Discussion of Stalinism

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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

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 In a democratic society this brilliant man would have been replaced by some average, corrupt drunk in 8 years, which would have annulled all that he has done for Russia.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

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

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.

: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:

Quote:

---

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.

---

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amillius Paulus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amillius Paulus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I ask that anyone who tries to defend Stalin educates themselves

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

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.

Personally I preferred Trotsky.



He was getting freaky with Frieda Kahlo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

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:?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mooks

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.

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

Quote:

---

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 are taken out of context, but they show Stalin trying to preserve the USSR and his own hold on power.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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

---

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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/...om/suvorov.htm

Edit:

Soviet Dictator, not Russian.

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.

EDIT: and yes, don't forget he was Soviet. Stalin was no Russian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

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.

---

That was the idea. Let the Germans exhaust themselves against the West.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixiwee

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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...

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.
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...

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.
Stalin was indirectly responsible for millions of deaths. He killed millions.
But they are all dead, including Stalin and his regime.

Then what is the use of your arguments?
From what I have seen, the English, Austrians and Russians are quite admiring of Napoleon in our times.

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

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?

And it is unneccessary for me to continue.

I am sorry that my opinions are so unpopular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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 ?

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meneldil

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).

Quote:

---

That probably means something doesn't it ?

---

Humans can be wrong?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

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...

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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 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.

---

:bow:

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

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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: