Stalin’s purge of the Red Army which caused much damage to their fighting ability. So I wondered is Hitler still the clear winner in mistakes or is it closer than generally thought?

 

[RedSword12]

Without a doubt Stalin did far greater damage to the Red Army than Hitler did to the Wehrmacht, in terms of military effectiveness. On the other hand, Stalin did not make the cardinal sin of putting his military in a war it would lose and could not leave, and as such the Red Army emerged as a capable force at war's end while the Wehrmacht ceased to exist.

 

[Post]

So I wondered is Hitler still the clear winner in mistakes or is it closer than generally thought?

Well, he lost the war and the Wehrmacht, so yes, Hitler clearly is the winner in mistakes. Especially because in the last years he usually directly commanded the Wehrmacht.

 

[Lalli]

Without a doubt Stalin did far greater damage to the Red Army than Hitler did to the Wehrmacht, in terms of military effectiveness. On the other hand, Stalin did not make the cardinal error of putting his military in a war it would lose, and as such the Red Army emerged as a capable force at war's end while the Wehrmacht ceased to exist.

Well, I wouldn't say that Stalin completely win Winter War since he didn't reach his original target (conquest of Finland). But I agree that Stalin managed Red Army really badly and devastated that by killing most of best generals who could had been useful during WW2. Stalin even didn't believe warnings about Barbarossa. He just wasn't really ready to the war and ruined his army really badly.

Well, he lost the war and the Wehrmacht, so yes, Hitler clearly is the winner in mistakes. Especially because in the last years he usually directly commanded the Wehrmacht.

Hitler indeed lost war at end but he too managed to keep his army in better condition. Early successes should tell a lot. And Hitler wasn't stupid enough to purge all good generals on Wehrmacht. Yes, Hitler really begun to micromanage the army at end but Stalin did that whole time.

 

[regnak]

Well, he lost the war and the Wehrmacht, so yes, Hitler clearly is the winner in mistakes. Especially because in the last years he usually directly commanded the Wehrmacht.

While that is true I cannot help but wonder how many extra millions of Soviets died just after 1941 because Stalin meddled and AGC was not destroyed at the first opportunity.

 

[Ana Luciana II]

It’s very interesting because Stalin inarguably did more material harm to the Red Army than Hitler did to the Wehrmacht. Thousands of talented Soviet officers were murdered on trumped up charges, depriving the military of talent and causing administrative chaos. Hitler by contrast executed comparatively far fewer military officers, firing or dismissing those officers he disagreed with rather than shooting them. However their attitudes towards their respective militaries is telling. Stalin allowed his generals a far greater degree of autonomy than Hitler did. So long as they didn’t try to interfere with civilian politics the Stavka were relatively free to act. The members of the OKW, on the other hand, were not trusted by Hitler, and he constantly interfered in military strategy. Hitler also, fatally, was very indecisive. His career was a long series of massive gambles and this is reflected in his quixotic military strategy on the eastern front, rotation of high ranking officers, and lack of attention to detail. Ultimately, Stalin was willing to trust military experts and learn from his mistakes, for this reason alone I’d say Hitler hurt his military more than Stalin.

 

[brunohusker]

Stalin but Hitler still hamstrung his generals and both more or less cared more about pure loyalty than just being a good general. Basically if you were not loyal, you were going to have a bad time. Hitler still had some of his less ideological commanders (though they were not clean, let’s not get into the clean wermacht myth) so he still had guys who were more or less military guys but he still ruined the German Army and made their leadership much worse than in the Great War.

 

[Bellacinos]

Stalin overall hurt the red army more than hitler hurt the Wehrmacht, however Stalin did learn from his mistakes and did start allowing his generals more control as the war went on, while Hitler did the opposite and started exerting more control as the war went on.

But to be honest the nazis in WW2 could have been commanded by Alexander the Great, Hannibal of Carthage, and Napoleon, and it still ends with the Red Army in Berlin.

 

[Dan]

Stalin overall hurt the red army more than hitler hurt the Wehrmacht, however Stalin did learn from his mistakes and did start allowing his generals more control as the war went on, while Hitler did the opposite and started exerting more control as the war went on.

But to be honest the nazis in WW2 could have been commanded by Alexander the Great, Hannibal of Carthage, and Napoleon, and it still ends with the Red Army in Berlin.

Quantity vs quality?
Within a year or so of Barbarossa starting, possibly by, or just after Stalingrad, due to simple attrition, you could argue that qualatively they were near peers

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Without a doubt Stalin did far greater damage to the Red Army than Hitler did to the Wehrmacht, in terms of military effectiveness. On the other hand, Stalin did not make the cardinal error of putting his military in a war it would lose, and as such the Red Army emerged as a capable force at war's end while the Wehrmacht ceased to exist.

I would agree with that statement

Stalin screwed up his army with the Purges and then the massive expansion which doubled down on the issues of not having enough educated field and staff officers and experienced specialists etc.

He also screwed it by not mobilising the Red Army until the eve of war which left sub units and often supplies and equipment some times 100 miles apart - and during Barbarossa almost half a million 'soldiers' became POWs without having being issued equipment.

However he generally did not ask it to start wars that it could not win (Winter War not withstanding) as you say and doom said army to ultimate defeat and destruction

So ultimately we have to say Hitler was worst

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Quantity vs quality?
Within a year or so of Barbarossa starting, possibly by, or just after Stalingrad, due to simple attrition, you could argue that qualatively they were near peers

I've seen someone on the interwebs (History visualised bloke maybe?) show how degraded the Heer was after the battle of Moscow in the Spring of 1942 - many of the Divisions were utterly ruined as fighting formation's.

It was utterly fucked and a shadow of the Victorious Post Battle of France Army of late 1940 and early 41 that thrashed the Red Army during Barbarossa

It suffered about a million casualties in that campaign which when you consider the Heer was about 3.5 million strong at the time and that the majority of losses would have been sustained among the fighting companies of the infantry regiments - a lot of the experienced infantry from those earlier campaigns would have been KIA/WIA or MIA.

I would say definitely by Kursk the Russians had caught up and their advantage in number and material gave them a serious edge

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

On a developmental level, Stalin hurt his military more. On a tactical level Hitler hurt his military more. Hitler tried to command armies, Stalin for the most part (at least after Barbarossa) let Zhukov do what he wanted.

Stalin definitely hurt his army more with the purges, but the Soviet Union had more room for error due to its inherent strategic advantages in manpower, land size, natural resources, and climate.

 

[Cryptic]

I"ll go for Stalin.

As the end of the day, the Germans had a deeper "bench" general talent wise and could better compensate for Hitler's interference.

Meanwhile, Stalin firing and murdering general officer talent would have a far greater proportional impact as the Soviets had a shallower "bench" to start with.

 

[RedSword12]

However he generally did not ask it to start wars that it could not win (Winter War not withstanding) as you say and doom said army to ultimate defeat and destruction

Even the Winter War was winnable. The Finns were on the verge of collapse when they managed to convince Stalin to quit while he was ahead, unaware he was about to win it all.

 

[jamesownz]

Stalin got saved by the West

 

[Band in China]

It really depends on when, 1944 Hitler is a drug addled nervous wreck, Stalin 1944 has learned to lay back and give his generals some room to maneuver.

Hitler had a decent strategic and political mind that declined starting 42, as he took more and more control his lack of military professionalism really showed. Stalin in contrast relaxed and become less paranoid starting 42 and let capable men do their thing.

 

[Lalli]

It really depends on when, 1944 Hitler is a drug addled nervous wreck, Stalin 1944 has learned to lay back and give his generals some room to maneuver.

Hitler had a decent strategic and political mind that declined starting 42, as he took more and more control his lack of military professionalism really showed. Stalin in contrast relaxed and become less paranoid starting 42 and let capable men do their thing.

Stalin wasn't less paranoid. He was still same Stalin as in 1930's but just realised that better give RA some liberties to operate. He was still paranoid himself. He even begun to be afraid popularity of Zhukov and probably was worried that there is "new rise of Bonapartism" in Red Army. Stalin even planned new round of purges just before his death.

 

[TDM]

Stalin overall hurt the red army more than hitler hurt the Wehrmacht, however Stalin did learn from his mistakes and did start allowing his generals more control as the war went on, while Hitler did the opposite and started exerting more control as the war went on.

But to be honest the nazis in WW2 could have been commanded by Alexander the Great, Hannibal of Carthage, and Napoleon, and it still ends with the Red Army in Berlin.

This, but especially the bit in bold

Quantity vs quality?
Within a year or so of Barbarossa starting, possibly by, or just after Stalingrad, due to simple attrition, you could argue that qualatively they were near peers

Yep and it's not just the Axis getting worse the red army were also getting better

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Stalin got saved by the West

That's a vast generalization.

The board consensus is that without lend lease and the US joining the war, the Soviets still would have most likely (not definitively) survived solely due to manpower and strategic depth.

The real debate without Western support is whether or not the Soviets can drive back the Nazis without bleeding themselves white and actually win the war.

 

[Whiteshore]

However their attitudes towards their respective militaries is telling. Stalin allowed his generals a far greater degree of autonomy than Hitler did. So long as they didn’t try to interfere with civilian politics the Stavka were relatively free to act. The members of the OKW, on the other hand, were not trusted by Hitler, and he constantly interfered in military strategy.

On that note, it essentially illustrates the differences between how the VKP (b) and the NSDAP took power in their respective countries with the Nazis taking power via a relatively bloodless self-coup while the Soviets had to wage a civil war to seize power. As such, the VKP (b), owing to taking over via revolution and having a fresh slate to work with as a result, had a military very much subordinate to the Party from the get-go whereas the Nazis, as part of coopting old state institutions as part of them taking over the country via self-coup, had to rely on a Wehrmacht that, despite willingly participating in the atrocities of the Reich like the Holocaust and "anti-partisan" warfare, was an institution that had a certain degree of autonomy separate from the Party with the Nazis unable to achieve "partification" of the Wehrmacht the same way the VKP (b) was able to "partify" the Red Army.