And I got two questions for you.
Where do you live?
How old are you?
Im not sure that you honest though because you seem to make many things up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif
Printable View
And I got two questions for you.
Where do you live?
How old are you?
Im not sure that you honest though because you seem to make many things up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif
Xer0-chen
If we are about to start throwing personal insults, let me cast the second stone, by criticising your incredible lack of proper grammar, syntax, punctuation and vocabulary in English... I mean, you sound (read) like Shrubya http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
As for how old I am ...I've written it down in the proper thread, take a look and you'll find it (the one everybody states his age... *hint, hint*). In another related thread (again: it states so clearly in the title) I've written my occupation and country of origin.
And, believe me, I know what I am talking about, which is not the case with you (obviously).
Hitler, for instance. Hitler started WW2. WW2 costed 55-60 million lives. It is a safe estimation to count those dead by the indirect actions of Adolf H. (which seems to be your favourite puppy... wonder why http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif ) in the area of 35-40 million, even though only http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif 10 million died in the gas chambers and concentration camps.
I know first hand, the village my people come from was burned to the ground along with 550 of it's inhabitants by the ravaging teutons of noble little Adolf. Hitler's hords of ravaging Huns slaughtered in cold blood more than 8.000.000 people in USSR, houndreds of thousands in Greece and Yugoslavia... not counting the combatants.
For first of all I have to say that Im swedish and live in Sweden but Im also half-finish and my english isnt the best sorry for that.
Anyway it was the allies(Britain and France for example) who were the aggresive that declared war on Germany when they attacked Poland so you cant blame all on Hitler.
6 milion died in the concentrations camps and 6-10 million others died in the terror(including germans) that Hitler was responsible for.
Let me guess. You live in Poland right?
And do you post on the alliedassault.com forum?
Rosacrux,
Stalin was both great and vile.
Everything you say makes perfect sense, until you start quoting "facts" and "figures".
Where does your information about Stalin come from? I'm not talking Chapter and Verse, just generally your sources, whether it be University courses you've taken or specific historical works that you've read.
I'm interested to know.
Thanks,
Azrael
www.stalin-lover.com perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
I don't understand the desire to re-evaluate or 'defend'the legacy of either Hitler or Stalin. They are both complex individuals who had great impact on their times but to bring up their 'good points' is to me like complimenting a serial killer for being polite and a snappy dresser.
I guess I'm an idealist but I can't accept the idea that either one of these men were necessary or the right man at the right time. To say so only makes it easier for their kind to rise again, and we're running out of room for mass graves.
I disagree. Socialism as a political option does not necessarily equate with communism as a political option. This was not the case in most of the countries of the Eastern block, although the Comparty was in charge. And you can easily argue that Scandinavian countries are "socialist" as well, not to mention numerous socialist governments in Italy, for example. Or are you excluding social democracy from the definition of socialism?Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Also, I would like to hear your opinion about the human side of things that you are talking about. Or is it just "the big picture" that counts? The strength of the "society" vs. lives and rights of the individuals? I understand that you are not categorizing things as "good" or "bad", but if collectivism, and the benefit to the "country" as some provisional entity, is all that matters in your eyes, then I will also have to agree to disagree with you.
But, btw, can you say the same apologetic things about Ataturk, for example? Can you imagine where Turkey would be now if it had "assimilated" Greece? What would you lose, only your heritage, religion (at least your ancestors would), several millions of your compatriots, maybe your ancestral possessions, and some human rights, not a big deal, right? Not more than the price paid by the Cossacks, or the Baltic nations, for example. All in all, a small price to pay to live in a super powerful Turkish state, with the army that could match, let's say, the French one.....
Socialism = (Communism + Capitalism) / 2Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
And Stalin was NOT worse than Hitler, to those of you that claim such. Stalin killed people out of hand, Hitler killed people for the pleasure of killing people.
And anarchy would result in an even worse concentration of wealth as people with guns proceed to become petty dictators everywhere. -_-
Azrael
I haven’t studied 20th century history in Uni (I took only a couple of courses in 19th century Balkans and in Byzantine history – I didn’t majored in history) but I’ve read a good deal about the whole thing. I’ll give you a complete list of my readings on Stalin and the period of WW2 in general, tomorrow. I haven’t got my bibliography at work, I am afraid. Good to see someone with a less passionate and more scientific approach to the whole deal. I wonder if anyone here, besides you, understands that I do not like Stalin at all. I just believe that the historical truth should be acknowledged, despite our feelings about certain people and actions.
Hrvojej
“Socialist” is not a label: either you are, or you aren’t. There is no “socialist” government in any western country. Never been. The closest thing is supposed to be the Swedish model, but only partly. I most surely exclude the “social democrats” because there is nothing “socialist” about them. One cannot possibly argue that the globalisation lackeys Blair, Simitis, Shroeder etc. have anything to do with the Left. They are just a tad “softer” on the rugh edges but they are nothing more than other versions of the traditional Right Wing parties. Nothing to do with the left, so no socialists.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
The prime requisite for any socialist state is that the means of production are in the hands of the society, not the individuals. That is not the case in any country today – even the “socialist” states left are either poor models of the twisted Soviet interpretation (Cuba) or outright dictatorships (China, N.Korea).
I have clearly stated that I feel horrified by the terrible deeds and astounded by the mass murdering he commited, while considering him “megalomaniac” and “insecure”. That should suffice as my opinion about Stalin as a person and about the morals of his actions. But on the same time I do not fail to acknowledge what he did for his country. Which is not the case for most forumeers.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Fist of all, I am not a Stalin apologist (hell, I am not even a communist!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif. And... Ataturk? Asimilated Greece? Excuse moi, by the time Mustafa Kemal has risen to power, the Greek state spanned not only in the Helladic area, but also in Eastern Thrace, save Constantinople, and the whole Smyrne Sanjak. I cannot find any kind of common points between Kemal and Stalin, would you care to elaborate on that? Kemal never tried to assimilate Greece, he couldn’t do so anyway. And Kemal was a leader of the hard-core nationalistic Turks, those who performed the infamous Armenian Genocide a few years before him. His aim was to create a nation “only of Turks”. Does this resemble Stalin’s effort to create a real Soviet Union and in what way?Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Poor example, very poor indeed.
Thane Talain MacDonald
Nice equation but wrong. Socialism is communism. Actually, communism is a better socialism, a latter stage in the evolution of socialism (all that in paper, of course) but both have the same principle: the means of production do not belong to any individual, but to the society. The soviet model of socialism (and not communism, as they were merely aiming at communism) was a heavy-on state and party version (read: interpretation) of Marx’s writings, already screwed by Lenin (and given the final blow by Stalin).Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
That is the case with the evolution of USA, you know. The western parts of the country, for a rather prolonged period, suffered corporate anarchism, in which only the mighty had a chance to survive and the rich became richer. But that is not the case in the anarchism type I suggest. There are ways for joint and communal action, to prevent the society to fall into the hands of pocket-sized dictators.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Rosacrux,
1) socialism and communism
Ok, but how does that equate communism with socialism? We can debate about what is the definition of socialism, and who is or is not a socialist, but I still don't see the equation as a valid point. Is every socialist a less advanced communist, are all concievable socialist governments on a way to become communist as well? If communism is an advanced form of socialism, from your perspective was it ever achieved in practice, or is it even possible to be achieved in practice? And what would be the difference between what was achieved and what should be achieved for the society to be a communist one, as opposed to the socialist one?
2)state vs. people
Again, the difference between what he achieved for his counrty and for his people is what's bothering me. What was the benefit to a common citizen from having the strongest military, for example? Why would that be important, if your life and lifestyle is jeopardized by that? What's the benefit of the "effective" secret police? Unless you dissociate the country as a provisional entity, an idea, not as a society made up of people, I fail to see how anything could be "good" that benefits the idea alone.
3)Ataturk
Well, I might have phrased it a bit oddly for the point I was trying to make, but I still think it's a valid example. The "nation only of Turks" is what I was aiming for, actually, since JS was also creating a "nation of Soviets". I wasn't talking about Ataturk's takeover of Greece as something that was possible or probable, I was aiming more at the hypothetical scenario of having somebody like that destroying your own heritage, etc., while, again hypothetically, creating a very powerful state. Would you then think about the benefits of the state as an idea, regardless of the fact that you don't even feel it as your own? How important would having a strong military be to you in that case, and would you think that it is a good thing, and deem that the man who made that possible is in fact a great leader for "his country"?
Hrvojej
1) According to the Marxist interpretation of socialism (because there is also the utopists interpretation) a socialist state is a society with classes but in which the means of the production are social, ie. Not Private. The difference is (supposed to be) that the communist society has no classes at all, and we are all a bunch of happy people, working for the common good. Sounds utopic at best – and it is. Never achieved in practise and I strongly doubt it is feasible within the limitations of the human kind.
2) Quite clearly, the difference can be suggested by this scenario: Let’s suppose Stalin never rose to power. Let’s suppose Trotsky (or whomever it was in his boots) didn’t wish to go down the path of forced industrialization. And, same ways, he didn’t bother to change the face and structure of the army (even if he did, without adequate industry he would just create a better organized but still very poorly equipped army). What would happen if this army faced the Wehrmacht in WW2? How many weeks do you think it would take the panzerdivisionen to reach Novosirbirk, if they faced such a ludicrous army as the Revolutionary “Army” was? What do you think would happen to the Soviet people, most of those of Slavic origin, if Hitler conquered USSR? How many dozens of million people would he slaughter (in a mass-scale “final solution”) to “make room” (“lebensraum”) for the brave Arian Nazis? How many dozens of millions (all those left, actually) do you think that would be turned into slaves, to produce food and generally work for their German chiefs? So, yes, I believe in the long run those who did not died or suffered the loss of their beloved, did profitize on Stalin’s efforts. And I won’t even get in detail about how Stalin managed (with all the mistakes and the disrespect for human life – that of his soldiers too) to drive off the Nazis during the war.
3) Still it is a poor example. Ataturk had similarities to Hitler, not Stalin. Stalin did not wish to create a single-nationality or ethnicity state. He wanted to equalize all the subjects of the Soviet state. With the current social structure (which was enforced by the ethnic differences) he could not succeed. Even by destroying the social structure and the ethnical bonds, he succeeded very little (as showed by the split-up of the USSR after the collapse of the Iron Courtain). Nothing in common with Ataturk, who was nationalist and wished to have just “ein volk, ein land, ein fuhrer”… right, the wording comes from “Mein Kampf”, by A.Hitler himself. Again: Not a valid reference. Waaaaaay too hypothetical, and on the wrong direction too. Stalin wasn’t a Georgian who tried to assimilate the Esthonians and Lithuanians into his own ethnic group. He tried to create a “Soviet Citizen”. Find a better example and maybe you can have a more straight answer on this.
1) Agreed. A nice idea, but not really feasible. Not with the people as they are now, or have been in the past, and neither the leaders nor the populous are capable of that. I still don't think the equation sign was a valid one, since you yourself have provided the differences, but I get what you mean.
2) The forced part is what I disagree with. Was he aware of the Nazi threat when he started it? Was the goal to do it as quickly as possible to resist the Germans, or to do it in a way that suited his (personal interpretation of an) ideology, and megalomaniac dreams? Dreams about an idea, not about the people (maybe only in a dissociated and even cynical way). And Cheka helped to fight the Nazis how exactly? Who is to tell that e.g. Trotsky wouldn't have achieved the same while at the same time taking a different route?
3) I don't particulary care to be enlightened about Ataturk, I was only trying to put it into somewhat more familiar perspective for you. It's easy to say this or that about someone when you never had the risk of experiencing it yourself, or when it was about somebody else all together. And the difference between uniform "national" ethinicty and uniform "ideological" ethincity is a marginal one, if you think about it. Onemindedness however you look at it, regardless of what's behind it, isn't it? But still, hypothetically, what would you think about that? Would you be a proud Turkish citizen in that scenario? Never mind who would be "the great leader", just imagine the scenario of somebody trying to create a mighty Turkogreek or whatever nation for which everybody would have to forgo their identity, possesions, etc., some maybe more than others, some even their lives, in order to create a country that could rival the US in some institutional categories. Not that the society, as the vast majority of its members, would necessarily benefit from that, of course, but rather the institutions would; entities, not individuals. How would you feel about that, about the idea of a state that is her own purpose? If that's too hard to imagine, it's no wonder you cannot put yourself in the shoes of Cossacks, Lithuanians or Ukrainians........
Both killed for they were sick people and Stalin killed more than Hitler. Convinced?Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Rosacrux has some very strong points, but I do not belive that if any of us was hypotheticaly living in a 3rd world country would like to have a "Stalin" above him in order for his state to advance to the.."1st" world. Neither Stalin or Hitler are remembered as great leaders. Neither was. The fact is that Stalin won a war and Hitler lost it. *If*, a big if, Hitler was the winner of WWII would have accumulated the "Great". Because his crimes would be covered up and because he would be another Alexander or Napoleon. The basic reason for Hitlers infame is the lost world war, for Stalin the methods he used against his own people.
HM first time looking in this forum monastery. Noticed Stalin and thought hm lets look. There is Rosacrux presenting his work http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif .
And I missed this thread
I haven't red the replys from others so it's not nice from me to answer you that fast. I just rughly red your post. Nice
Few corrections (for this time) because of the Soviet work on taking away real facts from history it's difficult to know the truth about that time:
The Russian Empire's economy and industry of 1900 was booming wright before the revolution. Millions of peasents became workers in lets say 10 years.
socialism as a word and a concept was made up because they found themselv in a position when they understod that the goal (communism) was unreacheble so they got to explain in what the hell we are living wright now (while we will get to communism by real real hard work http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif)
Trotskii was the creator of the Red Army and was not that militia alike but close.
Germany invested in Lenin about hundreds of million of marks( to get rid of eastern front)
20 millions is the last and more or less suitable number of total stalin's afforts in getting rid of people(he had many years to get this numbers 37 and 53 were hes peaks, even now new anonimous cementerys are uncovered) You didn't wanted to be that soviet group that beat themselves back to friendly lines after encirclaments in lets say 1941... boy let me tell they were surprised .. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif .
Thats about all wright now, its late here.
Not yet
Those *2 millions* were ucranian peasents and it was 4 million.
Gah
I see lots of people taking it upon themselves to do the rest of us a favour and tell us "how things really happened", or what the "real figures" were.
If you want to do this, try and back it up with some with some scholarship.
"He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock". - Luke 6, 48
Azrael
That's EXACTLY what Socialism is. I'm going to take the definition from every textbook, whether history or economics, that I have ever laid eyes upon over your definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
And no, there is absolutely no way for anarchy to avoid lapsing into petty dictatorships and the concentration of wealth, short of every single person in the anarchic society (oxymoron?) being entirely dedicated to the good of the group. That's Aristotle's Eudaimonia. Its a nice idea, its also completely impossible. History backs me on this, the Dark Ages post Rome were as close to a true anarchy as one can see, and the petty warlords that sprung up ended up creating the feudal system. I can imagine that apart from more advanced weapons, the exact same thing would happen today.
No I'm not. Stalin killed people out of hand, he didn't care whether they lived or died, he was completely amoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Hitler killed people because he wanted to, and enjoyed it, thus he was completely immoral.
Not to mention that Stalin killed people and Hitler tried to annihilate entire ethnicities, but that's another argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Though I agree that victors do write the history, Hitler's infamy is based upon his actions not his defeat. The Kaiser lost WWI but who considers him infamous. Hitler's crimes against humanity are overwhelming but what's often overlooked is that many of these victims were good German citizens. The Jews, for example, were a vital part of the vibrant artistic and intellectual culture that was greater Germany in the late 19th and early 20th century. Hitler and the Nazi's destroyed this culture long before the war was lost. Even if a shot was never fired Hitler's Reich would have stagnated culturally and intellectually and as his crimes against his own people became known it would have become a pariah among the world's nations.
I am not trying to defend Hitler here. I am just trying to compare him with Stalin. What I am writting is that it is less immoral to kill people than to kill your people.
I don't see the distinction. Hitler killed his own 'people'. The German state was ethnically mixed and he was responsible for their treatment by the state. The 'Pure German' was a construct. The white blond traits of the Aryan poster child, for example, were north slavic in origin (ironic huh).
I find both Stalin and Hitler so destructive that I don't worry about their relative immoralities. I do find Nazi Germany more disturbing than Stalin's Soviet Union though for many reasons.
First off, to be honest, more information was available on Hitler than Stalin when I was growing up. Though Russia was the enemy in the 60's the alliance with Uncle Joe was only 20 years in the past and his crimes of the prewar era were undoubtably muted so as not to call into question US morality in working with him.
But what disturbs me is that Hitler's policy of purification was insane and yet so many people followed it willingly. The death camps served no purpose. These people were neither a threat to the state or the Nazi party's control of it. I condemn Stalin, but I understand his actions in terms of his will to power. To put it in simple, graphic, terms, I see Stalin as a rapist and Hitler as a child molester.
Pause.
I thought the issue in communism had to do with "alienation". An over-arching state for which everyone produces and which then distributes according to the whim of politicos, does not overcome the alenation of the worker. The relationship between the worker and his/her production is as insubstantial as under the capitalist system ie:state-capitalism does not amount to communism.
Stalin may have succeeded in building an industrial society out of an agrarian society...but did he really have anything to with communism besides taking on the banner?
Stalin was Neutral Evil (he'd do anything as long as it fitted keeping himself in power), Hitler was Lawful Evil (he was on a moral crusade & was actually vaguely willing to sacrifice himself for the cause) - is there a real difference appart from D&D definitions??
Apart from the fact that Stalin killed people for the purpose of keeping himself in power while Hitler systematically attempted to annihilate entire ethnicities, no.
Rosacrux,
Still waiting on your sources for Stalin.
Azrael
Azrael
Sorry lad, I forgot all about it (been really busy the last couple of days) but tommorow I'll provide you with my full bibliography (ain't that big, though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif )
I think, when measuring up Hitler and Stalin one cannot let oneself be swayed to much by the accepted 'Norms' i.e Hitler was evil and ****** up Germany or Stalin was an evil tyrant who cared nothing for the USSR. \
True Hitler did have a hand in ****** up germany but he was not evil. Now people may cry in shock and horror to hear this but Hitler was not evil. His deeds were evil but as a man he was not. To be evil one must know what one is doing is wrong but still continue to do it. Hitler was so derranged that what he thought what he was doing was for the 'good of the german people' the jews, gypsies, etc. were a 'cancer' on the germans a cancer that should be cut out, Hitler saw himself as the doctor (now before you go accusing me of being a Nazi let me assure you i decry what Hitler and his henchmen did but one cannot just make blanket statements without backing them up)
Now Stalin, there are two ways of looking at this man. One, he was a cruel tyrant and two, he was a defender of the USSR and a great man. As for me, i believe the truth lies somewhat in between these two viewpoints. Sure Stalin was cruel and a murder, that fact is indisputible, but also he did modernise the USSR very rapidly and (after destroying the army in the first place) rebuilt the Red Army into a professional and disciplined force. It is beyond doubt that another leader could have industrialised the country and re-build the army in a more humane way, but on the flip side of that, had that been done then the USSR may very well have lost the second world war and then look where Europe would have been...........
It is all to easy to judge in hindsight. Make sure you know what you are talking about before you make blanket statements.
Edit: Bad language.
Edited by Ithaskar Fëarindel
Sorry but your excuse is the excuse that would make the actions of the KKK valid. I think you are mixing up immoral & amoral with good & evil.
Immoral goes against the common morals that they share.
Amoral has no sense of morally right or wrong.
Good, lets just put it down to use creative forces, like, love, caring all that 'nice' stuff to get things done.
Evil, well in the case of human to human relations I define it as ignoring the humanity and worth of others (normally in the extreme cases of racial hatred leading to murder). Evil would also be using destructive forces to get what you want ie mugging, raping, torture and murder.
Hitler ordered the Final Solution. That makes him evil. He rallied his party to attack those who were different jews, gypsies, intellectually handicapped that makes him evil.
Just because he saw what he was doing was right does not make it so. Evil is when one ignores the humanity of others. Hitler is definitly in that category.
Evil uses destruction not construction for gain. Hitler fits the bill in Evil, he does fit the bill for construction of the German industry... but when evil deeds are measured against the weight of a single feather it doesn't come out to well for him... anyhow how can someone say that creating automobiles and autobahn outweigh the lives of millions of people. A good person may ask millions to sacrifce themselves so millions more survive but this was not the case. No choice and it wasn't a question of survival. This was a hateful, spiteful, brutish way.
And at what point do you decide to separate his deeds from who he was? Genocide is an evil deed but it doesn't make the doer evil... that is a load of bulldust and makes you come across as a Nazi apologist.
Sorry but ones actions do reflect the core of the person. Looking at a continuum of actions one sees more of the core of the person. Given the amount of times Hitler neglects to see the humanity in others and chooses to wipe them out shows quite well how evil he is.
Sorry, i don't think my meaning came through in my last post. Before i continue i must say that i am NOT and NEVER WILL BE a Nazi apologist. What they did was vile and defy's all laws of humanity, neither am i a racist. Now that that's out of the way i will try to state my position more clearly.
What Hitler and Stalin did was great, as in large, expansive, sweeping, not as in good or positive. Their deeds were great, terrible yes, but great in that sense.
Nazi Apologism is seeking to absolve the Nazi's of their crimes, i.e. The Holocoust, The Destruction of Lidice and their quest for a 'master race'. I am not a Nazi Apologist and if my last post seemed to convey that image then it was in error, i was merely attempting to rationally view Hitler and Stalin in context and from a slightly psychological viewpoint, obviously it appears i have failed.
Mate I didn't say you are a xyz I said you were coming across as one. I realised by your statements that you did not agree with the Nazis.
But I do have a few questions.
1) Do you believe that a person can be evil? If so what do you define as evil.
2) If you do believe that a person can be evil what more did the SS and Hitler have to do to cross that line?
I myself believe that in any situation we have choices sometimes not very palatable ones but we always can chose how we react to a situation.
I for one cannot separate the actions from the actor. If someone does something then they are responsible for their actions be they good or bad. Now if someone does a crime then they are a criminal (there is a hierachy I use however... jaywalking on a street to run to the aid of someone in need of resusitation is not a crime... what I am talking about here is the broader strokes not the nit picking). If the crime is against property it is a lesser crime then that done to a person or group of people. Now by my own definition using concentration camps, wiping out millions of people all because you see yourself as superior is an act of evil.
To deny others their humanity is wrong, to then deny them their right to live based on that precept is the act of evil be it a single person who is murdered or a million.