1mpper posted:

man, anti-soviets want it both ways: either stalin is bad because he focused on rapid industrialization and militarization to the detriment of other productive/agricultural development; or he's bad because he didn't industrialize or militarize enough to prevent mass causalities in ww2. imo he cut as best of a compromise as he could knowing what he did while making tougher decisions than almost anyone else in history. with four million nazi soldiers bearing down on you, i'm not sure what amount of "preparation" that he wasn't already doing would do to avoid a lot of people dying.