but certainly had to do my fill of Russian history.  I am much more knowledgeable of the economic/political/ social movements in Russia and the FSU but since there is such emphasis still placed on WWII everywhere in the FSU, only to a bit less of a degree in Central and Western Europe, one has to know about it to understand their frame of mind...especially if one were studious about the Cold War and is interested in the Russian mindset today.  It still has a very profound effect on them even if the few veterans left don't get the same respect they once did.

Interesting, however, that their Vietnam - and one of the most divisive issues to froth up during glasnost and help weaken the Communist Party, the War in Afghanistan, doesn't hold the same sway.  Perhaps it is the lack of official memorials, perhaps it is the fact that they barely brush it in schools, perhaps as one of the signifying moments in the downfall of the FSU it is still painful for too many (yes, many of those in the age ranges of 25-30 and over 60 pine for the Soviet Union at times...the younger ones because they remember the nobility on which they were educated and the together they felt with all parts, the older because it was all they knew and now there is too much chaos, too much uncertainty, too much freedom - at least compared to that available during Soviet days - and they're not equipped to deal with it; of course, the old during Brezhnev's day thought there was too much chaos and freedom as well).

One major point to be made about Stalingrad is that Hitler intervened at every level.  The Germans had a breakout plan that may have been able to turn the tide (for a time as the Germans, I believe, would have ultimately had their ass handed to them by the US) but it would have involved giving ground initially and Hitler issued the order that any man falling back was to be shot.  So, they stayed, got captured, lost.

Now, had they done what the generals wanted to do...who knows?  And would that have been a good thing?  I generally think not for while Stalin's body count was probably higher (depends on how you want to count things and where you want to lay responsibility for the various atrocities committed by either one) he had less implicit support from the people, even at the very beginning.  Yes, Hitler too used terror and fear to develop his power but it was not the direct application of it that created his base of power as with Stalin.  Hitler used it more at the margins...at least with his own people.

So, I think if it comes down to a Stalin victory or a Hitler victory on that front, I think it better Stalin won because the weaker support from the people meant an eventual downfall of that empire (and DIA called it as early as the 60s, i.e., from that point forward, the Soviet Union was weakening every year and Reagan had little to do with it).  Had Hitler won and expanded the territory for the Germans of that day, the Reich may have been able to continue for quite some time.