Discussion of Stalinism [Archive]

Aemilius Paulus

03-06-2009, 20:34

Hello Backroom dwellers! I am AP, some of you may already know me. Anyway, following the suggestion of another Orgha, Kralizec, I am going to post the following for discussion.

As a brief introduction, I am largely political and fiscal conservative with mostly liberal social ideals (I am arguably still in transition, holding quite a bit of conservative ideals as of now). Religion is no longer my thing, being an atheist currently. However, I am a supporter of authoritarianism, despite being well aware that it holds many dangers. Throughout my life I have first been a strong liberal and Christian and then changed into a strong conservative and atheist (what an irony!) before becoming the more moderate that I am today.

Now, onto the main material. As some of you may know, the recent Frontroom "Manliest person" poll has been edited out. While it was mostly rightful edit, as the Frontroom is not for politics, the causes of the edit were rather unrighteous in my opinion. Certain person was "offended" by Stalin and his supporters.

Here are my two posts on this in the Watchtower thread, Stalinist and Nazi sympathizers (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=2163210#post2163210):

This is bull. Merely saying that you support Stalin should not get one in trouble.

I personally support authoritarianism, as I am a Russian, and authoritarianism is an excellent way to keep Putin as the dictator of Russia. I would not let other people attain such position, but Putin is an extraordinary person; he is a patriot comparable to Washington, Bolivar, Garibaldi, de Gaulle, Cincinnatus, and etc. He only does what he thinks is best for the country, and usually it is the best. In a democratic society this brilliant man would have been replaced by some average, corrupt drunk in 8 years, which would have annulled all that he has done for Russia. To sum it up, he might not be perfect, but he is best Russia has seen in a long, long time. There is no reason to believe that any other politician in the Duma is better than him.

Anyway, enough of the rant. Everyone has different views. I loathe Stalin because has done more to kill USSR than Hitler. During his purges, he slaughtered the best of my country and Soviet union as a whole. Not to mention he was a Georgian. Still, some people might like him. That is their choice. To censor racism and profanity is one thing; it is common decency; but to censor support for an unpopular party is totalitarianism.

All that "offensive" bemoaning puzzles me. How is it offensive? People are just whining. Offensive is when your feelings are hurt. You might be angry at Stalin/Hitler, but how are they offensive? Also, how can you exclude history from .Org? How do you regulate who can one support and who they cannot?

Final Note: despite hating Stalin, I still voted for him as the manliest person in that poll. Seriously, Hillary Clinton?? Manliness is usually synonymous with brutality, and paranoid butcher such as Stalin is a perfect candidate.

[SPOIL]%5

Aemilius Paulus

03-06-2009, 20:49

I wonder what is going to happen to this once that thread was moved here but locked....

Nada. This new thread is a fresh start, and shall be the primary BR thread for this discussion. SF

rvg

03-06-2009, 20:56

Stalin was a tyrant. Having said that, there's nothing morally wrong with supporting him. No more than supporting Mugabe, Mussolini, Kim Jong Il, Chairman Mao or any other in the countless list of dictators whose reign the humanity had a misfortune of enduring.

Aemilius Paulus

03-06-2009, 21:01

:oops: The second one of my quotes did not show up in the first post. This was my second post in that watchtower, now Backroom thread:

But all that aside, Stalin did industrialise USSR. He was the one who built up its military and produced close to 30,000 tanks before WWII, many of which were vastly superior to the German tanks used in the beginning of the war. Stalin did lead USSR to victory. It is hard to understand whether someone else in his place would have done better. If not for his militancy, Russia may not have held out against Hitler. The Nazis got to outskirts of Moscow in the winter of 1941. After capturing it, they would have won half the war.

We all owe our lives to Stalin, technically. If USSR was defeated, the world would have crumbled against the Nazi hammer. Sure, it is possible that a rebellion would have taken place and some of the world freed itself from the Nazi dominion, but still, what if the Nazis finished their A-bomb research? Then they would have a deathgrip on the world. Whatever one argues, by defeating Russia, the Nazis could have done so much more, and possibly even have exterminated as much as 95% of all Jews. Just look at what happened to Polish and German Jewry. What would have stopped Hitler from doing the same to other countries?

Sure, Stalin was evil, but to compare him to Hitler is ignorance. Thankless ignorance.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-06-2009, 22:26

Why don't you take a look at how many people Stalin killed? He was in absolutely every way as evil as Hitler. And you question why we are offended - a Jew would be offended if you tried to defend Hitler, and likewise people like me - just some of the millions who lost family - are offended when you try to defend Stalin.

Those who defend Stalin are precisely the same as those who defend Hitler. They are defending the two most evil regimes ever put on the face of the earth, and it disgusts me. I ask that anyone who tries to defend Stalin educates themselves (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM) before they continue defending such a monster.

In short, those who are unaware of Stalin's crimes when defending him can plead ignorance. Those who are aware of the millions he slaughtered and continue to defend him? Words cannot describe my contempt.

rvg

03-06-2009, 22:38

rory_20_uk

03-06-2009, 22:51

In terms of the body count, yes, Joe was as bad as Hitler. However, we cannot discount *why* the people were killed. Stalin killed them because of his paranoia and lack of tolerance towards any dissent whatsoever. In other words, his motives were ideological. Hitler's motives were genocidal, which is why he is most definitely worse than Stalin.

I disagree.

Hitler's hatred of the Jews and creation of a Master Race was ideological. Stalin merely wanted power and was suspicious of everyone. Hitler also had the war which in no small part caused the Final Solution. Hitler killed mainly out of necessity in a country that was bureaucratically a tangled thicket. Was the Final Solution Hitler's plan or a deputy's? In all the chaos who knows for sure? Stalin's Russia was a monolithic machine with all deaths instigated by the man at the top.

I've had a recent chat with a Ukrainian who thought that Stalin was a great leader... I guess the starvation of 20 million of her countrymen was forgiven and forgotten.

~:smoking:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-06-2009, 22:52

rvg

03-06-2009, 22:54

You're saying that Stalin had no genocidal motives, which is inaccurate. It is underreported, so one can be forgiven, but it is inaccurate.

EDIT: List of victims targeted because of ethnicity...

Ukranians
Poles
Germans
Finns
Lativians
Lithuanians
Cossacks

Targetted for deportation to sunny Siberia. Not extermination. Big difference.

rory_20_uk

03-06-2009, 22:58

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-06-2009, 23:02

Targetted for deportation to sunny Siberia. Not extermination. Big difference.

I'm just going to presume that was a joke. :book:

Seamus Fermanagh

03-06-2009, 23:20

Cossacks - mainly exterminated
Ukrainians - starved in their millions

And those in Siberia, how many died? At least 50%. Again, far greater numbers than the "mere" 6 million Hitler killed. Leaving someone to die in a desert and gassing them is basically the same.

The gulags were every bit as terrible as the concentration camps.

~:smoking:

Estimates actually put the number murdered at somewhere between 10 and 14 millions; 5-6 million of whom were Jews. That's roughly 1M for each year the NSDP (Hitler) were in power.

Estimates do place the number killed outright under Stalin, or sentenced to death by proxy in Siberia, at a higher figure than that, though it can be argued that Hitler murdered at a quicker rate than did Dzughasvili.

On a moral level, neither scores particularly well. Hitler condoned/ordered murder on an assembly line scale to create his "new Germany." The motivation was overtly racist and utterly repugnant. Stalin may not have been much of a racist -- he did target groups but mostly as a means of inculcating fear or butchering anyone who posed a conceivable threat to his power -- but the preservation of one's power and the butchery of those people in your political charge is hardly the moral "high ground."

Had both been killed in 1925, it is hard to conceive how the world would have been worse off as a result. Both were human detritus.

Rhyfelwyr

03-06-2009, 23:27

I think Hitler was more idelogically-inclined and deranged, whereas Stalin was more in it for himself, albeit with an element of paranoia.

Whether or not Hitler believed that he was creating a better world, I would not mean to suggest that he was still not evil. I don't care whether the ends can justify the means (from his point of view, Nazims is :daisy:), because any human should be unable to bring themselves to condemn people to their deaths on the scale that Hitler did. Often the greatest evils in this world aren't commited by the charismatic nutters we like to demonise. It's just the boring bureaucrats sitting behind their desks, following orders. Killing didn't even have to be personal back then, just swith the gas on and that's it done. Totalitarian regimes and modern technology can be a very dangerous combination in that sense. No one person kills people, the system does.

Scurvy

03-06-2009, 23:28

I'm not sure a body count really surfices for who is 'more evil' out of Hitler and Stalin - bad logic

I would claim both were ideologically driven - even if both spiralled into paranoia by the end of their rule

In terms of Stalin - whatever you think of his methods (and his alteration of marxism) he moved Russia forward hugely economically, and by the Cold War it was the 2nd largest power in the world, no small feat

similarly Hitler took over from a crumbling regime in Weimar and wasnt far in the 2nd world war from ruling much of Europe - again, that in no way justifies his methods

- to say discussion (or defence) of either is insulting is seriously wrong - some people deny the holocaust ever happened - so prove it did, as opposed to being insulted - far more constructive, and avoids censorship problems etc.

:2thumbsup:

Jolt

03-06-2009, 23:55

I personally support authoritarianism, as I am a Russian, and authoritarianism is an excellent way to keep Putin as the dictator of Russia. I would not let other people attain such position, but Putin is an extraordinary person; he is a patriot comparable to Washington, Bolivar, Garibaldi, de Gaulle, Cincinnatus, and etc. He only does what he thinks is best for the country, and usually it is the best. In a democratic society this brilliant man would have been replaced by some average, corrupt drunk in 8 years, which would have annulled all that he has done for Russia. To sum it up, he might not be perfect, but he is best Russia has seen in a long, long time.

That is YOUR opinion, what makes you think the majority of Russia wants him as a dictator?

There is no reason to believe that any other politician in the Duma is better than him.

How the hell do you know? As far as I'm aware, Putin doesn't allow the Russian people to have be aware of what other politicians think of their country, or if they could do the job better than him. Thus everyone thinks he is the only man right for the job, as they don't know the opinion of other competent politicians since the Media is completely controlled. A man with the same ideals of Obama who could (Let's imagine) place Russia as the undisputed Superpower of the world in 6 years thanks to his Superhuman ability, would never ever be elected as President of Russia because Putin effectively controls the media, and counts with support from people like you to legitimatly cut off power to principled people attempting to do the best for their country. I call that kind of man a traitor.

I ask that anyone who tries to defend Stalin educates themselves (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM)

Making Portugal as one of the top powers in genocide was pretty laughable to me. 700 millions? That's an INSANELY Colossal, Gigantic, Gargantuan value. Unless you count every living soul in Portugal and its colonies who died during that period from every cause (Even natural death). Only that way could I believe Portugal got to 700 M. Portuguese Colonial War estimates place deaths at 2 million tops. Furthermore, the Portuguese Colonial Policies never conducted any significant democide throughout the Dictatorship Period. I'd do 5 Million people an already high estimate. 700 Million people is...bleh.
EDIT: Curiously enough, I can't find any sources from where he did draw that ridiculous number. Many many countries, but no Portugal.
EDIT2: Found it. 30 Million killed during the Colonial War? Whoever estimated this, is insane. Considering WW1 had a total of 16 Million deaths, fighting in a highly urbanized and densely populated area, thinking the Portuguese Colonial War even surpassed that number should be locked up in a sanitarium. In any case the total account to a massive 41 Million (Provided I'm reading this graphics correctly). It even adds deaths of Angolan refugees abroad, as if that accounted to direct Portuguese responsability. Bleh. Short and sweet, the Portuguese were far, far nicer than other colonial empires in their treatment of native people.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-07-2009, 00:21

Making Portugal as one of the top powers in genocide was pretty laughable to me. 700 millions? That's an INSANELY Colossal, Gigantic, Gargantuan value.

You misread the number - it is 700,000, not 700,000,000, and that is for the entire regime from 1926-1982, in all wars and domestic repression.

Yoyoma1910

03-07-2009, 00:24

Personally I preferred Trotsky.

He was getting freaky with Frieda Kahlo.

Aemilius Paulus

03-07-2009, 00:28

That is YOUR opinion, what makes you think the majority of Russia wants him as a dictator?
Ummm, his approval ratings, which are basically the highest in the world. And he has already served two terms, which makes it all the more astounding. YOU have never been to Russia. I lived there until 11 and then go there every summer. There is a whole cult (not state-sponsored or mandatory) of Putin. Vast majority of the people love him. Even the ones that do not usually acknowledge that he at least tries to do what's best fro Russia, which is beset by dishonest and corrupt politicians. Corruption is the bane of Eastern Europe. Politics are jungle there. That is what Eastern Europeans say. I am one of them. I believe I have slightly more authority here.

How the hell do you know? As far as I'm aware, Putin doesn't allow the Russian people to have be aware of what other politicians think of their country, or if they could do the job better than him. Thus everyone thinks he is the only man right for the job, as they don't know the opinion of other competent politicians since the Media is completely controlled. A man with the same ideals of Obama who could (Let's imagine) place Russia as the undisputed Superpower of the world in 6 years thanks to his Superhuman ability, would never ever be elected as President of Russia because Putin effectively controls the media, and counts with support from people like you to legitimately cut off power to principled people attempting to do the best for their country. I call that kind of man a traitor.
Lets all get into conspiracy theories. Media in Russia is free. Journalists get killed by corrupt businessmen because those journalists expose their corruption. However, much of the media once went bankrupt and Russian government boght it. However, there is still foreign media. Honestly, how can you deny the fect that Putin is a good leader. look at his record. Look at him and compare him to other Russian politicians, today's or yesterday's. I am afraid of what is going to happen when he dies.

Making Portugal as one of the top powers in genocide was pretty laughable to me. 700 millions?
The website tells you to add three zeroes at the end of the number. That makes Portugal responsible for 700,000 murders. Still a lot Still a lot but better than 700 million. Read more carefully next time. Seriously, do you think China killed 76,702 million people :laugh4:?

Marshal Murat

03-07-2009, 00:49

In a democratic society this brilliant man would have been replaced by some average, corrupt drunk in 8 years, which would have annulled all that he has done for Russia.

While it's noble to believe that authoritarianism ensures that the "brilliant man" isn't supplanted by the "average, corrupt drunk" in 8 years, it's ridiculous to assume that all authoritarian rulers that would follow would be of the same caliber. While it's sad to believe that democracy only shuttles in the "average, corrupt drunk" every 8 years, this system prevents those who would abuse authority from retaining that authority for too long. It's not my fault that Russians enjoy authoritarian rulers, but just because this one man may be working in the interests of all Russians doesn't mean that all other authoritarian rulers would do the same.

Jolt

03-07-2009, 01:34

Ummm, his approval ratings, which are basically the highest in the world. And he has already served two terms, which makes it all the more astounding. YOU have never been to Russia. I lived there until 11 and then go there every summer. There is a whole cult (not state-sponsored or mandatory) of Putin. Vast majority of the people love him. Even the ones that do not usually acknowledge that he at least tries to do what's best fro Russia, which is beset by dishonest and corrupt politicians. Corruption is the bane of Eastern Europe. Politics are jungle there. That is what Eastern Europeans say. I am one of them. I believe I have slightly more authority here.

True that I have never been to Russia. But I am taking an International Relations course in the best university in Portugal for that area, plus I have a handful of Russian (From Petersburg and Moscow) that aren't as sympathetic as you are to Putin as I'm led to believe by what you're saying. And they say that it isn't all dreams and roses by the Russian people for Putin. Putin's "approval ratings" fall down the easter you go to Russia (Again, I'm making my opinion based on what my colleagues think)

Lets all get into conspiracy theories. Media in Russia is free. Journalists get killed by corrupt businessmen because those journalists expose their corruption. However, much of the media once went bankrupt and Russian government boght it. However, there is still foreign media. Honestly, how can you deny the fect that Putin is a good leader. look at his record. Look at him and compare him to other Russian politicians, today's or yesterday's. I am afraid of what is going to happen when he dies.

I'll tell you what. The media here in Portugal in 1905 was freer than it is in Russia nowadays. I'm not talking about journalists (Heck, didn't even reminded myself of Polikovskaya), I'm talking about air time at the presidential candidates. I say that Putin is a good authoritarian leader, he is good for crushing corruption out of a country. He crushes other rights in the process however. I'd be :daisy: pissed off at him for what he did to the media. You take our example here in Portugal about our Prime-Minister. He is mildly hated (Though polls show him having a upper hand but not as much as in his first mandate) because he has tried to do some reforms and in the meantime has tried to stricten up unions and media. That has caused a huge outcry. I bet if the Portuguese Legislatives were as biased as the Russian presidentials, in terms of media cover, I'd say there would be a political crisis, with people shouting slogans like "Authoritarian", "Fascist" to the man in power. Contrarily to Russian people, only 20 years out of a dictatorship, Portugal has been a democracy for 35, and it is VERY against authoritarianism. We have had authoritarism for far too long in the past. I'm glad I can choose who I want to be my leader, and hear each candidate's opinions equitatively so I can decide who I want to lead my country. I don't want someone to pick them for me.

The website tells you to add three zeroes at the end of the number. That makes Portugal responsible for 700,000 murders. Still a lot Still a lot but better than 700 million. Read more carefully next time. Seriously, do you think China killed 76,702 million people :laugh4:?

Oops. >_> That makes more sense, providing we're talking about a 50 year time-frame with wars in between. Hehe, China would have wiped the Solar System (If Martians exist!) with that score. :P

Mooks

03-07-2009, 02:07

Kralizec

03-07-2009, 02:28

I'll add that I think the USSR would have turned out pretty much the same without Stalin as well. Political opposition was banned and actively persecuted before he became really important, and most of the executive power was concentrated in a handful of offices- practicly an invitation for corrupt sociopaths.
Stalin lead the USSR to victory, but only after almost losing. If he hadn't purged the army and had reacted immediately when hearing of axis troops gathering at the border the Nazis probably wouldn't have been able to push so deeply into Russia to begin with.

Wether he was just as evil as Hitler is a moot question, really. I personally think that Hitler was crazy, especially towards the end, and probably thought that he was actually doing Germany a great service with his reign. I think that Stalin was ruthless to the extreme and paranoid, but otherwise completely rational.

Jolt

03-07-2009, 02:32

Considering Russia's horrific past with dictators, along with its neighbor China who also has very very bad experiences with dictators. How can a sensible person look at those examples and still think that totalitarianism is a reasonable option?

They and their famillies weren't the ones suffering the cold harsh reality in their skin. I doubt if Paullus was sent to the playground that is Siberia by the Great Comrade, he would see Totalitarism sympathetically.

Sarmatian

03-07-2009, 03:19

Stalin is a rather complex historical figure and there's a lot of symbolism connected with him. To some he's the man who defeated Hitler and brought an end to Nazi reign of terror, who industrialized Russia and to others he is just a brutal, murdering dictator who enjoyed performing genocides, killing everyone who didn't agree with him and starving millions of people to death. Of course, many people think both is true.

I think Stalin's murders are exaggerated to unimaginable proportions. After dissolution of the USSR, many western historians rushed to now declassified Russian archives and other sources, happy to add to their knowledge of WW2 and other things and to correct stuff they got wrong. We've seen a lot of new papers, books, articles etc... with these new evidences. Yet, somehow, the part about Stalin was left untouched. Nothing was corrected, everything was as it was. If we want to read a book about Eastern Front in WW2, we can find a lot of them that use sources that became available after 1991. Yet, if try to read something about Stalin, it's still with sources from fifties, sixties, seventies or eighties. Like they didn't like what they found there. In the last thread were we touched Stalin, Evil Maniac from Mars provided an article which states that the number of people murdered by Stalin is 80 millions. 80 millions!?!. A third of the population of the Soviet Union! It's a perfect example how people refuse to put things into context. If a third of the population of a country perished with a couple of decades, that would have had a devastating effect on the demographics and on the economy. It actually would have been a catastrophe for a country. That country would have been shaken to the core. If we add to that number almost 30 millions that died in WW2, we come to mind boggling figure of 110 million people. That would make over 40% of the population of the Soviet Union. And by the nature of the cleanses in questions and the nature of war, vast majority of that number would have been men which would have had a catastrophic impact on gender balance. Impact of such proportions that Russia today would still be feeling it.

Today the most popular quotes about Stalin, those that you find on the internet and you hear from people who want to appear smart are classic "bad guy" comments. Like the one death of one man is murder, death of millions is a statistic or ideas are more dangerous than guns, if we don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas and other similar are either unsourced or made up, but the general opinion is such that no one bother to check, even if it would take only 5-10 minutes with internet. On the other hand, quotes from Stalin that are actually sourced no one uses. Incidentally, those quotes don't contain ideas about genocides and the likes.

I feel that there was a need to demonize Stalin for several reasons. First, after WW2, he became the prime opponent of the capitalist West. He simply needed to stop being perceived by people in the West as Uncle Joe who did the lion's share of fighting against Hitler. Also, he was the person who brought communism at the peak of its power and influence.

It's similar issue with Milosevic, although on thousand times smaller scale. We now know for sure that Racak Massacre was staged. We know that all three autopsy teams (one from Yugoslavia, one from Belarus and one from Finland) found no evidence to support the massacre theory. That was finally proven about six months ago, when Dr. Helena Ranta, head of the Finnish team finally publicly admitted that she was forced in 1999 to say that there are evidence to support that the massacre indeed happen. When I read about her statement in the Serbian newspapers, I've wanted to check it on the internet, sort of to double check, to see if the Serbian newspapers didn't exaggerate or had wrong information. It didn't, I managed to find several sites that give the exactly same story but after half an hour of googling. Virtually none of the remotely important news agencies had the article. Now, it would be easy, even for an amateur researcher to find out the truth. OEBS mentioned the decline in fighting in 1998 and the begging of 1999 and than the supposed Racak incident was staged. It's clear that the purpose was to bomb Serbia and take Kosovo. To see that, all it takes is an internet connection and a couple of hours. And yet, almost none serious researcher/historian or member of the social cultural elite in the West speaks about it. It goes without saying that none of the major media houses devote any attention to it. To all of them, the situation is exactly the same as it was in 1999, everything after that is conveniently ignored. Milosevic is still the Butcher of the Balkans and Serbian army still have killed hundreds of thousand of Albanian civilians. In the Obama-Mccain TV debate only a short time ago, Mccain rode that horse pretty strongly, emphasizing how he was in favour of the Kosovo intervention. Granted, Obama conveniently avoided the specific issue and talked more in general, but didn't contradict Mccain. It's almost ten years since Milosevic is out of power, he is a threat no longer, there have been an abundance of evidence and still nothing changed. And that was just regional power politics and minor political player in global terms.

In the case of Stalin, a man who could directly threaten the West, whose legacy could directly threaten the West I somehow feel there's a lot more bias and fear. That, coupled with outdated research and years of propaganda, influence opinion much more than many would care to admit.

So in short on Stalin:
A brutal dictator who industrialized Russia and other countries, brought USSR back at the world stage as a major player, did most to rid the world of Nazism, a man responsible for the deaths of many people and countless repressions - yes

Evil personified, arch-nemesis of everything humane, a man who enjoyed genocide, responsible for the deaths of 50, 60, 70 or 80 millions of people - no

Marshal Murat

03-07-2009, 04:04

was sent to the playground that is Siberia by the Great Comrade, he would see Totalitarism sympathetically.

If one read...4,000 days in Siberia...by a Yugoslavian or Austrian author I believe, you'd read about different people who were shipped to Siberia that held, in their highest esteem, Stalin. They knew they did something wrong, or they repented their sins, and hoped that Stalin would see them and get them out of the Gulag.

In regards to Stalin demonization by the West, it's easy to see where we come from, and obviously many quotes See Wikiquotes with Sources (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stalin) are taken out of context, but they show Stalin trying to preserve the USSR and his own hold on power.

Fixiwee

03-07-2009, 04:04

Evil personified, arch-nemesis of everything humane, a man who enjoyed genocide, responsible for the deaths of 50, 60, 70 or 80 millions of people - no
I hope he burns in hell for what he did in Katyn.

Aemilius Paulus

03-07-2009, 04:37

but just because this one man may be working in the interests of all Russians doesn't mean that all other authoritarian rulers would do the same.
Precisely true. Alas, that is the problem of authoritarianism. I am well aware of this. I hope Putin will pick his successor wisely. I am sure he has either already picked one, or still picking. I trust his wisdom and forethought. After all, Lenin warned people of Stalin, until Stalin silenced him. Lenin saw the evil in him.

As for the eighty million, that is bull. Anyone from USSR will tell you that he killed no more than 20 million. I have never heard even a Western source mention anything higher than 30 million. And yes, the population of USSR at his time was only about 140-160 million, so the 80 million figure is laughable, especially that 15 million died in WWII. Western Human "Rights" organisations love to exaggerate.

As for the remarks about me being unhappy with totalitarianism after being sent to Gulag, I have to say this: I loathe and despise Stalin myself. His Purges killed millions of great people. He himself declared that he did not like anyone smarter than himself. However, I argue for Stalin because people demonize him too much. Not to mention Gulag was just hard labour. If you were a common prisoner, you were worked there until you dropped, but not until you were dead. Even Stalin realised that killing workers is not efficient.

I had three of my great-grandparents sent to Siberia and they all came back. The sentences were rarely life. You were usually given a time limit. finally, Siberia is not as bad as you think. People were sent to taiga, not tundra or the Polar Circle.

And yes, quite a bit of people were merely exiled, so they had to live in Siberia, but not work as a part of a forced-labour programme.

I'll add that I think the USSR would have turned out pretty much the same without Stalin as well. Political opposition was banned and actively persecuted before he became really important, and most of the executive power was concentrated in a handful of offices- practicly an invitation for corrupt sociopaths.
Stalin lead the USSR to victory, but only after almost losing. If he hadn't purged the army and had reacted immediately when hearing of axis troops gathering at the border the Nazis probably wouldn't have been able to push so deeply into Russia to begin with.

Umm, did you read this:
Aemilius Paulus: But all that aside, Stalin did industrialise USSR. He was the one who built up its military and produced close to 30,000 tanks before WWII, many of which were vastly superior to the German tanks used in the beginning of the war. Stalin did lead USSR to victory. It is hard to understand whether someone else in his place would have done better. If not for his militancy, Russia may not have held out against Hitler. The Nazis got to outskirts of Moscow in the winter of 1941. After capturing it, they would have won half the war.

We all owe our lives to Stalin, technically. If USSR was defeated, the world would have crumbled against the Nazi hammer. Sure, it is possible that a rebellion would have taken place and some of the world freed itself from the Nazi dominion, but still, what if the Nazis finished their A-bomb research? Then they would have a deathgrip on the world. Whatever one argues, by defeating Russia, the Nazis could have done so much more, and possibly even have exterminated as much as 95% of all Jews. Just look at what happened to Polish and German Jewry. What would have stopped Hitler from doing the same to other countries?

Sure, Stalin was evil, but to compare him to Hitler is ignorance. Thankless ignorance.
The Russian Empire on the eve of WWI was larger than USSR on the eve of WWII and yet it lost WWI (withdrew, and mostly due to revolution, but the war has been going pretty bad for it, if you put Brusilov's offensives aside. The Russians beat the Austrians, but lost to Germans). I used to think the same as you, but Stalin did contribute quite a bit to the Soviet Red Army.

A Terribly Harmful Name

03-07-2009, 04:49

Stalin was a capable leader. Hands down, he was a Machiavellian tyrant capable of forcing his own people to a scale of mobilization never ever seen and probably not to be seen again. He was also very capable, through fear, of controlling the Communist bureaucracy in a way his successors never would. That said I would rather stay miles away from a piece of land ruled by him.

For good info I would recommend the book "The Court of the Red Tzar", by Sebag Montefiore.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-07-2009, 05:02

I think Stalin's murders are exaggerated to unimaginable proportions.

:dizzy2:

After dissolution of the USSR, many western historians rushed to now declassified Russian archives and other sources, happy to add to their knowledge of WW2 and other things and to correct stuff they got wrong. We've seen a lot of new papers, books, articles etc... with these new evidences. Yet, somehow, the part about Stalin was left untouched. Nothing was corrected, everything was as it was. If we want to read a book about Eastern Front in WW2, we can find a lot of them that use sources that became available after 1991. Yet, if try to read something about Stalin, it's still with sources from fifties, sixties, seventies or eighties.

Perhaps because various Russian archives were missing, destroyed, or not written at all in the first place? I provided all kinds of hard evidence and links to you about this - you are choosing to ignore it. It is remarkably similar to the tactics used by Holocaust deniers.

Like they didn't like what they found there. In the last thread were we touched Stalin, Evil Maniac from Mars provided an article which states that the number of people murdered by Stalin is 80 millions. 80 millions!?!.

Two things. Firstly, you're presuming that Stalin killed eighty million people all at once. Secondly, I don't recall personally quoting a figure higher than 67 million.

responsible for the deaths of 50, 60, 70 or 80 millions of people - no

Absolutely yes he was, and those who deny it should be held in the same regard has Holocaust deniers.

Aemilius Paulus

03-07-2009, 05:08

C'mon lads, there is no way Stalin could have killed that many. Mostly everyone in Russia agrees on the fact that no more than 20 million were killed. A lot do not even believe it was that much. I do not believe it was 20 million either. Almost everyone has someone in the family who died in WWII, but very few have family members who died at the hands of Stalin. And the WWII death toll is estimated at a maximum 15 million: 10 million civilians (don't forget the Jews) and 5 million soldiers. As for the gulags, they were not the same as Hitler's concentration camps. The gulags, first of all, varied enormously, and secondly, their main purpose was to get people working, and not to kill them.

Oh, and did I mention I am 1/2 Ukrainian?

Ice

03-07-2009, 05:09

Aemilius Paulus

03-07-2009, 05:14

Did anyone ever hear the theory that the USSR was about to launch a preemptive war into Europe, but was taken completely by surprise by the attackingGermans (even after soviet spies warned of such an attack?)

That kind of paints Stalin in a different picture, now doesn't it?
Nope. That theory is false. Cite some good sources. Stalin knew about the invasion but he wanted Russia to be seen as a victim and not an aggressor, which is why he did not attack. He did not know the attack would come so soon, which is why he was unprepared. Even though the spies kept telling him that. However, he was finally persuaded the day before the commencement of Barbarossa.

Ice

03-07-2009, 05:19

Nope. That theory is false. Cite some good sources. Stalin knew about the invasion but he wanted Russia to be seen as a victim and not an aggressor, which is why he did not attack. He did not know the attack would come so soon, which is why he was unprepared. Even though the spies kept telling him that. However, he was finally persuaded the day before the commencement of Barbarossa.

How do you know that theory is false? Is it because it doesn't fit neatly into your views of the Soviet dictator?

This guy, a former Soviet intelligence officer, wrote a few books about it:

http://www.solargeneral.com/mirrors/Flawless%20Logic%20Library/library.flawlesslogic.com/suvorov.htm

Edit:

Soviet Dictator, not Russian.

Aemilius Paulus

03-07-2009, 05:30

Ice

03-07-2009, 05:34

I know it is false because of all the history books I have read and all the people I have listened to said the same thing. Why should one isolated example be the right one? And I do not like Stalin, for the fourth time.

What information was used to write those history books? :book: Appeal to authority isn't a great argument to use.

I'd hope you wouldn't like the Stalin. The man was an absolute monster, and so was Hitler.

Aemilius Paulus

03-07-2009, 05:41

I also do not like comparisons between the two... But who cares :shrug:

Someone please tell Kush if you know the history behind his decision to not attack Hitler first. I need some support here.

Ice

03-07-2009, 05:43

I also do not like comparisons between the two... But who cares :shrug:

Someone please tell Kush if you know the history behind his decision to not attack Hitler first. I need some support here.

Why don't you convince me yourself? I'm well aware conventional history in World War II. Stalin believed he had Hitler as a great ally. I do not agree with the part about him having no plans to attack Western Europe.

Jolt

03-07-2009, 05:54

I'm pretty sure that if by some miracle Germany started collapsing on the Western Front by its own (Say, actually losing to the French and British), Stalin would rub his hands and send in his armies to attack Germany so he could gain something out of it.

Ice

03-07-2009, 05:54

Lord Winter

03-07-2009, 06:09

But all that aside, Stalin did industrialise USSR. He was the one who built up its military and produced close to 30,000 tanks before WWII, many of which were vastly superior to the German tanks used in the beginning of the war. Stalin did lead USSR to victory. It is hard to understand whether someone else in his place would have done better. If not for his militancy, Russia may not have held out against Hitler. The Nazis got to outskirts of Moscow in the winter of 1941. After capturing it, they would have won half the war.

We all owe our lives to Stalin, technically. If USSR was defeated, the world would have crumbled against the Nazi hammer. Sure, it is possible that a rebellion would have taken place and some of the world freed itself from the Nazi dominion, but still, what if the Nazis finished their A-bomb research? Then they would have a deathgrip on the world. Whatever one argues, by defeating Russia, the Nazis could have done so much more, and possibly even have exterminated as much as 95% of all Jews. Just look at what happened to Polish and German Jewry. What would have stopped Hitler from doing the same to other countries?

Sure, Stalin was evil, but to compare him to Hitler is ignorance. Thankless ignorance.

While Stalin did contribute to industrialization he wasn't the only person who could have modernized Russia, by far. The process had already begun, although slowly and irregularly. You're also exaggerating Stalin's role in the defeat of Germany. Yes, he ruled during the war, but giving him credit for Zuckovs, Chivoks and others victories is akin to saying Hitler was responsiable for Germany's success. Instead Russia's victory should be viewed as noteworthy not for the Stalin's role in insuring but because it overcame all the obstacles that Stalin had made. The purges, inept millitary involvement ect are all examples of his bad decisions. Show me one place where Stalin contributed to the victory. Nevertheless the point is irrelevant. Industrialization and WWII did not require the mass slaughter that took place. Be it 15,20 or even just five million. Stalin's policies were still unacceptable.

Sarmatian

03-07-2009, 06:09

Perhaps because various Russian archives were missing, destroyed, or not written at all in the first place? I provided all kinds of hard evidence and links to you about this - you are choosing to ignore it. It is remarkably similar to the tactics used by Holocaust deniers.

No you didn't. You said you would but you never did.

Two things. Firstly, you're presuming that Stalin killed eighty million people all at once. Secondly, I don't recall personally quoting a figure higher than 67 million.

No I don't. I've said over a couple of decades. Stalin ruled from 1922-1953.

I remember it from a link you provided. Could be that I'm mistaken, it's been some time, but I'm pretty sure 80 millions was among the figures in that link. Link was to a paper from some US university, iirc.

Anyway even if it's 67 million it doesn't change anything. Add app. 27 million that died during ww2 and you get 94 million between 1922-1953. Impossible, it would have made chaos of unimaginable proportions in USSR.

Absolutely yes he was, and those who deny it should be held in the same regard has Holocaust deniers.

Well, I personally never liked to limit anyone's freedom of speech and thought. I do not consider a subject of Holocaust a taboo, something that couldn't or shouldn't be discussed. Just so happens that there is overwhelming evidence that it did happen and I have never heard any good arguments for the opposite...

Vuk

03-07-2009, 08:40

Aemilius Paulus, I am in Hungary studying right now and do not have access to any of my sources or books. This is a great shame, because if I did, I think I could change your mind on Stalin if it is at all possible. Stalin waged an ideological war against Christians denominations, Ukrainians, Magyar, Poles, Germans, Finns, Latvians, Lithuanians, Cossacks, etc. To meet his ends of efficiency he butchered and enslaved millions. You need only look at the documents housed in the House of Horror museum (they are copies, the originals are in archives throughout the world) and see the footage they have. You have only to talk to Polish or Magyar survivors of the Stalin regime. Russians have been brain washed by Stalins government, and then by a media driven by the same ideology. I hope that you do not find that offensive, but it is the truth. As I do not have my sources with me, I will only point you to a set of books you may want to read, both written by Simon Sebag Montefiore, a distinguished historian. One is called Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, and the other is called Young Stalin. While I do not agree with him on many of his ascertains, it is an invaluable list of sources at least...ones that you should check out.

As for comparing denying atrocities with Holocaust Deniers, I think that two things are important. First of all, to distinguish between liking Hitler/Stalin in spite of their atrocities, and not believing them. Someone could be the victim of brainwashing media, have read books that make them believe otherwise, or whatever. Just because they do not believe them does not mean that they should be held in contempt or be deserving of a powerful stigma like 'Holocaust Denier'. If you truely believe that you are right, you should listen to their argument, take them seriously, and be confident that your argument is correct when you present it.
Secondly, things are not always black and white. Many people branded with the stigma 'Holocaust Denier' do not actually deny the Holocaust, but simply think that it is somewhat exagerrated, or that the groups persecuted are misrepresented. (I for one know a lot of Poles who seem to think that there is good evidence that the six million jews killed in the death camps was over 3/4 Slavic, not Jewish. As I pointed out to them, many people who were not Jews were persecuted as Jews under Hitler's tyrrany, and many Slavs were Jewish Slavs. Most of them use pretty good evidence, but they usually end up agreeing with me) My point is that those Poles are branded 'Holocaust Denier', and people think that they are NeoNazis who want to do it all over again, when in fact they simply (right or wrong) believe that historical perseption is wrong. Not only is applying this stigma harmful, but it stifles all free thought and speech. I firmly believe (and know that I can prove) that Hitler and Stalin commited those attrocities, so when I am faced with someone who does not, I can always present a winning case, and they usually end up changing their mind. Doesn't mean that they were bad people who became good, simply that they did not agree, saw the evidence for it, and do now.

Sorry to go on so much about that, but I think that it is a pretty important point.

Vuk

03-07-2009, 08:44

While Stalin did contribute to industrialization he wasn't the only person who could have modernized Russia, by far. The process had already begun, although slowly and irregularly. You're also exaggerating Stalin's role in the defeat of Germany. Yes, he ruled during the war, but giving him credit for Zuckovs, Chivoks and others victories is akin to saying Hitler was responsiable for Germany's success. Instead Russia's victory should be viewed as noteworthy not for the Stalin's role in insuring but because it overcame all the obstacles that Stalin had made. The purges, inept millitary involvement ect are all examples of his bad decisions. Show me one place where Stalin contributed to the victory. Nevertheless the point is irrelevant. Industrialization and WWII did not require the mass slaughter that took place. Be it 15,20 or even just five million. Stalin's policies were still unacceptable.

I actually have to agree with you. Both Hitler and Stalin made so many disastarous military decisions that it is a wonder that either had any success. Looking at some of Hitler's moves (when all of his generals were telling him otherwise), it almost seems like he was fighting for the other side. :P Germany and Russia did well in spite of their leaders, because they were strong countries with strong people (not to mention Russia's climate). To be fair though, both Stalin and Hitler made it possible by mobilizing the entire country in way that few others would have been able to.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-07-2009, 08:47

Vuk

03-07-2009, 09:03

Vuk, as I said, it is not those who were held by the Soviet propaganda machine or those who were unaware of the extent of Stalin's crimes that deserve the label. It is those who, when faced with overwhelming evidence that Stalin was a mass murderer, continue to deny it.

lol, I just call them liars. :P When you are faced with absolute proof of something and deny it, what else are you?

Fragony

03-07-2009, 11:34

How anyone can even try admiring scumbags like Stalin or Hitler is beyond me must be an emo thing.

Aemilius Paulus

03-07-2009, 15:20

How anyone can even try admiring scumbags like Stalin or Hitler is beyond me must be an emo thing.
For the fifth time, I hate the guy. I am only arguing for him because most of the people are arguing against him and because he is made more evil than he was. Read all of the posts in the thread or do not post at all. This is one of those threads.

That was the idea. Let the Germans exhaust themselves against the West.
I sure hope you are not accusing Stalin of being treacherous. First of all, he was in no way obligated to help Allies, with whom he had less in common than with Hitler. He was a communist after all. Second of all, it turned out that the West was the one who had the idea to let Russia exhaust itself until finally, in the summer of 1944, when Germany was collapsing, the Allies landed on Normandy and claimed to have reached a turning point in their history books. Bah, what about Stalingrad and Kursk? Churchill himself publically said that Soviet Union was bled white by the Allies.

Anyway even if it's 67 million it doesn't change anything. Add app. 27 million that died during ww2 and you get 94 million between 1922-1953. Impossible, it would have made chaos of unimaginable proportions in USSR.

Precisely my argument. Anything above 20 million during the Purges before WWII is too much. Then again 10 million of purges during and after WWII and you get 30 million at the most. That is still a lot for USSR after WWII, with 120-140 million people total. I have already noted that while everyone seems to have a family member lost to the Nazis in WWII, very few have lost family members due to Stalin in comparison. I think I am the only Russian here.

While Stalin did contribute to industrialization he wasn't the only person who could have modernized Russia, by far. The process had already begun, although slowly and irregularly.
By whom? By what? How? See, I used to be like you, thinking Stalin did his best to inflict defeat upon USSR, but now I know better after reading some history books on him. He was the one who industrialised USSR. Read history. Everyone admits it. I gave you the example of tsarist Russia. The Russian Empire on the eve of WWI.

They were industrialising, at a good steady pace. Lot of good that did, as the soldiers deserted and refused to fight. They did not have weapons or ammunition. No tanks of their own. They lost the war. WWI was lost by Russia. Would it have been so hard to lose again, especially since Nazi Germany was much stronger than the Germany under Wilhelm II? The Nazi Germany conquered France, something it could not do in WWI, meaning that France was not much stronger. But it did not conquer Russia, meaning it was much stronger.

Russia was always an agrarian nation, and it would have stayed that way unless someone applied a lot of force to change it. Then ,even with that, the change would have taken at least half a century. Stalin did it in 20 years. That is why I say he contributed so much.

lol, I just call them liars. :P When you are faced with absolute proof of something and deny it, what else are you?
I hope you are not calling me a denier. Because I am calling you a fabricator. Eighty million is preposterous. Face it. Add the WWII losses of 20 million as someone put it and you will have 100 million. So you are saying only 40 million Soviets remained? Give me a final figure of how much you think Stalin killed and I will see what I say about it.

You are one of those people who would swallow any figure of Jews killed by Hitler, whether it was the current 6 million or 20 million. Heck, poor Zionists, I bet they are tearing themselves apart for keeping the Holocaust figure so accurate and truthful. Now when everyone is exaggerating so much, their figure seems so minuscule in comparison. Oh well, the Jewish lobbies are still functioning well... At least some hope for the Jews remains.

Fragony

03-07-2009, 15:31

For the fifth time, I hate the guy. I am only arguing for him because most of the people are arguing against him and because he is made more evil than he was. Read all of the posts in the thread or do not post at all. This is one of those threads.

Wasn't meant as a personal attack, sorry if it appeared like that.

Vuk

03-07-2009, 15:38

I hope you are not calling me a denier. Because I am calling you a fabricator. Eighty million is preposterous. Face it. Add the WWII losses of 20 million as someone put it and you will have 100 million. So you are saying only 40 million Soviets remained? Give me a final figure of how much you think Stalin killed and I will see what I say about it.

You are one of those people who would swallow any figure of Jews killed by Hitler, whether it was the current 6 million or 20 million. Heck, poor Zionists, I bet they are tearing themselves apart for keeping the Holocaust figure so accurate and truthful. Now when everyone is exaggerating so much, their figure seems so minuscule in comparison. Oh well, the Jewish lobbies are still functioning well... At least some hope for the Jews remains.

I was not calling you anything, but after that post, how does anti-semite sound? First of all, I never said anything about 80 million, or 40 million, or 20 million, or any other figure.
Second of all, your attacks on Jews are unrelated and completely uncalled for. Not that it is ANY of your business, I believe evidence proves that lots of those 6 million killed were NOT Jews, however I do not think that means they are lying about it, or that makes the killing, torture, etc of the ones who did die any less horrible. You on the other hand seem to think that as long as Stalin killed ONLY 20 million human beings it is not any big deal!
I am sorry, but I do not have very much respect for Stalin sympathizers or anti-semites. I am gonna leave this thread before I get myself banned.

rory_20_uk

03-07-2009, 16:53

I am sorry, but I do not have very much respect for Stalin sympathizers or anti-semites. I am gonna leave this thread before I get myself banned.

Yup, pointless topic, even for the backroom. What's next, Pol Pot was a good leader of Cambodia?

~:smoking:

Jolt

03-07-2009, 17:30

Would it have been so hard to lose again, especially since Nazi Germany was much stronger than the Germany under Wilhelm II? The Nazi Germany conquered France, something it could not do in WWI, meaning that France was not much stronger.

I agree with the latter sentence. In WW1 you wouldn't see French saying "Better Hitler than Blum." That coupled with bad strategic decisions led to the fall of France. If France had fortified the Belgium border accordingly (And should have done so since they already had the enemy's battle plans.), I doubt anyone would be boasting Germany's Wehrmacht as much stronger than the Deutsches Reichsheer. If France had held the line in Belgium/Northern France, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be seeing a World War lasting as long as the first did. Germany's economy was artificially sustained and without loot to keep the war machine going, it would have collapsed before long.

Fixiwee

03-07-2009, 17:34

I am sorry, but I do not have very much respect for Stalin sympathizers or anti-semites.
I never thought I'd defend AP, but you obviously didn't read or try to understand his posts. Because as far as I understand he is nothing of the both things you accuse him here.

Marshal Murat

03-07-2009, 17:38

To be fair to all the Germans, without Guderian and Manstein, Germany wouldn't have won WW2, led alone succeeded in invading France. The French and British tanks were slowed than the German ones, but they were more heavily armed and better equipped with guns. The Germans had speed and coordination, that they only succeeded in using because Guderian was able to convince Hitler that there could be a strike through the Ardennes, despite General Staff opposition. If Germany had gone, as originally planned, through Belgium, then the war would've been over far sooner, as Germans would've exhausted themselves in a blundering campaign against dug-in and well-prepared foes.

I understand AP's points about Stalin's figure being overblown, but the thread is "a discussion of Stalinism".

Vuk

03-07-2009, 17:44

I never thought I'd defend AP, but you obviously didn't read or try to understand his posts. Because as far as I understand he is nothing of the both things you accuse him here.

On the contrary Fix, I did, and it is from that where my disgust comes. He tells us that 'Oh, Stalin may have done some naughty things, but not nearly as naughty as you think, and he did all this good which far out ways it though. He actually did excellent stuff for humanity...I hate him BTW'. He defends and glorifies Stalin, tells us that he was not actaully that bad of a guy, at least he did more good than bad, then tells us that he does not like him. I don't think that he could make his admiration for Stalin much more apparent. Also, his last post degenerating into an unprovoked, off-topic attack on Jewery, how is that NOT anti-semetic?

Sarmatian

03-07-2009, 18:04

On the contrary Fix, I did, and it is from that where my disgust comes. He tells us that 'Oh, Stalin may have done some naughty things, but not nearly as naughty as you think, and he did all this good which far out ways it though. He actually did excellent stuff for humanity...I hate him BTW'. He defends and glorifies Stalin, tells us that he was not actaully that bad of a guy, at least he did more good than bad, then tells us that he does not like him. I don't think that he could make his admiration for Stalin much more apparent. Also, his last post degenerating into an unprovoked, off-topic attack on Jewery, how is that NOT anti-semetic?

It is entirely possible to admire good things and hate bad things, even if we're talking about the same men or the same event. It is possible to hate the bloodshed during the French Revolution and to admire positive aspects of it. It is possible to hate Napoleon's wars of conquest and his imperialism but to admire his tactical genius and to use metric system. It is possible to admire the efforts of the US during ww2 and to hate their policy of installing dictators in Latin America afterward. It is possible for me as a Serb to be disgusted with Ottoman atrocities in the later period of their rule and to acknowledge the positive aspects of it in the first period...

Why does everything has to be black or white?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-07-2009, 18:40

Precisely my argument. Anything above 20 million during the Purges before WWII is too much. Then again 10 million of purges during and after WWII and you get 30 million at the most. That is still a lot for USSR after WWII, with 120-140 million people total.

I think you and Sarmatian may be making two fatal errors. Firstly, Stalin did not just kill people who were in the USSR. He killed a massive number of Poles, for example. Secondly, nobody is suggesting that everybody was killed all at once - Stalin ruled for thirty years, and even before that he had power to murder - executing Tsarists, burning villages and killing peasants, etc. Also, not all of the dead were during the purges. Nonetheless, the quoted figure for Stalin usually hovers around forty million, not sixty to seventy - the latter number generally applies to the whole Soviet Union.

I have already noted that while everyone seems to have a family member lost to the Nazis in WWII, very few have lost family members due to Stalin in comparison. I think I am the only Russian here.

As stated, he did not only kill Russians. I myself lost four relatives to their brutality, and various others were tortured and then released by the Soviets. What was the crime, you may ask? The fact they were German.

Meneldil

03-07-2009, 19:01

Precisely my argument. Anything above 20 million during the Purges before WWII is too much. Then again 10 million of purges during and after WWII and you get 30 million at the most. That is still a lot for USSR after WWII, with 120-140 million people total. I have already noted that while everyone seems to have a family member lost to the Nazis in WWII, very few have lost family members due to Stalin in comparison. I think I am the only Russian here.

Agreed. Although I'm not denying Stalin was probably one of the worst dictator ever, behind Hitler and a few other megalomanic racist genociders, claiming that he killed up to 70, or even 50 millions of people is simply crazy. Add to these 70-50 millions the 20 millions that died during WWII, and you are looking at a grand total of 70-90 millions.
Add to these the few millions that died during WWI and the civil war, the Polish war and what not, and you could probably reach 100 millions, according to these so-called scholars.

Could a country such as USSR, who had overall low birth-rates and a total population ranging from 100 to 140 millions, sustain the loss of 100+ millions and not collapse immediatly, or turn into a wasteland? I mean, it's about time these so-called scholars make a reality-check and try to learn demographics.
That's not to say I respect Stalin, or other communist dictators (I loathe every single one of them), but the good ol' 'communists killed 33 billions of people, true story!' we're being served by the right in order to somehow lessen the crimes of fascism and nazism is getting old.
No matter how hard you try, Stalin can't be compared to Hitler. Now, if we're talking about Pol Pot for example, that's another matter. Pol Pot killed only 2 millions people (still 1/4 of Cambodia population), but he did it in a way that makes him as evil as Hitler IMO.

They were industrialising, at a good steady pace. Lot of good that did, as the soldiers deserted and refused to fight. They did not have weapons or ammunition. No tanks of their own. They lost the war. WWI was lost by Russia. Would it have been so hard to lose again, especially since Nazi Germany was much stronger than the Germany under Wilhelm II? The Nazi Germany conquered France, something it could not do in WWI, meaning that France was not much stronger. But it did not conquer Russia, meaning it was much stronger.

That's where I disagree. Industrialization started under Lenin, and had then much better results than under Stalin.
The Russians didn't have tank during WWI because none but the French and Brits achieved to build somehow working tanks. Soviet soldiers didn't have ammunitions at the beginning of WW2 either, and were probably as poorly trained and equiped as their WWI predecessors, mostly thanks to Uncle Joe, who managed to kill all competent officers and to screw up his whole army.

France was conquered during WW2 because France had some of the most stupid generals one could ever dream of, but also because French didn't want to fight another exhausting and endless war against Germany, and because a democratic government cannot force its citizens to fight to death if they don't want to.
USSR wasn't conquered during WW2 because Stalin would have sent to death every single people available before surrendering, something Tzarist russia couldn't afford to do, as it was a weak state shaken by riots and social disorder.

Sarmatian

03-07-2009, 20:15

I think you and Sarmatian may be making two fatal errors. Firstly, Stalin did not just kill people who were in the USSR. He killed a massive number of Poles, for example. Secondly, nobody is suggesting that everybody was killed all at once - Stalin ruled for thirty years, and even before that he had power to murder - executing Tsarists, burning villages and killing peasants, etc. Also, not all of the dead were during the purges. Nonetheless, the quoted figure for Stalin usually hovers around forty million, not sixty to seventy - the latter number generally applies to the whole Soviet Union.

That's a great idea, let's go even further back. Let's go back to 1914, WW1 and take into account all the people died in that war in then Imperial Russia, then add the number of people died during the Russian Civil War, then add the number of people died during the Russo-Polish war then 40 million from Stalin and 27 million from WW2. That covers the period of 39 years (1914-1953).

Under your presumption that figure would easily go over 100 millions which would account to over 2/3 of the population of Imperial Russia. Also keep in mind that Imperial Russia also lost almost a third of the population with the territories it lost after the war. In 1922 USSR had about 130 million people and in 1940 it had 194 million. If you are correct, to compensate for all those millions killed, Russian birth rates must have been something unrecorded in the history of the entire world. And before you mention it, Poles and Ukrainians also experienced similar growth in population.

As stated, he did not only kill Russians. I myself lost four relatives to their brutality, and various others were tortured and then released by the Soviets. What was the crime, you may ask? The fact they were German.

My sympathies. I also lost relatives, during Nazi occupation, whose crime was only their nationality and genes, but neither has anything to do with this discussion...

That's where I disagree. Industrialization started under Lenin, and had then much better results than under Stalin.
The Russians didn't have tank during WWI because none but the French and Brits achieved to build somehow working tanks. Soviet soldiers didn't have ammunitions at the beginning of WW2 either, and were probably as poorly trained and equiped as their WWI predecessors, mostly thanks to Uncle Joe, who managed to kill all competent officers and to screw up his whole army.

I wouldn't really agree. We can say that industrialization started under Tsar Alexander in the 1860-ties, but both during his and Lenin's reign, it was at a snail's pace compared to Stalin's reign.

In 1922 80% of the population worked in agriculture, with basic, rudimentary tools. In the same year only 16% of the population lived in cities. In 1940, 33% lived in cities. In 1928 USSR was producing 36 million tons of coal, 5 billion kwh of electrical energy, 4 million tons of steel. In 1940 it was - 166 million tons of coal, 48 billion kwh of electrical energy and 18 billion tons of steel. In 1928 there was virtually nothing but basic tools in the agriculture, by 1934 there was 278,000 tractors in use...

So, most of the credit, pretty much all of it, for the industrialization goes to Stalin....

France was conquered during WW2 because France had some of the most stupid generals one could ever dream of, but also because French didn't want to fight another exhausting and endless war against Germany, and because a democratic government cannot force its citizens to fight to death if they don't want to.

I'm also of opinion that French thought it's gonna be more like WW1 and earlier wars - we'll exchange a few provinces, pay reparations and that's it...

PershsNhpios

03-08-2009, 04:00

Fragony

03-08-2009, 04:23

I would like to say that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, although responsible for terrible acts, were actually human beings neither had horns or tails, and neither had little red phones and a hotline to hell and the devil.

It isn't about what they thought it's about what they did. Hitler may have cared about his lot, and if he really thought jews are that terrible you could even call him a good man. But let's face it some things really shouldn't be.

I am sorry that my opinions are so unpopular

Join the club

Caius

03-08-2009, 04:24

As stated, he did not only kill Russians. I myself lost four relatives to their brutality, and various others were tortured and then released by the Soviets. What was the crime, you may ask? The fact they were German.
Here, people, is one of the worst mistakes to be made by any who workship Stalin and the like. Stalin, like Hitler, like Videla in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, and so many other dictators made what Stalin called: political cleaning.

What is political cleaning? It is the authoritarian attitude to eliminate, for once and all, all those people, religious autorities, media, political parties and thinkers that can make any kind of "opposition" to the ruling coup. All the dictatorships had different ideologies, yet they supported one idea in common; to not to have any kind of opposition, they had to do something. They didn't care how many censorship, manipulation, propaganda, State Terrorism they managed to use, they would say if 2+2 = 5 if they say so... what they didn't know that if somebody else thought that 2 + 2 = 4, and that person wouldn't said that... he would be free and knowing there is something else of what they say. Statal terrorism was conducted by dictatorships to last longer.

It's something else than: If you don't follow us, then we send you to Gulags. Its the failure of knowing that there are other points of view, everyone can learn from those others points of view, but yet they are too busy trying to prove their point.

Sure, Stalin was evil, but to compare him to Hitler is ignorance. Thankless ignorance.

They both were dictators, harrased with their enemies sending them to concentration camps. Enough said.

He killed a massive number of Poles, for example.
There was a file, I think it was called The X Paragraph or something, which stated that there was xenophobia between Russians (Of Commie Russia) and the rest of the countries that were part of the USSR.

Strike For The South

03-08-2009, 04:49

Both men used scapegoats and scare tactics. Both men killed millions. As an American I really don't have a dog in this fight. Most of my relatives fought in the pacific.

However One of My Grandfathers speaks perfect Russian (long story the years of 44-54 had allot in store for Granpappy) and although he was to young to fight in WWII he interrogated Russian troops and he says many of them hated Stalin with all there hearts. Granted many of these men defected so take all this with a grain of salt. But if your people hate a winning head of state thats gotta mean something

Aemilius Paulus

03-08-2009, 06:01

They both were dictators, harrased with their enemies sending them to concentration camps. Enough said.
Yes, but I called it "thankless" because Stalin technically saved the world from Hitler. of course, along with the major help of Allies, but without Stalin, victory would have been impossible, just like without the rest of the Allies. Like it or not, he saved our butts.

But if your people hate a winning head of state thats gotta mean something
So? Is it not natural for there to be opposition to a leader? HAs there not been millions who disliked or hated Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Wilson, etc? I do not see your point. Not to mention, Stalin was a man to hate, or rather to fear. He was not lovable, quite certainly. And I would add more than just a grain of salt. Perhaps a dash; a large dash. Or better yet, a handful :grin: It takes one heck of a hatred to betray one's country, one's motherland in favour of an ally-soon-to-be-enemy.

Ice

03-08-2009, 06:12

I sure hope you are not accusing Stalin of being treacherous. First of all, he was in no way obligated to help Allies, with whom he had less in common than with Hitler. He was a communist after all. Second of all, it turned out that the West was the one who had the idea to let Russia exhaust itself until finally, in the summer of 1944, when Germany was collapsing, the Allies landed on Normandy and claimed to have reached a turning point in their history books. Bah, what about Stalingrad and Kursk? Churchill himself publically said that Soviet Union was bled white by the Allies.

I was simply stating that it was in Stalin's intention to let Nazi Germany weaken itself against the West, then to lead a massive surprise attack and roll through Europe.

It's interesting how you didn't attempt to refute any of the arguments in my posted link. I supplied evidence, as requested, and you simply brushed into under the rug while encouraging others to refute me.

Vuk

03-08-2009, 07:35

I was temporarily banned for being offensive in the front room, and thereafter pursuing my opinion in a baiting and unneccessary manner.
I agree with my punishment, and I have since decided that I will remain in the Main Hall from now on.
(I believe I will not be missed!)

However I have read this thread through, thinking it may have come from my argument.. but it has not.

My argument was involving politics. This is an argument over history, or political history.
I argued which power and leader was the most harmful and deceitful at this very moment, using parts of their history, and I was refuted with claims to those who were most harmful and deceitful half a century before.
We both discussed the history of our respective antagonists, with the difference that mine is still in existence.

I would like to say that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, although responsible for terrible acts, were actually human beings neither had horns or tails, and neither had little red phones and a hotline to hell and the devil.
Sure, they were humans...evil humans. That is as far as anyone has claimed so far, I have seen no one mention horns of tails. It does not matter anyway if they were evil devils, evil aliens, evil octopus, or evil humans, it is the 'evil' part that was important.
I believe it is possible, by following the history of their lives, to find respectable reasons for their decisions in later life, and I have always tried to avoid dancing on their graves with the rest of the western world. East is West and West is East...
Respectable? Sorry, I can respect the decision to massacre, torture, starve and enslave tens of millions of people. I do not care what their reason was, I cannot respect it. Even if they thought that what they were doing was good for their cause(Hitler because Jews and Slavs were evil, and Stalin because...I don't know, he was god? It is hard to justify Stalin as everything he did was for himself), but the end does NOT justify the means, and they knew that their means were inhumane and evil. You can say the same for any small time serial killer, but evil is evil. Stalin was a paranoid nut who murdered and enslaved millions.

Most romanticised military figures of history were indirectly responsible for horribly high numbers of human deaths, and I would have you realise that you are arguing heatedly over numbers for the most part, and these numbers will be not so much forgotten as forgiven within this 21st century.
These numbers Glenn, represent human beings. They are more than just numbers.
Stalin was indirectly responsible for millions of deaths. He killed millions.
But they are all dead, including Stalin and his regime.
Does that make it any better? Does that suddenly make Stalin less worthy of contempt? And they are not dead BTW, there are still people alive who have suffered under his regime. It was only 56 years ago, not exatly distant history.
Then what is the use of your arguments?
Truth. It is the lack of truth that enables people like Stalin and Hitler to reign. The duping and brainwashing of the entire population was needed for both of them to do what they did. Truth is important, and worth arguing over.
From what I have seen, the English, Austrians and Russians are quite admiring of Napoleon in our times.
There is a difference between killing people when you are fighting for your country and enslaving and brutally and inhumanely executing 10s of millions (including of your own country) so that your corrupt regime can make you more powerful. I, myself am a fan of Napoleon's military genius (though not of Napoleon himself). Napoleon was mostly an honorable man, not a senseless butcher like Stalin of Hitler. Also, he IS distant history, and dangerous political remnants of his regime and political ideology are not powerful in this world, unlike with Stalin's communism. Therefore people admiring Napoleon does not pose the same threat as people liking Stalin.

What is the use then of these arguments? When they are so poisonous?
Pravda

I asked myself that - what was the use of my argument, poisonous as it was?
Surely, if I were in position of political power, if I were able to move someone to my perspective - there would be a practical reason for it, for the problem I see still exists.
But what help, what progress could I make here on the .Org? I came here originally to download a mod for Rome: Total War!

It is simply not neccessary.
It is unneccessary for you to be arguing nastily over the actions of dead men, and at once to be distracted by the self-same kind of atrocities which are being committed by different nations and different leaders even whilst you bicker. What can you do for the former? What will you do for the latter, the present?
You cannot understand the present without understanding the past. If you refuse acknowledge history, because it does not fit with your beliefs, then you will do the same with present day events. Most of the horrors of the world could have been avoided if people paid more attention to history, and heeded its warning better. We are not gods, and there is not much that the individual can do for what they believe in today, aside from getting information out and voting. I have been doing both to the best of my abilities for what I believe in. History does not distract from the present, it puts the present into perspective.
And it is unneccessary for me to continue.

I am sorry that my opinions are so unpopular.
As Frag said, you and me both. I believe the main reason that people got mad at you was not your opinions though, but your state of address (which is very cordial and not at all offensive in this post).

I hope you see my point,
Vuk

Vuk

03-08-2009, 07:46

Yes, but I called it "thankless" because Stalin technically saved the world from Hitler. of course, along with the major help of Allies, but without Stalin, victory would have been impossible, just like without the rest of the Allies. Like it or not, he saved our butts.

1st of all, it is a highly debatebly point whether or not the allies could have won if Stalin was defeated, that means nothing though. We can thank Hitler for weakening Stalin, so that he did not have the power to roll through Europe after the war, and possible (probably) the US. I do not get into the habit of thanking merciless butchers and madmen for pursuing their own ambitions...even if it has an unintended postive effect for me. I will thank God for Hitler being defeated, not Stalin.

Meneldil

03-08-2009, 10:27

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-08-2009, 10:36

Without USSR, the war would never have ended without the nuclear bomb, and said nuclear bomb would probably have been created by ze germans.

I've heard/read the opposite, really. The Germans were off or behind on all sorts of things, and the timeline for the American bomb would've been likely the same (or faster, in a panic).

That probably means something doesn't it ?
Humans can be wrong?

I do, but that doesn't change the fact I still think he was a genius and had a positive impact on Europe as a whole.]
Really? I get the genius bit, but he didn't really do much for Europe as a whole but build grudges... I don't know enough about his reforms/changes within France, but how did he positively change Europe? And I'm genuinely interested in hearing your answer, too.

Vuk

03-08-2009, 10:37

To be honest Vuk, most of the fight in Europe was done in USSR. Had USSR been defeated, the allies would probably never had set a foot on Europe. Most German casualties occurred on the eastern front, and the best German divisions were sent to the USSR.
Without USSR, the war would never have ended without the nuclear bomb, and said nuclear bomb would probably have been created by ze Germans.

It is true that the Germans burnt themselves out going at Russia, but it is highly debatable how the war would have turned out otherwise.

That would be a valid point, except that most Russian old-timers still think of Stalin as the greatest leader ever. They're building statues and monuments for him, and they think Putin is a liberal whiner sold to the US.
I mean, I've met some Kazakh people. They're around 20-25, their grandparents have been deported to Siberia, and yet, they think that Stalin was a great leader, and that the USSR was much better than the corrupt country they live in today. That probably means something doesn't it ?
Yeah, it means that they grew up listening to propaganda their whole lives. When you hear something since birth, it is a crime to say otherwise, and everyone around you who you respect believes it, it is hard not to believe it yourself. I am not sure of your point when you say it means something? What does it mean, that Stalin was really a good leader? :P I doubt you meant that, so all I can think of is that they had really good propaganda.

Then to be honest again, most communists nowadays don't ask for a Stalinist government. Calling all communists 'Stalinist' is about as stupid as calling all right-wingers 'fascists'. A lot of people believe in communism and despise Stalin, Kroutchev, Pol Pot and Mao.
I know a few communist old-timers are still praising Stalin and what not, in the western world, but they're not a majority.

We are talking about Stalinism though, not Communism. Also, history has showed that Communism almost always results in reigns of terror like that of Stalin.

And, to end my contribution here, as much as I think Napoleon was a genius who did a lot for Europe, he's also guilty of genocide. Few people know that he's responsible for the death of thousand of civilians in French colonies. I do, but that doesn't change the fact I still think he was a genius and had a positive impact on Europe as a whole.
Genocide means to delibrately wipe an entire race of people out, is that what Napoleon did? You can say that he murdered people, or mass murdered people, but please do not abuse the word genocide. It has an EXTREMELY strong and exact meaning, and it is all too often abused nowadays. That just trivializes real genocide.

Vuk

Jolt

03-08-2009, 17:38

To be honest Vuk, most of the fight in Europe was done in USSR. Had USSR been defeated, the allies would probably never had set a foot on Europe. Most German casualties occured on the eastern front, and the best german divisions were sent to the USSR.
Without USSR, the war would never have ended without the nuclear bomb, and said nuclear bomb would probably have been created by ze germans.

I have my utmost serious doubts. The Germans were far far behind in the nuclear bomb development, using heavy water.

The joint American, British, and Canadian Manhattan Project developed the uranium and plutonium atomic bombs, which helped bring an end to hostilities with Japan during World War II. Its success is attributable to meeting all four of the following conditions:[98]

1. A strong initial drive, by a small group of scientists, to launch the project.
2. Unconditional government support from a certain point in time.
3. Essentially unlimited manpower and industrial resources.
4. A concentration of brilliant scientists devoted to the project.

If any one of these four conditions had not been met, the Manhattan Project would have failed, and, in actuality, it succeeded only after the war in Europe had been brought to a conclusion. In Germany, only the first condition was met, and then only in a weaker sense than for the Manhattan Project. Added to this, mutual distrust between the German government and the scientists existed. For the Manhattan Project, the second condition was met on 9 October 1941 or shortly thereafter. Significant here is that by the end of 1941, it was already apparent that the German nuclear energy project would not make a decisive contribution to ending the German war effort in the near term, and control of the project was relinquished by the Heereswaffenamt (HWA, Army Ordnance Office) to the Reichsforschungsrat (RFR, Reich Research Council) in July 1942, essentially making it only a research project with objectives far short of making a weapon. Concerning condition three, the needs in materiel and manpower for a large-scale project necessary for the separation of isotopes for a uranium-based bomb and heavy water production for reactors for a plutonium-based bomb may have been possible in the early years of the war, but in the latter years it would have been impossible to mount such an effort. Also, these large-scale facilities would have been recognized and included as targets for the Allied bombing missions, which grew in intensity as the war continued. As to condition four, the high priority allocated to the Manhattan Project allowed for the recruitment and concentration of capable scientists on the project; in Germany, the priority and a focused project for such recruitment and concentration of personnel did not exist past mid-1942. Thus, weakly meeting only the first of these four conditions, Germany fell far short of what was required to make an atomic bomb.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-08-2009, 20:03

To be honest Vuk, most of the fight in Europe was done in USSR. Had USSR been defeated, the allies would probably never had set a foot on Europe. Most German casualties occured on the eastern front, and the best german divisions were sent to the USSR.
Without USSR, the war would never have ended without the nuclear bomb, and said nuclear bomb would probably have been created by ze germans.

Already been addressed. And even if the USSR was integral to the Allied victory, why should we thank Stalin? He was a complete lunatic.

That would be a valid point, except that most russian old-timers still think of Stalin as the greatest leader ever. They're building statues and monuments for him, and they think Putin is a liberal whiner sold to the US.

That's what decades of propaganda does for you.

I mean, I've met some Kazakh people. They're around 20-25, their grandparents have been deported to Siberia, and yet, they think that Stalin was a great leader, and that the USSR was much better than the corrupt country they live in today. That probably means something doesn't it ?

Yes, it means one or all of the following:

1) Very good propaganda.
2) Stalin being played up in the modern era.
3) Many people not knowing that Stalin actually killed more than even Hitler (though that may not apply in this case)
4) They are young and naive.
5) They are complete idiots.

Stalin was a brutal murderer. Anyone in Germany who says that Hitler was a good leader is shunned and ridiculed, and rightly so. It sickens me that Russians do not do the same for admirers of Stalin - of which there are unfortunately far too many.

Then to be honest again, most communists nowadays don't ask for a stalinist government. Calling all communists 'stalinists' is about as stupid as calling all right-wingers 'fascists'. A lot of people believe in communism and despise Stalin, Kroutchev, Pol Pot and Mao.

No, calling all communists Stalinists more like calling all fascists Nazis. Your analogy of right-wingers being called fascists would be more like all social democrats being called communist.

I know a few communist old-timers are still praising Stalin and what not, in the western world, but they're not a majority..

I sure as :daisy: hope not.

That's not to say I respect Stalin, or other communist dictators (I loathe every single one of them), but the good ol' 'communists killed 33 billions of people, true story!' we're being served by the right in order to somehow lessen the crimes of fascism and nazism is getting old.

How ironic. But hey, if it's up to the right to expose what Stalin did in the face of the far-left and Russophile opposition, then fine. We're certainly not doing it to lessen the crimes of fascism - in fact, most of us on the .Org centre-right and right consider ourselves to be the first enemies of fascism, especially since fascism is one of the perfect examples of the big government we so despise.

In short, that is a laughable assumption and completely ironic, considering we are not denying any of Stalin's crimes, unlike some.

No matter how hard you try, Stalin can't be compared to Hitler.

Murdering millions for their race or nationality? Check.
Murdering millions in organized camp systems? Check.
Powerhungry and xenophobic dictators? Check.

The only difference between the two is that they were on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Kralizec

03-08-2009, 22:36

That would be a valid point, except that most russian old-timers still think of Stalin as the greatest leader ever. They're building statues and monuments for him, and they think Putin is a liberal whiner sold to the US.
I mean, I've met some Kazakh people. They're around 20-25, their grandparents have been deported to Siberia, and yet, they think that Stalin was a great leader, and that the USSR was much better than the corrupt country they live in today. That probably means something doesn't it ?

Hitler was defeated and subsequently discredited. Stalin was not, though Kruschev exposed the worst of his crimes he was sidelined himself. Do we owe Stalin personally for the defeat of Nazi Germany? No, we have the red army to thank for it despite Stalins blunders. Soviet communism did the world two immense favours by ridding us of fascism and then collapsing mostly by itself 40 years later.

Russia would probably have been less developed if it wasn´t for the industrialisation drive in the 30ties, but I´m sure that people profited from the destruction of Pompeii too, since vulcanic ash makes for fertile farming soil.

Caius

03-09-2009, 00:27

Sarmatian

03-09-2009, 01:25

Ahem, wasnt the Russian winter that saved the USSR from losing territories by Nazi Germany?

Yeah it was. Russian Winter(tm) was produced in the Soviet Union in great quantities. They perfected their winter over the years and arguably Russian winter was the best of all winters around the world. That's why it was patented. But, Russians didn't stop there. They found out that if they take a little bit of snow into their hands, they can make little balls out of it. This revolutionary new concept later became known as Snowballs. They used to throw these Snowballs at the Germans, creating panic among German lines because Germans never saw a Snowball or experienced its destructive power. Can you imagine the fear the Germans must have felt when entire army groups started throwing snowballs at them? 100,000 Russians throwing snowballs all at once. Of course, it didn't stop there. Soviet engineers developed an impenetrable barrier for German panzers made of snow, called the Snowman. They were expertly placed so even if in a rare case a panzer group managed to find a space to slip through, they faced a Snowball armed Soviet division laying in ambush.

Needless to say, Germans had no hope under those circumstances...

Aemilius Paulus

03-09-2009, 01:46

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Great one, Sarmatian! Gave him what he deserved!!

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-09-2009, 02:10

Sarmatian, that was hilarious, but you know exactly what he meant.

Crazed Rabbit

03-09-2009, 03:22

Jolt

03-09-2009, 03:47

Yeah it was. Russian Winter™ was produced in the Soviet Union in great quantities. They perfected their winter over the years and arguably Russian winter was the best of all winters around the world. That's why it was patented. But, Russians didn't stop there. They found out that if they take a little bit of snow into their hands, they can make little balls out of it. This revolutionary new concept later became known as Snowballs. They used to throw these Snowballs at the Germans, creating panic among German lines because Germans never saw a Snowball or experienced its destructive power. Can you imagine the fear the Germans must have felt when entire army groups started throwing snowballs at them? 100,000 Russians throwing snowballs all at once. Of course, it didn't stop there. Soviet engineers developed an impenetrable barrier for German panzers made of snow, called the Snowman. They were expertly placed so even if in a rare case a panzer group managed to find a space to slip through, they faced a Snowball armed Soviet division laying in ambush.

Needless to say, Germans had no hope under those circumstances...

Post of the Month!

EDIT: We seriously need to create a Post of the Month Award so that these posts be forever engraved in the history of the .org

Vuk

03-09-2009, 07:07

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Great one, Sarmatian! Gave him what he deserved!!

Yes, what he deserved for even questioning that the Soviets are not responsible for saving the world! (PS, I am NOT a Stalin sympathizer)

And if not for the ridiculously harsh winter that the Germans were in equipped for, it is very much likely that they would have succeded. Russian resistance was pathetic. Look at the Battle of Kursk.
All of Hitler's generals begged him not to do it, because not only was it useless, but the Russians had every advantage. The Germans had to take a nearly impossible fortified postion, were out number by an outrageous amount, were ill equipped, and fighting Russia's veterans. The Russians had high ground, spent days fortifying it with mines, tank traps, brabed wire, machine gun nests, artillery, etc. The Russians should have won with almost no casualties, instead, they got beaten so badly that if Germans had struck again, they would have had the numerical advantage and closer to even eqipment this time. EI, it is likely that if the Germans had struck again, they would have won. Here are the stats I pulled off of Wiki:

Casualties and losses
German losses according to German sources:
50,000 dead, wounded, or captured
248 tanks destroyed
200 aircraft downed
German losses according to Soviet sources:
500,000 dead, wounded, or captured
900 tanks destroyed
3,000 aircraft downed
Soviet losses according to German sources:
180,000 dead, wounded, or captured
1,600 tanks damaged or destroyed
1,000 aircraft damaged or downed
Soviet losses according to Soviet sources:
863,303 all causes
6,064 tanks damaged or destroyed
1,100-1,200 aircraft damaged or destroyed

The Germans way underestimated how many they had killed, so saw it as a stunning defeat. My point is that throughout the war the Soviet resistance and the performance of the Soviet army was pathetic. They suffered defeat after defeat where they had all advantages, and when the won victories, it was an so much a higher cost than it should have been. Of course they did not do everything wrong, but mostly they wore the Germans down by throwing tons of men at them. (Kind of like what that ***-for-brains gloryhound Nimmitz did in the Pacific Theatre)
Point is, that judging from the performance of the Soviet Army, I think that it is fair to say that it was not Stalin's military capability that defeated Germany, but rather the fact that his propaganda and use of terror would keep the citizens of Russia motivated enough to defend their homeland (similar to Churchill in England). Under different leadership, an army like the Soviet Army should have been able to do a lot better.

Fixiwee

03-09-2009, 12:33

Yeah it was. Russian Winter(tm) was produced in the Soviet Union in great quantities. They perfected their winter over the years and arguably Russian winter was the best of all winters around the world. That's why it was patented. But, Russians didn't stop there. They found out that if they take a little bit of snow into their hands, they can make little balls out of it. This revolutionary new concept later became known as Snowballs. They used to throw these Snowballs at the Germans, creating panic among German lines because Germans never saw a Snowball or experienced its destructive power. Can you imagine the fear the Germans must have felt when entire army groups started throwing snowballs at them? 100,000 Russians throwing snowballs all at once. Of course, it didn't stop there. Soviet engineers developed an impenetrable barrier for German panzers made of snow, called the Snowman. They were expertly placed so even if in a rare case a panzer group managed to find a space to slip through, they faced a Snowball armed Soviet division laying in ambush.

Needless to say, Germans had no hope under those circumstances...
Hahaha. Awesome. :wacko:

Louis VI the Fat

03-09-2009, 12:34

There are no excuses for either of them, and it tires and saddens me to see people pull out the same old lines.

CRIndeed. Two cheeks of the same arse, Hitler and Stalin. Few discussions are more tiresome than fans of either defending their hero for his great contribution in defeating the other mass-murdering dictator bend on world domination.

:sleeping:

The more history has moved on, the clearer the insight that the mortal enemies fascism and communism were simply two branches of the same tree. A specific product of their age, modernistic, totalitarian experiments.
That anybody would still support and defend either is beyond silly.

Caius

03-09-2009, 12:42

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Great one, Sarmatian! Gave him what he deserved!!

During WWII the only cold winter was in 1941-1942, and the Wehrmacht lacked necessary supplies, such as winter uniforms, due to the many delays in the German army's movements. Hitler's plans for Operation Barbarossa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa) also miscarried before the onset of severe winter weather: he was so confident of a lightning victory that he did not prepare for even the possibility of winter warfare in Russia. Yet his eastern army suffered more than 734,000 casualties (about 23 percent of its average strength of 3,200,000 troops) during the first five months of the invasion, and on 27 November (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_27) 1941 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941), General Eduard Wagner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Wagner), the Quartermaster General of the German Army, reported that
"We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and materiel. We are about to be confronted with the dangers of deep winter."

My dear authoritarian, see what I say now? Your efforts to have a good impression with your comrade Stalin will be rewarded when the world is under the threat of communism. Communism is, of course, a good idea, but the best argument against communist is a five minutes talk with the follower (forgive me Winston).

But, like I said, authoritarians are too busy to prove their points, instead having other ideas, they put in ridicule any other ideas.

If you don't like that someone thinks in that way, prove that this person is wrong. This, my commie, is called discussion. When you are aware of this fact, please return. If you don't like this, then click in the X button. You know life can be harsh when they tell you that life is full of roses.

Vuk

03-09-2009, 12:42

Indeed. Two cheeks of the same arse, Hitler and Stalin. Few discussions are more tiresome than fans of either defending their hero for his great contribution in defeating the other mass-murdering dictator bend on world domination.

:sleeping:

The more history has moved on, the clearer the insight that the mortal enemies fascism and communism were simply two branches of the same tree. A specific product of their age, modernistic, totalitarian experiments.
That anybody would still support and defend either is beyond silly.

A heck of a lot worse than silly, it is evil at worst and utterly stupid at best.

Vuk

03-09-2009, 12:47

My dear authoritarian, see what I say now? Your efforts to have a good impression with your comrade Stalin will be rewarded when the world is under the threat of communism. Communism is, of course, a good idea, but the best argument against communist is a five minutes talk with the follower (forgive me Winston).

But, like I said, authoritarians are too busy to prove their points, instead having other ideas, they put in ridicule any other ideas.

If you don't like that someone thinks in that way, prove that this person is wrong. This, my commie, is called discussion. When you are aware of this fact, please return. If you don't like this, then click in the X button. You know life can be harsh when they tell you that life is full of roses.

I am afraid that you may get in a little trouble for calling him a commie Caius, so I cannot say that I agree to that part (lest I may also get in trouble), but I agree with everything else. Communism (like socialism and anarchism) sounds perfect, but it is only a fairy tale, because it does not take reality into account. You cannot kill human nature without killing humans (something Communist did lots of). You need a system that will work WITH human nature (and to safely blunt the dark side of it), not ignore it.

Caius

03-09-2009, 12:49

I think I confused the term with communist supporter, which him has declared to be so. I apologize for the mistake.

Sarmatian

03-09-2009, 14:01

Yes, what he deserved for even questioning that the Soviets are not responsible for saving the world! (PS, I am NOT a Stalin sympathizer)

And if not for the ridiculously harsh winter that the Germans were in equipped for, it is very much likely that they would have succeded. Russian resistance was pathetic. Look at the Battle of Kursk.
All of Hitler's generals begged him not to do it, because not only was it useless, but the Russians had every advantage. The Germans had to take a nearly impossible fortified postion, were out number by an outrageous amount, were ill equipped, and fighting Russia's veterans. The Russians had high ground, spent days fortifying it with mines, tank traps, brabed wire, machine gun nests, artillery, etc. The Russians should have won with almost no casualties, instead, they got beaten so badly that if Germans had struck again, they would have had the numerical advantage and closer to even eqipment this time. EI, it is likely that if the Germans had struck again, they would have won. Here are the stats I pulled off of Wiki:

Casualties and losses
German losses according to German sources:
50,000 dead, wounded, or captured
248 tanks destroyed
200 aircraft downed
German losses according to Soviet sources:
500,000 dead, wounded, or captured
900 tanks destroyed
3,000 aircraft downed
Soviet losses according to German sources:
180,000 dead, wounded, or captured
1,600 tanks damaged or destroyed
1,000 aircraft damaged or downed
Soviet losses according to Soviet sources:
863,303 all causes
6,064 tanks damaged or destroyed
1,100-1,200 aircraft damaged or destroyed

The Germans way underestimated how many they had killed, so saw it as a stunning defeat. My point is that throughout the war the Soviet resistance and the performance of the Soviet army was pathetic. They suffered defeat after defeat where they had all advantages, and when the won victories, it was an so much a higher cost than it should have been. Of course they did not do everything wrong, but mostly they wore the Germans down by throwing tons of men at them. (Kind of like what that ***-for-brains gloryhound Nimmitz did in the Pacific Theatre)
Point is, that judging from the performance of the Soviet Army, I think that it is fair to say that it was not Stalin's military capability that defeated Germany, but rather the fact that his propaganda and use of terror would keep the citizens of Russia motivated enough to defend their homeland (similar to Churchill in England). Under different leadership, an army like the Soviet Army should have been able to do a lot better.

Your sources are quite off the mark. During the battle of Kursk, Soviet losses were 177,847 (70,330 KIA and 107,517 wounded), 1,614 tanks, SP guns and other armoured vehicles, 3929 pieces of artillery and 459 aircraft. In the counteroffensive (Orel offensive, 12 July) Soviet lost 429,890 men (112,529 KIA and 317,361 wounded). So even we take the losses from Kursk and the subsequent Orel offensive, Soviets lost about 600,000 men, about a third of it KIA the rest wounded.

Anyway, Soviet performance was pathetic only '41 and '42. In '43 and onward Soviets surpassed the Germans on strategic level, although they didn't catch up on tactical level up to '45. The main reason for it is that Soviet command cadre finally matured enough to properly use Deep Operations doctrine which was more than a match for Blitzkrieg.

My dear authoritarian, see what I say now? Your efforts to have a good impression with your comrade Stalin will be rewarded when the world is under the threat of communism. Communism is, of course, a good idea, but the best argument against communist is a five minutes talk with the follower (forgive me Winston).

But, like I said, authoritarians are too busy to prove their points, instead having other ideas, they put in ridicule any other ideas.

If you don't like that someone thinks in that way, prove that this person is wrong. This, my commie, is called discussion. When you are aware of this fact, please return. If you don't like this, then click in the X button. You know life can be harsh when they tell you that life is full of roses.

The idea that it was winter what stopped the Germans is laughable. At the beginning of Barbarossa, the goal was to to destroy the bulk of Red Army and not the capture of the specific city, Moscow in this case. The offensive on Moscow (Operation Typhoon) by Army Group Center, didn't start until September. Before Barbarossa, Hitler declared that "Moscow is of no importance". That's why he actually transferred many of the panzer groups from army group Center (which was the strongest of the three army groups) to army group South. The idea was to cripple the Red Army so much that USSR is forced to capitulate. Of course, it didn't happen, so in September army group Center was reinforced, got its panzer division back from the south and was supposed to take Moscow in October, in a last ditch effort to end the war swiftly. Very stiff Russian resistance (especially around Smolensk) slowed the offensive to a crawl so that it didn't reach the vicinity of Moscow until end of November. Other aspect is that the Germans simply weren't able to organize effective logistics, so their offensives were often stopped because of lack of supplies. Logistical problems and Soviet resistance was the reason the operation was almost 2 months behind schedule. The severe winter that stopped the offensive for a short time played much less important role than these two factors.

Of course, there is the other problem, that is, people assume that Soviets would surrender if they lost Moscow while everything points otherwise - Moscow industry was dismantled and shipped east, government was moved to Kybishev. Soviets were prepared for the possibility to lose Moscow and to continue fighting.

In general, winter, unless it was very severe, didn't stop operations. If you take a look at the Eastern Front, you'll see that every winter from '41 to '45 had major offensive operations. Unless very severe, winter time was actually welcome as the ground was solid which made easier for mechanized forces to move, for both sides. The problem wasn't winter but rasputitsa, the period in Spring when snow thaws and creates deep mud through which mechanized forces can't move. That's the only period of the war on the Eastern Front where there was practically no activity by either side.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-09-2009, 21:32

Seamus Fermanagh

03-09-2009, 22:27

Stalin nearly lost the war in 1941. His forces were reeling, his orders had placed many of the Soviet forces and air units too far forward and relied too much on Germany being occupied through the beginning of 1942, and his issue of military orders making unauthorized retreat a punishable offense hampered an already chaotic tactical situation.

On the other hand, his harsh attitude DID stiffen Soviet resolve. After all, while they knew they risked death fighting the Wehrmact, they were reasonably certain that Stalin would have them and their families killed if they didn't fight. Not very "sportsmanlike" of Uncle Joe, but Joe wasn't much for subtlety when facing down the opposition. Just "axe" Trotsky.

Fortunately for the CCCP, Hitler lost his nerve during Barbarossa and held up the panzers. Had he given them free reign, it is considered likely by some that they WOULD have reached Moscow prior to the onset of the worst of the wet weather. With that hub torn out of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Army's ability to turn things around would certainly have been slowed.

LittleGrizzly

03-09-2009, 22:41

Brenus

03-09-2009, 23:18

“Hitler lost his nerve during Barbarossa” In doing what?
Barbarossa failed because the Blitzkrieg failed… The initial plan (a little bit like Napoleon) was to destroy the Russian/Red army at the borders then to oblige the Tsar/1st Secretary to negotiate or capitulate.
In both case it didn’t work and the Russian armies did succeeded to retreat with heavy loses in both cases.
Then the German’s equipment was not designed for a long war of attrition (no strategic bombers, short range fighters, light and medium tanks with narrow caterpillars –good for French roads, not good for Russian plains and mud).
However, the first counter-offensive in Moscow is launch by Zhukov in end of 1941, so merely 6 months after the start of Barbarossa.
These are facts.
Putting the German defeat on winter is absurd. As one of them said if you can’t predict the weather you can predict the season, so to be surprise by winter is more that surprising…

“Had he given them free reign” Again, to do what? They did what they could, until they faced not only KV5 and T34 but generals able to manoeuvre them…

The panzers were useless in Stalingrad, Leningrad or Sebastopol. The Red Army succeeded in imposing their war to the Germans. No fast and daring manoeuvres, no, just fortified position and use of artillery and infantry you can’t ignored or avoid.

“All of Hitler's generals begged him not to do it”: So what the generals wanted to do? Kursk was a gamble. It looks like Hitler and Stalin had some secrets negotiation and Stalin wanted a return to the borders of 1941. Hitler decided to show he still had teeth…
Even a victory in Kursk wouldn’t have defeated the Red Army at this point…
Remember that the attack on Kursk was called off because the Russian started an offensive on other flank (and because the Russian defences were still holding)… It was the last cast of dices to regain the upper hand, the initiative.
Like most of the Hitler’s plans, it makes sense until you’ve got the realty check…But that was the idea…
Concerning Moscow, Stalingrad and other major failures, most of the time that wasn’t Hitler initial plan… It was his generals who convinced him to take Moscow, or Stalingrad (and later of couse blamed him for their own failures).
Hitler was more obsess by oil and ore (reason why he had to attack Greece when the Italians embarked in this war, The Italian defeat put the Rumanian oil fields within the English bombers range) than in symbols. At least at the start of the war…

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-09-2009, 23:39

But when bad people do good things should we ignore thier good deeds. Should we accuse those who speak of thier good deeds of being a lover of this bad person ?

No, but I believe it went a little further than that. Saying that Stalin may have done some good things is fine, but outright praise of him and drastically playing down the numbers of those he killed certainly is not.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

03-10-2009, 00:36

Bad people can do good things, if not even for a good reason, even for thier own selfish reasons bad people end up doing good things.

But when bad people do good things should we ignore thier good deeds. Should we accuse those who speak of thier good deeds of being a lover of this bad person ?

No we shouldn't. Someone who speaks of the construction of Autobahn is not professing thier love for Hitler anymore than someone who speaks of the Russians doing most of the work on the eastern front. To be honest im surprised some of the members are at the level of maturity where they can't seperate praise for individual actions from praise for the person in thier entirity...

To put the entire eastern front down to the Russian Winter (tm) is a little much... that saying so makes you a lover of Stalin is ludacris!

This basicly echos my take on the whole issue. I wrote an essay in Year 11 History entitled 'What Hitler did for Germany', specificly arguing that if he didn't go to war then he would be considered a good leader. I personally abhor any sort of dictatorship, and readily admit Hitler did many terrible things, but it is fact that elements of his rule, even if done for the wrong reasons had a good outcome.

I know little of Stalin so I wouldn't be able to give specific examples for him without drawing heavily on what has already been said (so I won't....).

LittleGrizzly

03-10-2009, 01:55

Saying that Stalin may have done some good things is fine, but outright praise of him

This is probably where we come down to our personal subjective opinions, but i haven't seen what i would call outright praise of him....

and drastically playing down the numbers of those he killed certainly is not.

I suppose this comes down to the validity of Sam's arguments, there is certainly nothing wrong with discussing the numbers, and valid points which partially discredit the numbers aren't Stalin praise. this again comes down to subjective opinions on the validity of Sam's points. Then lastly it is the intent you garner from the poster, which is why i think its wrong to accuse Sam of Stalin worship as he doesn't come across to me as a Stalin lover in his posts...

I wrote an essay in Year 11 History entitled 'What Hitler did for Germany', specificly arguing that if he didn't go to war then he would be considered a good leader.

I would probably agree. Hitler did alot of good for Germany in his early days... the main problem i had however was to what degree the good successes he had relied on the bad things he did...

Sarmatian

03-10-2009, 02:15

No, but I believe it went a little further than that. Saying that Stalin may have done some good things is fine, but outright praise of him and drastically playing down the numbers of those he killed certainly is not.

Bah, there's no reason for me to play down the numbers. I'm not Russian, actually I'm not from any of the former Soviet republics, I'm not a communist and I don't have any love for Stalin. It is actually you who are inflating the numbers, constantly refusing to look at the demographic situation, which speaks volumes in this case.

How many Ukrainians you said Stalin killed through Holodomor? 20 millions? Ok, let's see.

According to 1897 census in the Russian Empire there were 22,380,551 Ukrainians in Russian Empire. Now, it would be better if we had some later census to take a look at as it would allow us to estimate more accurately the number of Ukrainians in 1932-1933, but census scheduled for 1915 never happened because of the first world war. Never fear though, as we can compare how much population increased in other European countries during the same period and make a pretty accurate estimation. So, let's see.

(in millions)
France:
1900 - 38.9
1930 - 41.6

Spain:
1900 - 18.5
1930 - 23.3

Portugal:
1900 - 5.4
1930 - 6.8

Germany:
1900 - 56.4
1930 - 65.1

Italy:
1900 - 32.4
1930 - 40.9

We see that population increase was mostly between 10% and 20%, and we know that in 1900 there were app. 22 million Ukrainians. If we apply the trend we've seen in other European countries there couldn't have been more than 25-26 millions of Ukrainians in 1930. But just for the fun of it, let's assume than in the case of Ukraine population increase was 50%. That would place the total number of Ukrainians in 1930 at slightly above 30 millions. Now, 5.5 millions of these 30 lived in Poland in the interwar period, because they were in the territories Russian Empire lost and they were out of Stalin's reach and not affected by Holodomor. That leaves 25-27 millions Ukrainians in the USSR in 1930's. So if your number is correct, it means that during that one year of Holodomor, more than 80% of all Ukrainians in USSR died, leaving only 5 millions. And then again those 5 + 5.5 from Poland became 50-60 millions today, which means that in roughly 70 years, Ukrainian population increased 500% or 600%.

That's assuming there was a 50% increase in population between 1900 and 1930. If we assume that increase in population was like in all other European countries, we can only conclude that more Ukrainians died than ever lived in the Soviet Union and to get to the number of Ukrainians today, there would have to be an increase 1000% to 1200% (from those 5.5 millions left in Poland).

If you would be so kind to explain to me how is that possible, I'd be very grateful...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-10-2009, 03:35

It is actually you who are inflating the numbers, constantly refusing to look at the demographic situation, which speaks volumes in this case.

On the contrary, I use historical works and the meticulous compilations of reliable historians and universities. You try to use demographics to show the whole story, despite repeated statements that they cannot.

How many Ukrainians you said Stalin killed through Holodomor? 20 millions? Ok, let's see.

:laugh4:

I said no such figure. In fact, that is twice the number that is estimated by historians on the high end. No offence, but you're pulling figures out of thin air to try to prove someone wrong on a statement they haven't made because of an opinion they do not hold. :dizzy2:

Sarmatian

03-10-2009, 04:28

On the contrary, I use historical works and the meticulous compilations of reliable historians and universities. You try to use demographics to show the whole story, despite repeated statements that they cannot.

I'm just showing that even a quick check of something as plain and as available as population numbers discredits those figures.

I said no such figure. In fact, that is twice the number that is estimated by historians on the high end. No offence, but you're pulling figures out of thin air to try to prove someone wrong on a statement they haven't made because of an opinion they do not hold. :dizzy2:

You really didn't. :oops: I was 100% sure that you did, so much that I even didn't bother to check and quote that post. Bah, I was arguing a point no one made, and it took me 10 minutes to write that post :wall:

Sorry about that :shame:

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-10-2009, 17:48

This basicly echos my take on the whole issue. I wrote an essay in Year 11 History entitled 'What Hitler did for Germany', specificly arguing that if he didn't go to war then he would be considered a good leader. I personally abhor any sort of dictatorship, and readily admit Hitler did many terrible things, but it is fact that elements of his rule, even if done for the wrong reasons had a good outcome.

The repression and extermination of Jews and other ethnic minorities, communists, liberals, homosexuals et all was not part of the war - I assume that was an oversight on your part.

Furthermore, nearly all of the things done during his regime were part of systematic abuse of the politically, physically, or culturally "unfit", not to mention forcing independent commerce to cater to those repressions.

So yes, if Hitler hadn't killed or repressed people, he would've been a good leader. He wouldn't have done anything.

Brenus

03-10-2009, 21:25

"had a good outcome." Like what? Motorways?:dizzy2:

Caius

03-10-2009, 21:30

"Moscow is of no importance". That's why he actually transferred many of the panzer groups from army group Center (which was the strongest of the three army groups) to army group South. The idea was to cripple the Red Army so much that USSR is forced to capitulate. Of course, it didn't happen, so in September army group Center was reinforced, got its panzer division back from the south and was supposed to take Moscow in October, in a last ditch effort to end the war swiftly.

Moscow had no importance but yet they tried to capture the city?

Kralizec

03-10-2009, 21:33

But when bad people do good things should we ignore thier good deeds. Should we accuse those who speak of thier good deeds of being a lover of this bad person ?

I don't think that there is, or has been, a single person who only has done bad things or only has had bad qualities. I bet there were quite a few serial killers who lovingly cared for their cats or dogs.

The autobahn netword was planned for by the chancellor before Hitler, by the way.

Brenus

03-10-2009, 21:45

“Moscow had no importance but yet they tried to capture the city?” Communication centre, industry, and prestige. What a propaganda coup it would have been…
Not sure it would have end the war, but…
"The autobahn netword was planned for by the chancellor before Hitler, by the way." Most of the economical achievements credited to Hitler were de facto the result of Weimar... Even the good chape of the Reichwher (sp?).

Gaius Scribonius Curio

03-11-2009, 00:21

The repression and extermination of Jews and other ethnic minorities, communists, liberals, homosexuals et all was not part of the war - I assume that was an oversight on your part.

Furthermore, nearly all of the things done during his regime were part of systematic abuse of the politically, physically, or culturally "unfit", not to mention forcing independent commerce to cater to those repressions.

So yes, if Hitler hadn't killed or repressed people, he would've been a good leader. He wouldn't have done anything.
Hey I didn't say that I didn't mention that and this was from 4 years ago. I was just making the point that saying elements of a regime's results are a good thing isn't the same as admiring the means it was acheived or the regime itself.

I recall only arguing that side of it because my teacher said anyone who did would be insane... I got an A... :laugh4:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-11-2009, 00:31

I'm just showing that even a quick check of something as plain and as available as population numbers discredits those figures.

As said, demographics do not tell the whole story - and obviously so, as many historians have looked at those killed by the Soviet Union, including demographics, and come out with the same story. In fact, I think there is a demographics section somewhere on the website I linked to.

Sarmatian

03-11-2009, 04:30

Moscow had no importance but yet they tried to capture the city?

It had no importance in June 22, when attack on USSR commenced. The goal was to destroy so much of the Red Army that Soviet Union has no choice but to surrender or at least accept the peace at extremely unfavourable terms. Quick victory was the main objective, like in the case of Poland, the Low Countries or France. When in September it became clear that quick victory by destruction of the Red Army is impossible, as Red Army deployed its numerous reserves, Germany changed the plan. They hoped they could achieve the same results (surrender of the USSR or at least getting them bloody and battered to the peace table) by taking Moscow. Even if Soviets continued to resist, taking Moscow would have been of great symbolic value, not to mention how important transportation hub it was.

Sound reasoning no doubt, problem is it didn't work and it is highly questionable would USSR surrender after losing Moscow. That's my point.

As said, demographics do not tell the whole story - and obviously so, as many historians have looked at those killed by the Soviet Union, including demographics, and come out with the same story. In fact, I think there is a demographics section somewhere on the website I linked to.

They don't but, they form the basis. Let's say I try to discern how many soldiers Country A lost in a battle against Country B. Eyewitness account says 12,000 for example. Then I take a look at official numbers, number of provisions taken on the campaign etc... and I see that the size of the army of the Country A could have been no more than 10,000. Obviously, even if I have an eyewitness estimate, I must take at as wrong.

Also, I'm not staking my claim only on demographic data.

The main reasons are:
1) Virtually all data that show such huge numbers are before the 1990's, when Russia was pretty much closed for any serious research by anyone outside.
2) A good chunk of that data comes from people who defected for one reason or the another, such people can not be a priori considered unbiased
3) In that period Cold Was was very real and both sides used propaganda extensively.
4) In the same period, exaggerating those numbers was very politically convenient and useful (getting published or getting research grants, getting attention in the press or TV, that sort of stuff)
5) Demographic data show that those kind of numbers are highly improbable if not impossible outright, depending on which figure we are talking about
6) Data available in the 1990's and afterward casts doubts on those figures.

We've seen this time and again. There are still misconceptions about Eastern Front in the WW2. Still most people in the West believe it was mass frontal attacks by the Red Army during the entire war what defeated Wehrmacht, that pretty much all Red Army commanders were rigid, unimaginative and poorly skilled (soldiers and lower rank commanders, too, btw), that it was allied landing in Normandy what defeated Germany, that it was actually land-lease what made it possible and so on... There are still misconceptions and bias about Russia in general and much more so about USSR. When intervention in Georgia was on the table, every possible media story was about strategical or geopolitical goals of Russia, how they were just waiting for the right provocation... It included little or no story from the Russian side and Russian sources were practically ignored. On the contrast, in 1999 no one in the media doubted or dared to doubt that NATO bombing campaign was anything but a humanitarian crusade against the wicked to protect the oppressed. God forbid that anyone thought there was any gain in it for US or NATO.

A Terribly Harmful Name

03-11-2009, 04:54

Demographics can and did register the impacts of the Holocaust, let alone of the Holodomor.

Aemilius Paulus

03-11-2009, 05:09

Demographics can and did register the impacts of the Holocaust, let alone of the Holodomor.
Once again, did you even read the whole thread? That is helpful sometimes, you know. There was this whole argument here, with hundreds of points and here you drop as if from the sky and quack once. What are you even saying? We are debating on the extent of Stalin's Purges. We all know it happned, just not how large it was. Sarmatian was right in the sense that nothing close to official statistics exist. The once the Western world uses were not much better than conjured by a couple of out-of touch eggheads, with one leg over the other, at comfortable chairs, enjoying cigars in a library. Alright, that was an obvious overstatement, but really, the death claims are ridiculous. It seems as if they are pulled out of the mist, so varied they are.

....

A Terribly Harmful Name

03-11-2009, 05:13

Ah, yes. All hail the Great Leader, AP. Sorry but if you read a classic named "The Black Book of Communism" you will come across a dedicated and well sourced study with not the lowest or most flattering numbers.

It could be all Zionist, Illuminati or Capitalist propaganda, of course, but I'm not so eager to fall into con theories as some nationalists do.

A Terribly Harmful Name

03-11-2009, 05:22

You know, I was preparing a lenghty response but I just realized you're trying to bait me. Good luck with your brawling :clown:.

And let the discussion continue. It's a good read for now.

Brenus

03-11-2009, 08:55

“Demographics can and did register the impacts of the Holocaust, let alone of the Holodomor.”
No. We can’t be sure of victims of holocaust.
If you think so, give me the number of Serbs killed by the Utase regime in extermination camp and mass execution… Or the number of Tziganes (Gypsies) killed in German’s extermination camps…

Holodomor: A Stalin’s famine specifically created for Ukraine? The fact is all Russia suffered of this one.
Still, you can’t know because no reliable statistics are available. All of them would have come either from the Tsar, or the Red Commies you don’t trust ant way…:no:

“The Black Book of Communism”: Well, the intention is in the title and is clear: bad commies…:idea2:
And from where their figures are coming from?

Fragony

03-11-2009, 09:59

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU67r0-QgZs

Too good not to post. Courtesy of Hussy.

HopAlongBunny

03-11-2009, 10:57

Stalin admirable? I don't think so.

He did achieve the rapid industrialization/militarization of the USSR; so successful was he that we lived in a bi-polar world for almost half a century; but, anyone who was in the position at that time would have had to achieve the same thing or perish. I don't think its too far-fetched to suppose that someone else could have done what Uncle Joe achieved, without the terror he used.

He was massively assisted in what he achieved by the Allies...because he was an ally.
After WWII Uncle Joe became the demonized Stalin. That was necessary because now that the fight for survival had been won, the fight for ideology needed tending to. Fortunately, Stalin was a murderous paranoid prick, making the media campaign much easier.

The good that was achieved was born of necessity, but it's in the "other stuff" that he established his personality. I don't think he established himself as one to be admired.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-11-2009, 18:02

Basileos, Aemilius:

Having observed you sniping at one another in two thread so far, I would encourage you both to deal with it via private messages. A little decorum here please.

Sarmatian, EMFM:

You'd be better off citing and linking to your sources rather than questioning same -- at least it would take you less time.

Brenus:

My comments on Hitler having lost his nerve and Stalin benefiting from that mistake were part of a rather well researched theory in the book Panzers East. While no such theory can be presumed correct beyond any doubt, the author did make a good case for -- unaltered -- a successful Barbarossa with the removal of Moscow from the Soviet industrial resource base and transportation network -- and that it would have hampered them badly.

rory_20_uk

03-11-2009, 18:27

Ah yes, all rail hubs or at least the vast majority were via Moscow. Fronts would be divided resources would have difficulty getting to the armies.

~:smoking:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-11-2009, 22:38

Sarmatian, EMFM:

You'd be better off citing and linking to your sources rather than questioning same -- at least it would take you less time.

Understood, but I'm done. I've linked to sources, I've explained why the Soviet archives are flawed, I've linked to sources explaining why the archives and demographics arguments are flawed, and now the same points are being rehashed regardless.

:book:
:bow:

Sarmatian

03-12-2009, 01:29

Understood, but I'm done. I've linked to sources, I've explained why the Soviet archives are flawed, I've linked to sources explaining why the archives and demographics arguments are flawed, and now the same points are being rehashed regardless.

:book:
:bow:

You've linked to exactly one website, in the 5th post of this thread...

Those who defend Stalin are precisely the same as those who defend Hitler. They are defending the two most evil regimes ever put on the face of the earth, and it disgusts me. I ask that anyone who tries to defend Stalin educates themselves (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM) before they continue defending such a monster.

... and that is exactly the same website you linked to when we touched the topic of Stalin the last time. Now, I couldn't find anything there about the data in Russian Archives being flawed. Granted, it's a rather big and poorly organized site and I may have missed it. If that's the case, please provide a link directly to the part that deals with that, because I didn't find it.

On the other hand, I've found the part that deals with references and sources for the USSR(click (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.REFERENCES.HTM)). There's more than 100 sources and references to various books, papers and other research material the guy used and not a single one is after 1990, and majority being from 1930's - 1970's.

The first 10 for example are...
"Afghanistan: Six Years of Soviet Occupation." United States Department of State Special Report No. 135, Washington, D.C., December 1985.

THE WORLD ALMANAC AND BOOK OF FACTS 1986. New York: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1985.

Ambartsumov, Yevgeny. "Remembering the Millions that Stalin Destroyed." MOSCOW NEWS, (July, 1988), p. 12.

Andics, Hellmut. RULE OF TERROR. Translated by Alexander Lieven. London: Constable & Co, 1969.

Antonov-Ovseyenko, Anton. THE TIME OF STALIN: PORTRAIT OF A TYRANNY. Translated by Stephen F. Cohen. New York: Harper & Row, 1981.

Ashton, D. L. W. "Communist Concentration Camps-Today." EAST-WEST DIGEST, Vol. 9 (September, 1973), pp. 664-676.

Backer, George. THE DEADLY PARALLEL: STALIN AND IVAN THE TERRIBLE. New York: Random House, 1950.

Bawden, C. R. THE MODERN HISTORY OF MONGOLIA. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968.

Beck, F. and W. Godin. RUSSIAN PURGE AND THE EXTRACTION OF CONFESSION. Translated by Eric Mosbacher and David Porter. New York: Hurst & Blackett Ltd., 1951.

Bennigsen, Alexandre. "Afghanistan & the Muslims of the USSR." in Rosanne Klass (Ed.), AFGHANISTAN: THE GREAT GAME REVISITED. New York: Freedom House, 1987, pp. 287-299.

... and those that come after are generally older. Except several (one a daily newspaper, in other says "translated" but doesn't say from which language or the name of the original work or where it comes from), all sources are western, predominantly American.

Sarmatian, EMFM:

You'd be better off citing and linking to your sources rather than questioning same -- at least it would take you less time.

That's the point really. That's precisely what I didn't want to do. There are thousands of sources, there are over 100 just on that one website and I can't possible address them all. That's why I addressed what they all have in common and why I think they mustn't be accepted without critical assessment. Hell, even wikipedia has many sources that state many different figures...

I'm not really arguing a case for Stalin here. I'm not saying he killed 1, 5, 25, 50 or 100 millions. I'm just saying I find the number of people he killed exaggerated because all the research on the issue is flawed for the reasons I already stated.

The website EMFM linked to says it all, of the 100+ sources used:

95%-100% are western
100% are before 1990's
app. 95% are from the Cold War, the rest even before

I'm not a historian but I know that's not how you conduct research. If I want to research American Civil War, I won't go to India but to the US. If I want to write a paper about Vasco de Gama, I won't go to Canada but to Portugal. If it's about Han dynasty, I won't go to Nigeria, I'll go to China. For Hitler, it would be Germany. I'm not saying 100% of the material must be from the country in question - no, but the bulk and the basis should.

It's perfectly understandable for scholars back then not to do that. They simply couldn't and they had to use every bit of information they could get their hands on (I'm talking about serious scholars, not those who created propaganda). Nowadays, scholars can do that but instead they're constantly rehashing stuff written 20-80 years ago, like that guy in the website that's in question.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-12-2009, 01:55

You've linked to exactly one website, in the 5th post of this thread...

Not just in this thread. In previous debates I have linked to you websites in both English and Russian on this issue - those websites also addressed the ones of research on the Russian Archives being flawed (though last I checked, that was also on Wikipedia).

That being said, the following link kind of disproves that demographics were not taken into account and that Russian sources were not used.

THE WORLD ALMANAC AND BOOK OF FACTS 1986. New York: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1985.

Don't Almanacs generally take into account demographics?

Ambartsumov, Yevgeny. "Remembering the Millions that Stalin Destroyed." MOSCOW NEWS, (July, 1988), p. 12.

Antonov-Ovseyenko, Anton. THE TIME OF STALIN: PORTRAIT OF A TYRANNY. Translated by Stephen F. Cohen. New York: Harper & Row, 1981.

Doesn't sound very Western to me. :book:

I'm not really arguing a case for Stalin here. I'm not saying he killed 1, 5, 25, 50 or 100 millions. I'm just saying I find the number of people he killed exaggerated because all the research on the issue is flawed for the reasons I already stated.

The demographics argument is the one that is flawed. I have already pointed out why. From an earlier post:

I think you and Sarmatian may be making two fatal errors. Firstly, Stalin did not just kill people who were in the USSR. He killed a massive number of Poles, for example. Secondly, nobody is suggesting that everybody was killed all at once - Stalin ruled for thirty years, and even before that he had power to murder - executing Tsarists, burning villages and killing peasants, etc. Also, not all of the dead were during the purges. Nonetheless, the quoted figure for Stalin usually hovers around forty million, not sixty to seventy - the latter number generally applies to the whole Soviet Union.

So yes, if you took the whole Soviet Union (but only the Soviet Union) in any one year during Stalin's reign, and subtracted the people killed, you would have a completely unreasonable number. But how about including surrounding countries and then averaging out the numbers over the years Stalin ruled? The totals you will come up with are perfectly fine, and I am 99% sure that professors/historians doing research will have taken this into account.

Sarmatian

03-12-2009, 14:11

Well, there is no way I'm going through every possible source to find out what he took from which source. In general, although it contains a lot of information that website looks more like a blog than a serious scholarly work, especially when on the home page there are phrases like "Deka Megamurder" and "Centi Kilomurder".

You haven't shown me where it says Russian Archives are flawed/incomplete, in this or any other website. This is the third or fourth time we mentioned the archives and I'm still waiting for a single link from you about it.

I don't know, it could be that just me being born in what used to be Yugoslavia, I learned rather young that looking only at one side isn't a good idea. Unless you get information from all sides, unless you look at it in conjunction, unless you critically assess it you'll end up with a pretty distorted and flawed view of what happened.

It doesn't matter. It seems we're going around in circles and we haven't moved from the start and it looks like no one else is really interested in this but you and me, so if you have something to add, maybe a PM would be a better way. Anyway, you've pretty much the only one who tried to discuss this instead of simply writing "OMG, Stalin is Teh Evil", and I appreciate it...

Yoyoma1910

03-12-2009, 14:22

I'm sorry, I don't mean to distract the issue, but I found this image of Stalin and the magical Obamacorn (with House).

https://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo312/mexico1910/universal-health-care.jpg

LittleGrizzly

03-12-2009, 16:59

It doesn't matter. It seems we're going around in circles and we haven't moved from the start and it looks like no one else is really interested in this but you and me, so if you have something to add, maybe a PM would be a better way. Anyway, you've pretty much the only one who tried to discuss this instead of simply writing "OMG, Stalin is Teh Evil", and I appreciate it...

Im highly intrested, i had always assumed the stalin figures that EMFM is providing were correct... infact i had them overjudged (60 million) as i confused them with the Soviet Union figures...

Now i am unsure so your giving me food for thought at least...

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-12-2009, 19:45

The "conservative" numbers I've seen seem to be about 1M, though the people that come up with those numbers seem as emotionally invested as the most vigorous denouncer of Stalin. It doesn't really justify the man, of course.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-12-2009, 21:07

In general, although it contains a lot of information that website looks more like a blog than a serious scholarly work, especially when on the home page there are phrases like "Deka Megamurder" and "Centi Kilomurder".

The man is a professor, and is often referenced on the issue by others. Though the website may look like a blog, it is from a fairly prominent university. But he isn't the only source - there are many, many others, and just looking at his source list will start you down that road if you are so inclined. :bow:

You haven't shown me where it says Russian Archives are flawed/incomplete, in this or any other website. This is the third or fourth time we mentioned the archives and I'm still waiting for a single link from you about it.

First, keep in mind that many of these were NKVD archives, and that records were not kept of every murder, even large ones.

About the archives not answering everything - even if they did "yield everything they contain," which the article makes it quite clear that they did not do:

Even if the Russian archives were to yield everything they contain about the American names that so tantalisingly surface in his book, other questions would remain unanswered. When the eyewitnesses, perpetrators and victims are all dead, the real story of a crime dies too.

From a speech by a certain someone you could say it the authority on the Gulags:

Russia is a country where the recent tradition of falsification and manipulation of history is more profound than anywhere else. After all, Russia's soviet elite deliberately and decisively falsified history for a long time, over many years.

Nothing we don't already know. Applebaum really makes the case for this - the history of the Soviet retouching of history gives us no reason to believe their records, and plenty of reason to disbelieve them. Also, there are problems with trusting any archives of any dictatorial regime which murdered, regardless of their attempts at keeping accurate records, as has been pointed out before. There were always plenty of off-the-record kills.

I don't know, it could be that just me being born in what used to be Yugoslavia, I learned rather young that looking only at one side isn't a good idea. Unless you get information from all sides, unless you look at it in conjunction, unless you critically assess it you'll end up with a pretty distorted and flawed view of what happened.

My parents were both born in the Eastern Bloc. I used to admire the Soviet Union (not because of them, mind you). Not anymore.

Brenus

03-12-2009, 22:28

“My comments on Hitler having lost his nerve and Stalin benefiting from that mistake were part of a rather well researched theory in the book Panzers East. While no such theory can be presumed correct beyond any doubt, the author did make a good case for -- unaltered -- a successful Barbarossa with the removal of Moscow from the Soviet industrial resource base and transportation network -- and that it would have hampered them badly.”

The problem with this theory is Barbarossa NEVER indented to take Moscow. The aim of it was to destroy the Red Army at the borders, not to go deep in USSR.
I am not a specialist of WW2, but I was a NCO in armoured units, and one think I learned during these years is that a tank is a fragile mechanic which needs a regular maintenance, oil, and petrol. Fixing broken caterpillar in the mud is just a piece of joy…
That is why Von Rundstedt was more than reluctant about the blitzkrieg and it application to Russia.
The Blitzkrieg to succeed needed roads, petrol stations and a reasonable size battle field, especially for the infantry to follow, and for the artillery to be able to support the iron fist. Remember than most of the German Artillery Units were mostly with horses...
Barbarossa was design in taking this hard reality in account.

Having fail in this objective, the German had no choice to pursuit the Red Army and try and try again, but it was to big to eat in one go.
So, when for one litre of fuel arriving to the troop 7 were needed to carry it, when material and men were exhausted, the mirage of taking Moscow to end the war became the dream…
But it became like Paris in 1915. As Paris, Moscow was a railways centre, allowing shifting reinforcement to one point to the other fast. The Russian logistic lines were shorter and the German longer. The German troops were exhausted, the Russian fresh. And the Germans had to face new material, in mass, under the command of one of the Allies best generals, Zhukov, having survived Stalin purges and fresh from his victory against the Japanese.

Where I do agree with Hitler having “lost his nerve”, is more about his indecision to fix new direction, one day Leningrad, the other Moscow, then the Caucasus, the Stalingrad (later). But it was more a lack of new strategy than really a lost of nerve. Same for his Generals, who were just going forward in the hope to fix and destroy the Red Army for good, thing which as we know, never happened.

It was no Plan B to Blitzkrieg. As simple as this, but it is still amazing.

“The man is a professor, and is often referenced on the issue by others”
That is not a guaranty as such…:beam:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-12-2009, 22:41

That is not a guaranty as such…:beam:

No, but it is proof that he is someone besides a random blogger.

Sarmatian

03-13-2009, 02:27

The man is a professor, and is often referenced on the issue by others. Though the website may look like a blog, it is from a fairly prominent university. But he isn't the only source - there are many, many others, and just looking at his source list will start you down that road if you are so inclined. :bow:

That by itself doesn't mean anything. Radovan Karadzic is also a professor and Dr. Mengele, too (or did he only have a phd?). Also, I don't know if I would take University of Hawaii as a fairly prominent university, although "fairly prominent" is hardly definable.

It's not about him, it's about sources he uses. Every single source he uses is before 1990. He puts 49% of the dead to gulags. Now, tell me how could possibly any of the pre-1990's research accurately assess how many gulags there were, where they were, how many people were in them and how many died in them? Satellites didn't exist back then, and even if they did, I doubt NATO would use them to constantly monitor gulags. Just a simple logical explanation how's that possible, because I really don't see it. Don't tell me they just know because that's precisely what I'm arguing - they don't know and there was no possible way for them to know. Based on what information they had they could only make a guess. An educated guess perhaps, but a guess nevertheless.

Furthermore, how is it possible for them to know how many people in the Gulags were innocent? Not only political prisoners were sent to Siberia, criminals got sent there, too. For example, during the WW2, there were tens of thousands of Russian fighting in the German army. That Soviet general that was captured by the Wehrmacht, Vlassov, even tried to organize Russian Liberation Army that would fight alongside Germans against USSR. He was never truly allowed to do that, Russians mostly fought in the various SS divisions, but he was allowed to form one division made of Russians. After the war, Vlassov and other higher officers were shot and most of the soldiers and lower officers were sent to Siberia. Not a most humane punishment but not a really harsh one for the traitors. I sincerely doubt French who fought in the SS got a hero's welcome in France after the war. Those that didn't die or managed to run away, anyway. Were people like that counted in the dead or not? If they were, we're back on square one - how did they (western researchers) possibly had the information needed to make that distinction?

First, keep in mind that many of these were NKVD archives, and that records were not kept of every murder, even large ones.

About the archives not answering everything - even if they did "yield everything they contain," which the article makes it quite clear that they did not do:

It's impossible for archives to contain every bit of information about everything, true, but generally they contain a lot, even the "embarrassing" bits. That's probably the reason why UK and US archives aren't opened to the public still. Actually, I know they weren't a couple of years ago, maybe that changed in the meantime. Anyway, not really the point. I'm willing to accept that Russian archives may not be complete or 100% accurate, but they still seem much more sensible starting point for any research than research conducted 20-80 years ago from 10,000 km away.

Nothing we don't already know. Applebaum really makes the case for this - the history of the Soviet retouching of history gives us no reason to believe their records, and plenty of reason to disbelieve them. Also, there are problems with trusting any archives of any dictatorial regime which murdered, regardless of their attempts at keeping accurate records, as has been pointed out before. There were always plenty of off-the-record kills.

I don't disagree really. History is often the victim of nationalism, ideologies, conspiracies etc.. As Churchill said - History will be kind to me because I intend to write it. What I don't understand is why you're considering NATO countries as totally guiltless of the same. Why is every western source automatically considered 100% accurate and free of bias, nationalism and similar stuff? I have yet to see a Hundred Years War discussion where French and English are in agreement and that's something that ended 6 centuries ago. Obviously, there are disagreements still. How history can history in Germany from 1933-1945 can be considered free of bias? How can western politicians be considered totally free of this? What McCarthy did was nothing short of witch hunt and a lot of sources about the issue at hand come from the US from that time period. I don't consider western or nato countries free of bias and propaganda and I can't accept anything as 100% accurate without critical evaluation, just because it comes from the west. Maybe you can, but I can't.

That's why I'm asking all these questions. Why are western sources considered perfect just because they are western when they come from a period when there was mutual bias, fear and even paranoia? How it was possible to conduct serious scholarly work in the USSR back then? Why isn't new research conducted? If I tried to research the issue now, the first thing I'd do is head to Russia, instead of relying on papers written in 50's. Starting from the archives, trying to find as many as possible live people and question them directly. There's bound to be a good number of them. IIRC, just last year the last Serbian soldier involved in the breakthrough of the Macedonian Front in the WW1 died. Try to get my hands on as many documents from the Gulags as I can. Visit and check them out directly etc... That guy, that professor from the University of Hawaii, wrote several books in the nineties, even after 2000 about this issue and yet not single one contains any original research, just rehash of old, Cold War sources.

P.S. I'm sorry I used so much the terms"west" (or "westerners" or "western", for that matter). I find it pretty distasteful and don't like to use it, but I don't know other short way of referring to countries that made up NATO during the Cold War.

Brenus

03-13-2009, 08:39

“I have yet to see a Hundred Years War discussion where French and English are in agreement and that's something that ended 6 centuries ago.” We agree on that the English lost the war…:beam:

PershsNhpios

03-13-2009, 10:04

Oh.. I must be reading through the wrong thread..

I could swear this was "Discussion of Stalinism", and not, "How many people did Stalin kill, the blighter?".

Fragony

03-13-2009, 11:08

Oh.. I must be reading through the wrong thread..

I could swear this was "Discussion of Stalinism", and not, "How many people did Stalin kill, the blighter?".

entirely fair to point out the horrors, make it discussion on communism and it's something else. If you discus Stalinism you discus what he did.

Vuk

03-13-2009, 12:09

After all, a man is what he eats...ermm...how many people he kills. :P

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-13-2009, 20:11

Oh.. I must be reading through the wrong thread..

I could swear this was "Discussion of Stalinism", and not, "How many people did Stalin kill, the blighter?".
Since the major practitioner of the ideology included rather nasty bits like purges in his regime, isn't the scale of the nastiness part of an analysis of the ideology?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-13-2009, 20:44

Now, tell me how could possibly any of the pre-1990's research accurately assess how many gulags there were, where they were, how many people were in them and how many died in them?

Eyewitness accounts (from thousands of different people), accessible records, intelligence reports...the list really goes on and on and on.

Don't tell me they just know because that's precisely what I'm arguing - they don't know and there was no possible way for them to know. Based on what information they had they could only make a guess. An educated guess perhaps, but a guess nevertheless.

This has truth and untruth. Yes, the best they could do would be an educated guess - but this could come very, very close. I don't think you can get a closer figure by using the archives as your primary source, as you suggest.

Furthermore, how is it possible for them to know how many people in the Gulags were innocent? Not only political prisoners were sent to Siberia, criminals got sent there, too.

This falls under cruel and unusual punishment then, and remains a crime against humanity.

For example, during the WW2, there were tens of thousands of Russian fighting in the German army.

Tens of thousands is, with all due respect to the victims, a drop in the ocean against the forty million or so murdered by Stalin. I don't deny that there is some room for error - but not much.

It's impossible for archives to contain every bit of information about everything, true, but generally they contain a lot, even the "embarrassing" bits. That's probably the reason why UK and US archives aren't opened to the public still. Actually, I know they weren't a couple of years ago, maybe that changed in the meantime. Anyway, not really the point. I'm willing to accept that Russian archives may not be complete or 100% accurate, but they still seem much more sensible starting point for any research than research conducted 20-80 years ago from 10,000 km away.

Firstly, you're presuming that all research was conducted with no Russian sources - an presumption which is inaccurate, as stated below. Russian archives have, undoubtedly, been used - and the only information I can find on them in regard to death tolls is them telling us about people (specifically Americans) who we didn't even know had died in the Soviet Union (thereby very slightly increasing the toll). As well, I think it is quite safe to assume that the archives of Western countries are in a much better state than the Russian ones. Some countries have much more reliable archives than others, as Ms. Applebaum so eloquently stated.

What I don't understand is why you're considering NATO countries as totally guiltless of the same. Why is every western source automatically considered 100% accurate and free of bias, nationalism and similar stuff?

It isn't - but you're dismissing it all as Western. There is plenty of work by Russians on the subject from the same timeframe, including from Russians who had gone through the Gulags.

That's why I'm asking all these questions. Why are western sources considered perfect just because they are western when they come from a period when there was mutual bias, fear and even paranoia?

Shockingly to you, perhaps, the first real accounts of the Gulags, for example, were not Western sources. They were Russians, Ukranians, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Georgians, Cossacks, and Mongols. Solzhenitsyn is the first name that springs to mind in this - it was he who truly opened the Gulag story to the West, and he was a Russian if I ever saw one.

How it was possible to conduct serious scholarly work in the USSR back then?

I think you may have just proven my point with that line.

Why isn't new research conducted? If I tried to research the issue now, the first thing I'd do is head to Russia, instead of relying on papers written in 50's. Starting from the archives, trying to find as many as possible live people and question them directly. There's bound to be a good number of them. IIRC, just last year the last Serbian soldier involved in the breakthrough of the Macedonian Front in the WW1 died. Try to get my hands on as many documents from the Gulags as I can. Visit and check them out directly etc...

People have conducted plenty of new research, using old and new things that have been uncovered and examing their correlations. Have you read Anne Applebaum? Specifically Gulag: A History? She has studied extensively on the subject, and is fluent in Russian. She has viewed Russian sources firsthand.

Sarmatian

03-13-2009, 22:41

Eyewitness accounts (from thousands of different people), accessible records, intelligence reports...the list really goes on and on and on.

Thousands? How many thousands? One, two, three, four...forty? Compared to estimated death toll of 40,000,000, that's 0.1%. Any mathematician can tell you that 0.1% is not enough for serious statistical analysis. You need 2-4% (if I remember correctly, it's been a few years since I had statistics) of carefully selected samples, not random like those witnesses would have been. If it's random you need a much a larger sample to make an estimate with acceptable margin of error.

Accessible records - very few, as already stated.

Intelligence reports - well, you may be on to something there, although I don't think either of us can know just how complete those reports were. Somehow I think that western intelligence agents in the USSR had more pressing concerns than finding out stuff about gulags and, as you said, it was people from the USSR who first got the story out, not western intelligence agencies.

This has truth and untruth. Yes, the best they could do would be an educated guess - but this could come very, very close. I don't think you can get a closer figure by using the archives as your primary source, as you suggest.

Glad that we agree on that at least.

I wasn't suggesting using only archives. It's a good starting point, but the key should be field research. What's left of those gulags is still there and it would speak volumes.

This falls under cruel and unusual punishment then, and remains a crime against humanity.

True, but I'd still make a very large and important distinction between an innocent man and a criminal punished too harshly.

Tens of thousands is, with all due respect to the victims, a drop in the ocean against the forty million or so murdered by Stalin. I don't deny that there is some room for error - but not much.

Also a drop in the ocean of examples. What about those who acted subversively during the Nazi invasion/occupation, what about collaborationists etc...

Firstly, you're presuming that all research was conducted with no Russian sources - an presumption which is inaccurate, as stated below. Russian archives have, undoubtedly, been used - and the only information I can find on them in regard to death tolls is them telling us about people (specifically Americans) who we didn't even know had died in the Soviet Union (thereby very slightly increasing the toll). As well, I think it is quite safe to assume that the archives of Western countries are in a much better state than the Russian ones. Some countries have much more reliable archives than others, as Ms. Applebaum so eloquently stated.

It isn't - but you're dismissing it all as Western. There is plenty of work by Russians on the subject from the same timeframe, including from Russians who had gone through the Gulags.

That part might also mean - we took into consideration the part which increases the death toll and declared the other parts as unreliable

I think you misunderstood me here. I wasn't trying to dismiss those source because they are western and are inherently biased or prejudiced, although some certainly are. It's not - John Smith = bad, Oleg Ivanov = good, no. I was dismissing them because I don't believe they could have done any serious field research or get access to any serious documents.

Those works that were listed in bibliography on that site which authors were Russian are published in USA. It's not about the nationality of the author, it's about where that work has been done. It is - John Smith or Oleg Ivanov conducting research in the USA = bad and John Smith or Oleg Ivanov conducting research in what used to be USSR = good, if I may be so blunt. The only Soviet source (as in from Soviet Union) that I've seen on that list were Moscow News, which I presume are daily newspapers. There are several others where it says "translated", but doesn't state from which language, what's the name of original work and where it was originally published.

Shockingly to you, perhaps, the first real accounts of the Gulags, for example, were not Western sources. They were Russians, Ukranians, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Georgians, Cossacks, and Mongols. Solzhenitsyn is the first name that springs to mind in this - it was he who truly opened the Gulag story to the West, and he was a Russian if I ever saw one.

Getting the story out and performing a scientific research are two totally different things. No one here questioned existence of the gulags, just the numbers because of flawed/incomplete research after the story got out.

I think you may have just proven my point with that line.

Actually I meant for outside researchers but it's true for Soviet researchers in those times, although to a lesser extent. That's why any pre-1990's research should be taken with more than just a pinch of salt.

People have conducted plenty of new research, using old and new things that have been uncovered and examing their correlations. Have you read Anne Applebaum? Specifically Gulag: A History? She has studied extensively on the subject, and is fluent in Russian. She has viewed Russian sources firsthand.

Haven't read it so obviously I can't comment on the book or its sources. I'll do that if I get my hands on it, which would be so much easier if stupid Amazon would start delivering to Serbia :wall:

Caius

03-14-2009, 02:29

I wasn't suggesting using only archives. It's a good starting point, but the key should be field research. What's left of those gulags is still there and it would speak volumes.
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/camps/camps.html

There are some good images about GULAG's. Don't mind what she wrote, its exaggerated like the rest of the page is.

PershsNhpios

03-14-2009, 02:46

Nuh - uh.. This is a discussion of Stalinism, not Josef Stalin.

So far we have; Why Stalin-Lovers Should Be Disliked; Who Was Worse, Stalin or Hitler; Who Killed More People, Stalin or Hitler; and now - Just How Many People Did That Crazy Russian Kill Anyway?

Stay tuned for; Have We Really Let Our Loved Ones Fade Away To Numbers?

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-14-2009, 03:04

So you want us to analyze the political theory by which an autocrat further centralizes power in his hands and the hands of security apparatuses. Well, I think it sucks.

Caius

03-14-2009, 05:16

Nuh - uh.. This is a discussion of Stalinism, not Josef Stalin.
Those terms hold an important link that can't be separed, or else the thread would not have something to go on.

Like I said, Stalinism is a failure. Almost every dictatorship has been a failure, yet I do not see what is the 'good thing' in living under one. Would you enlighten me, AP?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-14-2009, 05:39

Thousands? How many thousands? One, two, three, four...forty? Compared to estimated death toll of 40,000,000, that's 0.1%. Any mathematician can tell you that 0.1% is not enough for serious statistical analysis. You need 2-4% (if I remember correctly, it's been a few years since I had statistics) of carefully selected samples, not random like those witnesses would have been. If it's random you need a much a larger sample to make an estimate with acceptable margin of error.

If you have thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals who have gone through these atrocities (which is a very realistic number, mind you), all telling a similar story, you have a pretty good an excellent case for accurate numbers.

Accessible records - very few, as already stated.

With the extent of corruption and intelligence agents in the Soviet Union, I somehow doubt it.

Intelligence reports - well, you may be on to something there, although I don't think either of us can know just how complete those reports were.

No, we cannot. You didn't ask for how complete they were, you asked for the fact that they were Russian. They were.

The truth is there were plenty of ways for Western - and Russian - scholars to get this data. It is confirmed by multiple varying sources. It is, by any definition, completely sound. It may not have used the data you would have liked as much as you think it should have, but it is still very reliable.

Somehow I think that western intelligence agents in the USSR had more pressing concerns than finding out stuff about gulags and, as you said, it was people from the USSR who first got the story out, not western intelligence agencies.

They probably did have more pressing concerns, but I find it rather unbelievable that nothing would have been recovered. Even if little was recovered, you would still have stories from agents, especially from Russian agents recruited by the West.

I wasn't suggesting using only archives. It's a good starting point, but the key should be field research. What's left of those gulags is still there and it would speak volumes.

People have been there, examined it. A link has been posted.

True, but I'd still make a very large and important distinction between an innocent man and a criminal punished too harshly.

It remains a crime against humanity, end of story.

Also a drop in the ocean of examples. What about those who acted subversively during the Nazi invasion/occupation, what about collaborationists etc...

These are still relatively small numbers, but fair enough. How many of those individuals were driven to act by atrocities committed against them before the war? You make it sound like they were traitors, but many, like the Cossack brigades, were hoping (probably in vain) that the invaders would treat them better. Even so, I think a lot more were suspected of acting subversively than actually did. What about soldiers that wouldn't advance? Is the NKVD shooting them considered shooting a "collaborationist?"

That was what Stalin thought of them, no?

That part might also mean - we took into consideration the part which increases the death toll and declared the other parts as unreliable

Not from what the way I phrased it, it can't.

I was dismissing them because I don't believe they could have done any serious field research or get access to any serious documents.

Access to documents could be had through the connections some of these people would have had, the buddy system, family connections, so on and so forth. There are plenty of ways for an individual to get access. Even so, field research itself was both conducted (I mentioned eyewitness accounts of the camps) and largely unnecessary. You really don't need to look at what remains of the camps (which we have done, by the way, as Caius has shown) to get an accurate picture of the death toll. It isn't as if all of these people died in Gulags anyway.

Those works that were listed in bibliography on that site which authors were Russian are published in USA. It's not about the nationality of the author, it's about where that work has been done. It is - John Smith or Oleg Ivanov conducting research in the USA = bad and John Smith or Oleg Ivanov conducting research in what used to be USSR = good, if I may be so blunt. The only Soviet source (as in from Soviet Union) that I've seen on that list were Moscow News, which I presume are daily newspapers.

As I have said, even if this was true (and I'm sorry, but it isn't - maybe for that professor in particular, but for many researchers, there were an abundance of Eastern European refugees to interview - also, he has updated his research continually since the date of publication, a record of which can be accessed), modern research, such as Ms. Applebaum's, generally solidifies his research.

There are several others where it says "translated", but doesn't state from which language, what's the name of original work and where it was originally published.

Easy to Google.

Getting the story out and performing a scientific research are two totally different things. No one here questioned existence of the gulags, just the numbers because of flawed/incomplete research after the story got out.

Nonetheless, you cannot deny that many of these people made generally good estimates - sometimes a little high, yes, but generally good - and that they were absolutely instrumental in sparking further research of the Soviet system, which brought the numbers down a little bit, but largely confirmed their stories.

Actually I meant for outside researchers but it's true for Soviet researchers in those times, although to a lesser extent. That's why any pre-1990's research should be taken with more than just a pinch of salt.

I disagree. The research is fundamentally sound. It may not be perfect, but it is very close. All you need to do is to look at the ranges of estimates.

Haven't read it so obviously I can't comment on the book or its sources. I'll do that if I get my hands on it, which would be so much easier if stupid Amazon would start delivering to Serbia :wall:

I would recommend it strongly, as well as other works by Anne Applebaum. As pointed out, she is a relatively recent author who has done quite a bit of research on Russia.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-14-2009, 06:58

I'm probably all of the above, but since you've stated the definition you want to debate, we can at least play ball.

I can only speculate that the number one reason someone would be a Stalinist (per your definition) is that they admire (or a few even hold nostolgia for) the Soviet Union as led by Stalin. It's not hard to understand at face value; the Soviet Union did the heaviest fighting and dying to defeat Nazi Germany, and followed up that struggle to become one of two superpowers. Add some scepticism about the west in general and United States in particular, and Stalin's regime "worked". Heck, you could say that if his predecessors didn't muck things up, the USSR would still be strong.

I think those conclusions are wrong, however. And even if Stalin's model for running a nation is considered "good", advocates should remember that there is a cost to forced industrialization and pervasive state security organs.

I don't think that necessarily leads to a conclusion about the psyche of someone who defends Stalin's actions, however. I imagine there are a number of reasons, including those who defend his actions under a form of Marxism/Leninism. Of course, that will anger the Marxists/Leninsts who don't support Stalin.

Is that closer to the topic you wish to discuss?

PershsNhpios

03-14-2009, 10:18

Very good, Alexander - that is much closer.

The problem I see is that everyone got rather stuck at; "the Soviet Union did the heaviest fighting and dying to defeat Nazi Germany", and the discussion has not progressed from there.

Anyway, I received an infraction for my now deleted post, so I will be removing myself from the backroom membership - if I can't read it, my blood will not boil.
That's right - that Backroom is not recommended for people with High Blood Pressure! (Not that I have it.)

Good luck in your never ending battle to make this forum see the one true opinion, everyone!

Sarmatian

03-14-2009, 13:26

~snip~

Okay, whatever. I can't do this anymore.

Thanks, it was an interesting discussion :bow:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-14-2009, 18:05

Okay, whatever. I can't do this anymore.

Thanks, it was an interesting discussion :bow:

I'm aware I get tedious sometimes. ~;) Refreshing discussion though, thanks.

Prince Cobra

03-14-2009, 20:43

Brenus

03-14-2009, 21:36

“+ the doctrine of stalinism was based on public ownership + complete lack of entrepreneurship which in fact was one of the main reasons for the collapse of the system” and the other was based on Racism and murdering population not for what they thought but for what they were.
And Hitler as well killed for political reasons and as Stalin. The first concentration camps were built for the German opponents. He evens slaughtered in his own side (SA)…

By the way, the actual collapse is due to so-called entrepreneurs and their greed… So not really a valid reason to condemn Stalinism / Communism…

The fact is most of the reproaches towards Stalin (deportation, forced labours, Secret Police, political coup, absence of remorse and paranoia… etc) were actively done by the Capitalist states…

Communism didn’t work. But that is the only real difference with the Capitalism which is able to reinvent itself…:laugh4:

Vuk

03-14-2009, 22:04

Brenus

03-15-2009, 10:05

“If I do not see sources for that”: For which part?:beam:

Hitler’s ideology based on racism? Read the book.
Hitler killing his opponents: the night of the Long Knives.
Concentration camps built for the communists:
Most prisoners in the early concentration camps were German Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and persons accused of "asocial" or socially deviant behaviour.

Actual economic collapse: read newspapers.

Capitalist states using all “communist” methods:
Secret polices: Okhrana, OSS, CIA, MI5, 2eme bureau, Agents aux Affaires Indigènes etc.
Forced Labour: I suggest to read Victor Hugo (Les Misérables) and to understand what happen to Jean Valjean…
It was common in the French, German, Belgian, Portuguese, Spanish colonies in Africa and in the British colonies.
If you preferred hard facts, research on Cayenne, or Australia, or USA/Canada (what populations were sent initially, Filles du Roi etc).
Or perhaps slavery would do.

Deportation: Research on the long Marche of the Indians in US, or what happen to the Communards after their defeat (Louise Michel as ex.). Or try Indians in Amazonia…
Political Coup: I would suggest Allende (Chile), Dr Mohamed Mossadegh (Iran) or Ngo Dinh Diem (Vietnam).
Or Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, or Franco, or Mussolini would do…
Absence of Remorse: Gal Sherman would be a good example, or Condor Operation…
Paranoia: Spain under Franco would do, or the Domino Theory…

Communism doesn’t work: World actual political situation. And the fact that China still exist shouldn’t blind you. China isn’t really communist any more…:beam:

Beefy187

03-15-2009, 10:39

:fainting: #139 posts for Stalinism! As if enough people have not died because of his madness. :fainting:

I really can not see much difference between the terror of Hitler and Stalin with the difference the Hitler terror concentrated on the jews, gyspsies and certain Slavs while those of Stalin was more dispersed. So I can not say that one is better than the other. There is no difference except for the one had won the war.

+ the doctrine of stalinism was based on public ownership + complete lack of entrepreneurship which in fact was one of the main reasons for the collapse of the system

I suppose the biggest difference is that Stalin won while Hitler lost WW2.

Since the allied wanted to keep Stalin close, they didn't pressure him too hard when Stalin did something nasty.

Really the two are no different.. Heck I think Stalin is much worse in terms of how many he killed.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-15-2009, 16:57

Brenus

03-15-2009, 21:41

“So you have to take the worst aspects of dozens of nations to match Stalin's regime. You don't see that as significant?”
I do. But it isn’t significant.
I am not supporter of Stalin or Communism. However, I try to be fair and just made some remarks about how evil is/was communism, but as much can be capitalism.
Stalin was a dictator. So communism under dictatorship is not too caring about human rights. So is capitalism with dictatorship.
Now, the question is what about communism in a democratic state. Never really happen because when a communist got democratically elected he got shot by a coup…

I could have done all this (almost) for one country.
Let’s try USA:
Secret Police: CIA and NSA.
Forced Labour: Some states are still practising it.
Deportation: Indians
Political Coup: Choose it. (Iran, Chile, Nicaragua…)
Absence of remorse: Native Indians, Vietnam.
Concentration Camps: US Japanese.
Paranoia: Mc Carthysm,
Can add segregation to the list…:inquisitive:

I could do for a lot of countries… No countries or systems have not black side.:beam:

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-15-2009, 22:14

I agree with that, but there's really little comparison with the scale and scope of Stalin's tyranny. Looking at your list for the US, we weren't doing it all at the same time.

Caius

03-16-2009, 00:46

I could do for a lot of countries… No countries or systems have not black side.

You are right...

but capitalism makes you have certain freedom that you don't have with communism. Yes, there were US concentration camps during WWII, there was paranoia also, but there was not statal terrorism, there was not massive manipulation of media and numers, there was not collective poverty. That is Stalinism.

Caius

03-16-2009, 03:30

Sorry for double posting, but I had to write this.

I was remembering at the songs I heard in my infancy and heard this song, called Russians. I was so young to understand the meaning, and so young to understand another languaje! But I understood it.

Both stances were right and wrong at the same time. "There isn't monopoly on common sense, on either side of the political fence". One gave you freedom. Other gave you supervivence. Two nations fought one against the other. They fought with propaganda, and "side wars". They said that the other was the evil. One said that the other was a tyrant, and the other side said that their enemies are greedy, and the state "helped you".

With the capitalists, a lot of countries suffered the "fear of effect domino". Military coups were funded by the US in a desperate attempt to stop the belief that said that "if there is a communist country, the others will soon be communists too.". In the name of that belief, at least 5 coups were funded to install coups to eliminate "an internal enemy". Some countries didn't have a coup, but yet they had security agencies to eliminate the internal enemy.

With the communists, a lot of people were beneficiated by the system, but there was an important operative to keep the country safe of counter-revolutionary processes that could make the USSR shake. Those counterrevolutionary people were called "enemies of the party/the people", and they sent them to concentration camps to "reform them". Then, the entirely manipulation of media and censorship made the USSR people "believe in them". If you were killed by the political purge, you dissapeared. Over. You were a noperson, talking in a 1984 style.

This is, for me, the worse point of Stalinism, and Soviet Communism in general.
Communism is an utopy, based in a kind of system where the state can be the only rich, having a planificated economy, employing everyone, concentrating the industries, regulating commerce by stablishing prices, creating new cities, paying those workers a minimal wage, because the economy is not that powerful.
The system, as a glance, its perfect. There is not poverty, everyone has a job and contributes to the economy. What it was not taken into account, like Vuk said, is that communism is not human. It is normal to some people to express their disconformity, or to say no to certain decitions. Those people were denying that the System was perfect. The real thing is that there were few people who wanted to do what the party wanted. In other words, the system is not perfect, but those who tried to impose it were trying to make it work. With other events, this led to failure.