- Jan 2014
So collectivization had a redeeming feature after all. I think Churchill was being ingenuous. Being careful not to offend allies didn’t mean he had to endorse the ‘39 Pact as “realistic in a high degree.” Despite the loss of life Stalin got the best of both worlds, eliminating potential opposition while retaining enough soldiers and workers to win.Industrialization needs money, a lot of money. Collectivization was a way to get as much income, as possible from the agricultural sector in a short time.
Churchill was a perfect diplomat, and never said anything, what the allies might not like.
Human resources are not only soldiers, but also industrial workers, peasants to feed the army during the war and so on.
Which says much about the efficacy of Stalinist industrialization and militarization.Stalin had more tanks than all other countries in Europe taken together,
Early defeats owed much to greater German expertise in mobile warfare. The Reich was the would-be hegemon, so it was first to develop the techniques of blitzkrieg. Under the circumstances high losses were inevitable. The democracies didn’t purge their officers nor were their tanks inferior in quantity and quality but in 1940 they were still outclassed and beaten. By building vast forces, Stalin enabled Russia to survive initial high losses and gain time to learn to be proficient at the new type of warfare with excellent results even before bagratian.but the repressed commanders of the army destroyed this advantage gained at the cost of millions of lives.