Jo Stalin - great or vile?

Remember guys don't get to heated here. Keep it sensible and you're ok.

I usually don't post a viewpoint, however:

Pape, Stalin is undoubtedly evil, like Lord_Lenny has said; but isn't this just a case of doing it for "the Greater Good"?

Russian military had masses of numbers and even fewer resources, Stalin used this to his advantage. Sending in all the men he could find (armed or not) the Germans had no choice but to shoot them up. In the end the German supply lines couldn't cope and they were overwhelmed by the Russians.

Did Stalin plan that to happen? If he did, it was just a tactic used in a battle, a very cruel, brutal and inhumane tactic.

Of course, he may have just been a cruel S.O.B. who didn't care how many men he lost, but he must have cared if any part of Russia was lost.

Yikes i missed the italic button, sorry guys i wasn't shouting but i didn't know how else to stress the words, my bad http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif thanks Ithaskar that's pretty much what i meant about Stalin.

Ok now to answer your questions pape:

1) Yes, i believe a person can be evil, but, at the moment i am yet to find concrete guidelines in which to define evil. I would consider, at this stage i would only consider Nicolae Ceausescu evil. He knew what he was doing (Nepotism etc.) was wrong and indeed against the very basic tenants of his supposed ideaology (Stalinist 'Socialism' ) and wilfully mudered/tortured anyone who stood in his way. At this point and with my current interpretation of evil, he is evil.

2) Bearing that in mind what the SS (especially the Totenkopff (Deaths Head, in charge of Concentration Camps) and Einsatzgruppen (Special Action Group, followed the army into Russia and systematically liquidated (there is no other word for it really) every Jewish person they could find and Obliterated every trace of Judaism they came in contact with.)

So, there were undoubtedly sadistic people in the Heirarchy of the SS (Himmler, and especially Reinhard Heydrich, the architect of the final solution and also the only top nazi to fit the stereotype Nordic Aryan) but i suppose they can be viewed two different ways. One is that they were evil, pure and simple, the other, i guess is rather hazy, yes their actions were evil but does that make them evil?? To what extent do a person's actions constitute evil, it is a difficult question.

For instance i would consider Himmler, Heydrich and 'Dr.' Joseph Mengele evil, that is a gut reaction which i cannot explain but with Hitler and Stalin it is different, yes they can be seen as evil, but also they can be seen as merely derranged or indeed as saviours (even today i'm sad to say)

I'm rambling now which isn't good but hopefully that clears things up abit better, if it doesn't i guess we can just say: People have different ideas of what constitutes evil. Evil to one person may be wonderful to another.

Our new friend Shralp17 in the Entrance Hall has been itching to get into this discussion. His lengthy response to various points raised by Rosacrux follow.

-----
This is a reply to “Stalin Great or Vile”. My goal is not to flame the person that posted the message but to reply gentlemanly manner. It is a great topic and I just want to continue this debate. First of all I would like to make some points.

1. All post that aren't mine will have a R before them for
Rosacrux who is the person I am replying to and M is my response.
2. I am a twenty-year-old male from the United States.

3. I am not naive while I am writing about Stalin’s atrocities I also know that other countries, leaders, and political systems have committed atrocities. Such as slavery, colonialism, the war against the Native Americans, China’s KMT party, and etc.

4. This is not written to compare Stalin to Hitler in a whom was more evil contests. Both were evil and their policies killed millions. It doesn’t matter if you have killed 100 people or a million people murder is still murder.

5. The atrocities (especially his final solution) of Hitler affected so many people that he often-over shadows Stalin’s atrocities. Even thought Stalin killed more people.

6. Communism is a political and economical system.

From Random House Webster’s College Dictionary.

1. A theory or system of social organizations based on holding all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community or state.
2. A political doctrine or movement based on Marxism and developed my Lenin and others seeking the violent over throw of capitalism and the creation of a classless society.
3. A system of social organizations in which all economic and social activity is controlled by totalitarian state dominated by a single political party.
4. The principles and practices of a Communist party.

7. One can say that communism was not successful because it was stared in the wrong country. One can speculate all they want and ask questions such as what if communism had started in Western Europe. But these are just speculations and aren’t based in reality or facts. We only have history to guide and judge the past. So I will try to use historical information and not speculations.

8. I will try to use legitimate web resources (if you question are resource just reply). I will be using the Black Book of Communism here on known as BBC.

9. So now lets get to the subject.



Stalin 5 year plan did industrialize the USSR but it wasn’t that backwards as one thinks.
The Russian industrial revolution happened from 1867-1927 http://www.esh.ed.ac.uk/Research%20I...d/Rus_ind.html so Russia was an industrial nation way before the October Revolution. It might have been behind Western Europe but it wasn’t waaaaay behind. Stalin had to rebuild the failing economy through his 5 year plan. Basically to rebuild the economy Stalin used the NEP plan that basically lessened communist control over the market so the economy could rebuild. Now the Stalin didn’t start the Russian industrial revolution he had to rebuild it. The Soviet economy was in shambles because of WWI, the Russian civil war, and peasants’ uprisings, factory strikes. During the beginning of the Revolution the soviets had vast support from both the workers and the peasants but as time progressed the workers and peasants started to get fed up with communist policy. Peasants were mad that there grain was being seized by the grain armies and that the men were being drafted into the Red Army (they were ready to go home after fighting in WWI this is why they supported the communists.) The workers were mad at the arrest of people by the Cheka (secret police), being thrown in prison with out trials, and the violent put down of strikes. All this arrest after the revolution lead to a civil war like all civil war it was bloody. It wasn’t a simple war between the Red and White armies. The Red Army also faced strikes, peasant uprisings, Green Armies which were peasant armies, the Cossacks, and the Ukrainians. So basically the war was more complicated than just the fighting between the Red and White Armies. While the opposition to the Red Army was great it didn’t succeed because they didn’t work together and couldn’t deliver a decisive blow to the Red Party. But things were looking bad at one time the soviets only controlled the area around Moscow. So after several years of civil war a famine broke out (resulting in the deaths of 5 million people) do to the over seizure of grain. This famine was the final defeat of the peasant uprisings. So Stalin had the goal of rebuilding and modernizing the Soviet economy. So while it is true that Stalin did rebuild the economy his policies also resulted in the death of millions of people.

R
During those reforms, Stalin did kill a number of people. Official and unofficial accounts together, plus estimations and a good deal of guessing, brings the death toll of this period to around 4 million people.

M
Ok I believe that 4 million is a little low. I don’t believe Stalin killed 50 million people but 4 million is still low.

If you go to this website about Democide http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM
you will read that the numbers are a lot higher. And if you look at this graph http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.FIG1.1.GIF even the lowest estimate is at 30 million. True this graph cover the period from the Revolution to the collapse of communism but most of the atrocities occurred during Stalinism.

And if you look at the charts on this page http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM you will see democide under Stalin was far greater than 4 million. If you have another website saying differently please post it.

In conclusion while Stalin did rebuild the economy of the USSR he also took millions of lives and ruined millions of families. So I believe Stalin was pure evil. Please respond intelligently to this post.



Here are my response to Rosacrux who was the original author of "Jo Stalin great or vile" Rosacrux post are bold.
R
The two five-year plans brought USSR from the 18th century (where it was, compared with most European countries, technology-wise in the 1920s) into the 20th century, non-stop and with great effectiveness:
M
Ok you said the five year plan brought USSR from the 18th century which would be the
1700. Did you mean the 18th century? While the USSR was behind Western Europe I
don't think anyone would have compared it to the 18th century.
R
The very same threats Stalin faced: He couldn’t convince anyone to do what it takes to modernize the country, so he figured out that the only way was to mobilize everybody in the name of the revolution, despite their feelings. To achieve this and to stabilize his rule (which was always in danger, he wasn’t the “correct” man for that position, Trotsky was) he formed (actually: Upgraded) the Cheka and begun the infamous purges: Either you work for the revolution, or you go to the gulag.
M
Ok I don’t believe that people didn’t want to modernize the country they were just resisting the communist oppression by conducting strikes and peasant uprisings. By Stalin’s time communist rule was basically stabilized especially after the defeat of the White Army and the famine of 1922. Stalin just had to stabilize his rule as the leader of the communist party and that is why he conducted the purges. He didn’t form the Cheka the Cheka was formed shortly after the revolution but it changed names many times eventually becoming the KGB. During Stalins time it was known as the GPU or NKVD.
People that didn't follow communist doctrine were sent to the gulag long before Stalin
came into power. But Stalin did send people to the gulag that wouldn't get in step with
soviet policy. He also deport the Kulaks, and other people.

R
When he tried to impose the collectivism as the standard farming system in the USSR, he faced some heavy opposition. When he did impose the “revolution” in the farming production, two million people died because of the famine that came after. A heavy death toll to pay, to be honest. Too heavy for the outcome, but the system was established despite the kulaks and worked until recently.

M
Now you make it sound it was the Kulaks fault for the famine. While total collectivization was tried by Stalin it never work effectively. I believe that Khrushchev reformed the collective farm and allowed the farmers to have small private plots in addition to the state ran farms. Khrushchev knew that total collectivization was a disaster. The process collectivization was brutal and did result in a great famine. The Kulak’s were rich farmers like the communists portray them as. Usually a Kulak was a farmer that was able to higher additional hands to work his farm or he was able to work his own farm and higher himself out. Basically he had spent his money wisely so that he could higher extra workers which in turn he could plant more.
R
That is not a small number by any account (actually it does put Jo up there in the pantheon of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century) but it’s waaaaay lower than the outrageous numbers produced by some mindless propaganda brigades (25 million, 30 millions, I’ve even read 50 millions by one
M
Ok who do you consider mindless propaganda brigades? While 50 million is to high I believe your estimate of 4 million is to low. I believe most historians will settle around 20 million. Where did you get your 4 million figure from?
R
Another great feat by Jo. S. was the building of a decent military. USSRs standing army up until 1929 was a revolutionary army. For those who are not familiar with Leninist term, let me explain what that was: A militia army, without professional military personel in the lead, with heavy interference by the Party committees (90% of the “officers” were also members of “revolutionary” committees and boards) with very minimal discipline, loose organization and a very fuzzy doctrine (sort of “the enemy is equally within and outside”).

the Stalin knew he couldn’t win a war with this army – hell, he couldn’t win a football game with this army. He started steadily to reform the army, with the help of a few officers and party officials that shared his vision about the new Red Army. He wanted to create a fully mechanized army, with the Tanks being the very heart of it (he was ahead of the German practice at time). The soviet industrial revolution being on it’s way (because of the two 5-year plans) helped him to that.

In 1929 the Revolutionary Army had a handful of very poor light tanks, few weapons, inadequate equipment, no airplanes, 19th century artillery, and was moving on foot. 10 years later the Soviet army was a well-equipped modern army, with the best tanks of the time, partly mechanized and well supplied, with modern artillery and even a modest-sized force of some very good airplanes.
M
Ok I don’t believe the Red Army was a miltia army. During the civil war they had capable leaders and had some air power, artillery, and some armored vehicles while the army wasn’t up to the same standards as Britain’s or the US it wasn’t a militia army. The Red Army also had capable leaders if they didn’t then how did the defeat the White Army that did have capable leaders? But Stalin did modernize the Red Army but he didn’t create the Red Army.
R
The easiest thing in the world is to dismiss someone in the basis of the horror he caused. The hardest thing is to evaluate someone according to the truth, and not the stupid propaganda that is floating around - and as we know, the history is written by the winners.
M
Ok can you please give references to this stupid propaganda. You have mentioned propaganda twice but I haven’t seen to examples. And wasn’t the Soviet Union one of the winner of WWII. Khrushchev also knew that Stalin had killed millions of people and revealed this during the Twenty-second congress of the CPSU in 1961. So history is written by the winners but Khrushchev knew the truth.
R
Excactly how would USSR reform and be industrialized without Stalins efforts? You have some sources about some miraculous 5-year plans that would take a people of ignorant peasants, fearsome of everything new, and turn them into productive factory workers, engineers, and managers overnight? How would you do that?

M
Other nations such as the Japanese industrialized with little bloodshed. Stalin didn’t industrialize the USSR he had to rebuild the economy after WWI and the civil war. And all Russians weren’t ignorant peasants it was true that most citizens were peasants and they didn’t trust the urban populace but I wouldn’t call them ignorant or fearsome of everything new. And during the Revolution Russia did have workers, engineers, managers, and etc. The Soviets killed a lot of the engineers, mangers, and etc. calling them anti-revolutionists. But you make it sound like the USSR was filled with peasants that had to establish cities and an industrial base. Russia already had and industrial base that was in shambles after WWI and the civil war.


R
Stalin did create the Red Army. There was no Red Army before Stalin. How do you think that conglomerate of militia, temp. servicemen, gathered only "on occassion", without any sort of stable ierarchy and with no machinery, no armoured vehicles, no tanks, no airplanes, spiced up with several hundreds of party officials per division, would fair against the mighty Wehrmacht? I assure you, the panzerdivisionen would be as far as Novosirbirk in 6 months tops.
M
The Red Army was established before Stalin and they did have some tanks, armored cars, planes, and some machinery. Its armor and airforce were behind Western Europe but it wasn’t an army of militia men. Stalin did modernize the Red Army though.
R
Allthough me being a leftist and knowing that, what Stalin did killed the case for socialism worldwide (he was more effective in this than the real enemies of socialism - the capitalist governments and the multinationals - were, by twisting the whole leninistic concept to create "a state of one", a pure dictatorship) I do respect his ability to fight against incredible odds and succeed. And at the same time I despise his megalomaniac insecurity and look with terror at the crimes he commited.
M
Can you please give us some facts to back up this comment.
R
But, really, that doesn't negate what he did. Is it so bloody hard to put aside emotions and look at the facts?
M
Ok he did rebuild the Russian economy but is that an amazing feat? The Japanese industrialized their economy during the 19th century, Hitler rebuilt the German economy but know one says hey Hitler was a great man because he rebuilt the German Economy. I do look at the facts and they show that millions of Russians died. And I haven’t said anything about communist propaganda.
R
OK gentlemen, we can agree to disagree, so we can come back like 100 years later (when the New Global Revolution will have succeed into throwing Capitalism into the trashcan of history) to discuss how history shall view Stalin then.
M
Like I said one can speculate all they want but history tells us the truth. We can ask what if all we want but history=truth.
R
Not on Mars and I do not expect "communism" to take over; anarchy is the way to go into the future. A leftist-anarchism, of course, like anarcho-syndikalism. Because there is also corporate anarchism, which USA has experienced during the late 19th century in the far west - not something you'd like. And... if socialism is the equivalent of the Dodo, Capitalism is the equivalent of a mammoth living in the 21st century.
M
Ok now I think you are using emotions here rather than facts.
R
Anyway, communism = socialism. What USSR had was neither. X-Large subject, not prone to discussion right now.
M
Then what form of government and economic system did the USSR have? They definitely didn’t have a democratic government with a capitalistic economic system.

R
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 ) in the area of 35-40 million, even though only 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.

M
Ok while Hitler and his Nazi’s committed atrocities which resulted in millions of deaths he didn’t start WWII. He might have started the war in Europe but Japan had already attack China and during WWII china lost millions and citizens like the USSR. So you can’t blame all the death of WWII on one man because he didn’t start the war only the conflict in Europe.


M
Ok my conclusion is while Stalin did rebuild the Soviet economy it was at the cost of millions of lives. It doesn’t matter if it was 4 million or 20 million murder is murder. I believe you could find better examples of rulers that reformed their nation than Stalin.

-----

I've decided it's more fun to read than to post in these arguments. I'll let other people be the asses http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

I just read a review of a movie called "Max" which has a young Hitler as one of its main characters. I won't give you my vague retelling of the review but the movie appears to focus on Hitler's life right after WWI and how he moved from frustrated artist to budding demogogue. Should be interesting but I'll have to go to NYC to see it.

In my view , Stalin was a twisted sadist {he would manipulate union members in pre bolshie Russia into bloody clashes with the authorities which anyone as crafty as he could see they were giong to loose badly ... before long he had a rather bad reputation which he had to overcome} who did everything he did to feed his appitite for the suffering of others and then maintain his possition .

Russia might have been in bad shape , but she had tremendous natural resources {lots of minerals , good land , people and enought usefull ports to potentially compete in international trade} and with the system that Lenin {who I also consider a nasty bugger , but he was far more human than Stalin} left in place modernisng would have been possible with VERY much less cruelty . The ingredients were already there {unlike with the Mongols where Ghengis had to build them an empire with practically nothing but a few million callous nomads} .

The modernisation had already begun when Stalin took power and all he had to do was keep that train moving . He almost lost it all by putting the best of his millitary officers in gulags {if Hitler had waited a few more years , most of these would have been dead and the Russian millitary would have never been able to recover from that in time }

Be wary of much that was recorded in Russia during his lifetime as to keep records that Stalin would not have liked was a fantastically dangerous thing to do . Also remember that most Russians were so thoroughly terrorised that their actual memories will be susspect from the times in question unless they are individuals of notably strong will and robust ego : memory is NOT a video tape ... it is a far more subjective medium that is remarkably similar to a dream . What you remember may be totally different to what actually happened , that's why some people claim to have been tourtured in "satanic rituals" and witnessed bodies burried etc , but when police investigate they find entirely no evidence to support such whatsoever ... these people are mind f@cked at a deeply subconscious leval by certain manipulative individuals with far less effort than Stalins' internal security put into "educating" the people of the U.S.S.R. . Remember that Stalin had a full generation of tremendous {and rather evil in my view} effort to effect the memories of many Russian from the moment they were born , through school and into adult lives of virtual slavery to the state and thus Stalins' will and hunger . Most memories of the time will be extreame as the time its' self was extreme : either all bad to deal with the excesses or all good to push them away and then you must consider that all who followed in possition of power in Russia were very biased ...
If Stalin had been truely great , he would have won the cold war or laid enough groundwork to do so including a truely suitable heir ... Russia had the resources {though I consider communism wrong , I make the point to illustrate my arguement that Stalin was not great , just a sadistic monster that caused more harm than good} and the opportunities . Consider the State Russia is in now .

Pre-Bolshovic Russia was already changing . The old system was giving way to democracy , though with reluctance it was going to have happened anyway . The system would have been like Englands , but with the {and it is hard to overstate this} great difference that England is a small and overcrowded country which had power only by holding on to a captive Empire that ultimately cost more than it made whereas Russia had power from being a fantastically large country with any mineral she required , all the farmland she needed and a large population . The English system with enough land , food etc ACTUALLY PRODUCED IN THE COUNTRY would have been a very prosperous and lucky country to live in . Rather like the best of Great Britian and the U.S.A. perhaps but alas , such was not to be .

Russia today is a badly damaged country . Stalin did much of this damage . He inherrited a country that was already modernising and yes he did push much of that , however he did it entirely to feed his hunger and did such damage that Russia eventually collapsed and only her great size and therein inherrant strength allowed her to survive the fall intact . She may never be able to have what might have been ... the odds of making it there are long .

Just when I think I've read the dumbest thread in any forum, along comes another one which surpasses all the rest. Rosacrux, have you no shame or are you just nuts? God save your soul. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif