Jo Stalin - great or vile?

Joseph Stalin (Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili – the name is not Russian, neither was he; he was Georgian) was one of the most outstanding leaders of the past century. Yet, his methods and general practice does not fit into said century, so we should rather look at him as a more… medieval sort of a “Great Leader”.

For someone who has studied a bit or Russian history, only one person can be compared with Stalin as for the deeds they’ve done: Peter the Great. They both inherited (well, Stalin was not Lenin’s actual heir, but you know how those things go…) a state (kingdom for Peter) that was waaay behind it’s neighbours in technology, education level, quality of life and actual power, but bestowed some great strengths and qualities (it had potential, to speak so).

They both recognized what the problem is, and managed to figure out ways to actually face it. They both had to import technology from outside: Peter even worked in a shipyard to do so, Stalin just had to call in several industrial giants of USA, promising they could have a (tiny) bit of the pie, if they provided USSR with the know-how.

Both began a program of industrialization. Stalin was much more successful in his, as he managed wonders: The two five-year plans brought USSR from the 18th century (where it was, compared with most European countries, technology-wise in the 1920s) into the 20th century, non-stop and with great effectiveness: Before 1929 USSR was not among the top 20 countries in terms of industrial production, despite it being #2 in population. In 1941 only one country had a greater industrial production than USSR: USA. Even Germany was only 3rd, while Britain was 4th.

Peter wasn’t so successful, though, as he had more problems and less power than Joseph, despite him being a nominal “absolute monarch”. The boyars of Peter’s era were still very strong and influential and resisted even the slightiest effort to modernize the country.

The very same threats Stalin faced: He couldn’t convince anyone to do what it takes to modernize the country, so he figured out that the only way was to mobilize everybody in the name of the revolution, despite their feelings. To achieve this and to stabilize his rule (which was always in danger, he wasn’t the “correct” man for that position, Trotsky was) he formed (actually: Upgraded) the Cheka and begun the infamous purges: Either you work for the revolution, or you go to the gulag.

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

Then, he tried to make everybody a “Soviet” citizen. That was tough. All people had their own heritage and some of them (like the Cossacks) were so proud of it, they would never adopt the “new” way of life, or seize their traditional customs. Again, their way of life and customs stood in the way of the revolution, so he murdered their leadership and deported the rest from their soil, to be assimilated in other parts of the vast land.

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

That is not a small number by any account (actually it does put Jo up there in the pantheon of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century) but it’s waaaaay lower than the outrageous numbers produced by some mindless propaganda brigades (25 million, 30 millions, I’ve even read 50 millions by one&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

Another great feat by Jo. S. was the building of a decent military. USSRs standing army up until 1929 was a revolutionary army. For those who are not familiar with Leninist term, let me explain what that was: A militia army, without professional military personel in the lead, with heavy interference by the Party committees (90% of the “officers” were also members of “revolutionary” committees and boards) with very minimal discipline, loose organization and a very fuzzy doctrine (sort of “the enemy is equally within and outside”).

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

In 1929 the Revolutionary Army had a handful of very poor light tanks, few weapons, inadequate equipment, no airplanes, 19th century artillery, and was moving on foot. 10 years later the Soviet army was a well-equipped modern army, with the best tanks of the time, partly mechanized and well supplied, with modern artillery and even a modest-sized force of some very good airplanes.

Well, we have to admit he did succeed. And he would be much more successful if he didn’t murder 65-70% of the army officers during the last purges. The Red Army, therefore, was not ready to face the more than adequate (best of their time, for sure) German officers, both in tactical and in strategic level.

Peter was cruel too, you know. But in cruelty and generally in his personal behaviour, Stalin resembles another great leader of the Russian past, Ivan the Terrible, which should be really called “Ivan the Terrified”: His cruelty was surpassed only by his insecurity. That was true also with Stalin. Some of the purges (like the one in the military around 1936-7) was dictated by Stalin’s stunning insecurity.

Thoughts? Opinions? Flames?

The first goal/rule of forming a society is the protection of the individuals who are part of it. Thus anything good that Stalin might have done to Russia, was something that would be done maybe after 10-20 years anyway and was not worth those "sacrifices". For evolution we need sacrifices, but what he has done to his own comrades...do not validate him as agreat leader but rather a leader-to-be-avoided-to-have. Would prefer to live in Germany of 1930, or in Russia of 1950?

Dead wrong, mate. Russia wasn't industrialized in 2 centuries, how would that become true without much sacrifice in 10 years? And he did wish to protect his citizens, the bulk of his citizens from those who could harm them (that is those who opposed the revolution).

I pressume you don't know much about class struggle and the likes, do you? If you did, you could understand (not approve, just understand) "Why".

if the price for ultra fast industrialisation was to be to throw factorytoxic or nuclear waste into the water of the people who work there , completely destroying the environment , building defective unreliable 'made in USSR' stuff and forcing everyone to drive completely unsafe Lada's (in compination that most of the russians are constantly drunk) , then i ll pass thank you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/dizzy.gif

Do you mean that Russia was a country in need to spill its own blood in order to achieve industrialization? When did the rest of the countries which managed it did such crimes?
Maybe the problem was after all communism and Stalin was the one who forced progress in a country without the political backround to be able for that. But my question remain unanswered. Don't you believe that goal#1 of any society/state is to protect its members?

If you think that Stalin was good then its like saying that Hitler was a good man. Stalin was defintly worse than Hitler though.

I believe Stalin was motivated solely by his desire for personal power. Once he became head of state the survival of the Soviet Union and the increase of it's power became an extention of this desire. Anyone or anything that got in his way was dealt with.

Would the Soviet Union haved survived without him? Could someone have ruthlessly industrialized and yet gradually phased in agricultural collectivism, for example, to lessen the disruption of output and subsequent famine. Were the Army purges of the thirties necessary for modernization or did he act to eliminate percieved threats to his absolute power?

I guess, to sum up, you have to weigh the survival of the state and the benefits that provided to the people, against the horrors he caused to ensure his personal survival and absolute power.

I can't call Stalin a great leader because to me he lacked vision. He wanted nothing more than the oppressive status quo to continue with himself as its primary benefactor. I think history will view Stalin as yet another hardship the Russian and Soviet peoples had to endure.

Exactly my point. Stalin fought and took actions for his own good and fame-not for USSR's. Hitler is remembered for his crimes AND the rise of Germany after the desastrous WWI-Stalin only for his crimes though.

Ktonos

To me Hitler wasn't much different than Stalin. He was an insecure meglomaniac who tied his own self worth to the greatness of the fatherland. He offered the German people easy excuses, blaming the Jews and other "lesser races" for all their problems. Yes, the Versailles treaty was way too harsh but the leadership that willingly entered into WWI, and lost, was never held accountable. Any decent leader could have brought Germany back, it would've taken longer but Germany had too many resources and talent not to rise again.

To me, Hitler's only mark on history is a stain, a number tatooed on my roomates mother's arm. I still remember how old she looked. Like she was his grandmother.

Hey Guys,

Stalin was Great and he was vile.

Read William L. Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" for some facinating insight into Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and the Second World War.

Shirer was an Americain journalist stationed in Berlin, until the point that hostilities broke out between Germany & the U.S.A.

Besides having the benefit of being an eye witness to many of the events, Shirer's work is complemented and strengthened by the access he was able to secure to the German Military and Government archives, captured completely intact, thanks to the speed with which the Third Reich fell, and the fact that the Germans never bothered to destroy these documents.

Shirer's work is recognised as having Scholarly merit, and is generally recognised by the Academic community as being a reliable source.

It is a facinating and essential read.

Azrael

If anyone think that Stalin was good so say it and I will tell you why he wasnt good.

hitler received a germany with almost no army and no weapons , fighters, bombers etc and made it into the strongest and most technologically advanced nation of their time ( they didnt lose because allied weapons were better, they lost because they were terribly outnumbered) , on the other hand stalin received a totalitarian , holoclerotic state with practically no human rights and managed to make it worse , millions died , millions were sent to Siberia , russia went deep into debt. so there is no comparisson. i believe the former USSR nations would be in a much better state and hatred would be less if stalin never existed.

German lost ww2 because Hitler and his stupid decisons.

Xero is correct.

Part of Hitler's obsession with Germany being the Master Race led to his inability to order German troops to retreat, even for strategic advantage.

If the Germans had retreated from Stalingrad, they could have regrouped and possibly defeated the Russian forces.

Instead, Hitler refused to beleive that his troops could be defeated and refused to withdraw them from Stalingrad, allowing his troops to be surrounded.

As W.W. II neared it's end, Hitler lived almost in a fantasy world. As the Russians advanced on Berlin, he kept assuring people that releif in the form of German Armies that weren't even there would break the seige on Berlin before his bunker fell.

Azrael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Nov. 22 2002,08:21)]Joseph Stalin (Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili – the name is not Russian, neither was he; he was Georgian) was one of the most outstanding leaders of the past century. Yet, his methods and general practice does not fit into said century, so we should rather look at him as a more… medieval sort of a “Great Leader”.

For someone who has studied a bit or Russian history, only one person can be compared with Stalin as for the deeds they’ve done: Peter the Great. They both inherited (well, Stalin was not Lenin’s actual heir, but you know how those things go&#8230http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif a state (kingdom for Peter) that was waaay behind it’s neighbours in technology, education level, quality of life and actual power, but bestowed some great strengths and qualities (it had potential, to speak so).

They both recognized what the problem is, and managed to figure out ways to actually face it. They both had to import technology from outside: Peter even worked in a shipyard to do so, Stalin just had to call in several industrial giants of USA, promising they could have a (tiny) bit of the pie, if they provided USSR with the know-how.

Both began a program of industrialization. Stalin was much more successful in his, as he managed wonders: The two five-year plans brought USSR from the 18th century (where it was, compared with most European countries, technology-wise in the 1920s) into the 20th century, non-stop and with great effectiveness: Before 1929 USSR was not among the top 20 countries in terms of industrial production, despite it being #2 in population. In 1941 only one country had a greater industrial production than USSR: USA. Even Germany was only 3rd, while Britain was 4th.

Peter wasn’t so successful, though, as he had more problems and less power than Joseph, despite him being a nominal “absolute monarch”. The boyars of Peter’s era were still very strong and influential and resisted even the slightiest effort to modernize the country.

The very same threats Stalin faced: He couldn’t convince anyone to do what it takes to modernize the country, so he figured out that the only way was to mobilize everybody in the name of the revolution, despite their feelings. To achieve this and to stabilize his rule (which was always in danger, he wasn’t the “correct” man for that position, Trotsky was) he formed (actually: Upgraded) the Cheka and begun the infamous purges: Either you work for the revolution, or you go to the gulag.

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

Then, he tried to make everybody a “Soviet” citizen. That was tough. All people had their own heritage and some of them (like the Cossacks) were so proud of it, they would never adopt the “new” way of life, or seize their traditional customs. Again, their way of life and customs stood in the way of the revolution, so he murdered their leadership and deported the rest from their soil, to be assimilated in other parts of the vast land.

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

That is not a small number by any account (actually it does put Jo up there in the pantheon of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century) but it’s waaaaay lower than the outrageous numbers produced by some mindless propaganda brigades (25 million, 30 millions, I’ve even read 50 millions by one&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

Another great feat by Jo. S. was the building of a decent military. USSRs standing army up until 1929 was a revolutionary army. For those who are not familiar with Leninist term, let me explain what that was: A militia army, without professional military personel in the lead, with heavy interference by the Party committees (90% of the “officers” were also members of “revolutionary” committees and boards) with very minimal discipline, loose organization and a very fuzzy doctrine (sort of “the enemy is equally within and outside&#8221http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif.

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

In 1929 the Revolutionary Army had a handful of very poor light tanks, few weapons, inadequate equipment, no airplanes, 19th century artillery, and was moving on foot. 10 years later the Soviet army was a well-equipped modern army, with the best tanks of the time, partly mechanized and well supplied, with modern artillery and even a modest-sized force of some very good airplanes.

Well, we have to admit he did succeed. And he would be much more successful if he didn’t murder 65-70% of the army officers during the last purges. The Red Army, therefore, was not ready to face the more than adequate (best of their time, for sure) German officers, both in tactical and in strategic level.

Peter was cruel too, you know. But in cruelty and generally in his personal behaviour, Stalin resembles another great leader of the Russian past, Ivan the Terrible, which should be really called “Ivan the Terrified”: His cruelty was surpassed only by his insecurity. That was true also with Stalin. Some of the purges (like the one in the military around 1936-7) was dictated by Stalin’s stunning insecurity.

Thoughts? Opinions? Flames?

---

I just got one question. Where do you live?

Erm, and what about the people? How did they profit from everything you said? How were they better off as being Soviet citizens instead of being e.g. Cossacks, how did they profit from having the military that could match the USA, what was the benefit for the common citizen of having effective Cheka, or from persuasion methods to join the revolution?
And for that matter, the same question goes for those that advocate that the rise of Germany under Hitler was a great thing, both for the Germans and the rest of the world. Let's compare that to the rise of Germany *after* WW2. And the answer is?

Stalin was interested in protecting the citizens of Russia/the USSR??

When did that come about?

I thought Uncle Joe was all about changing a dictatorship by the proleteriat into a dictatorship OF the proleteriat. By him.

The purges of the late '30's were pure megalomania - they were to protect HIM.

Who's to say the Sov's wouldn't have modernised anyway, and without the millions of dead? adn even done so better than they did under Uncle Joe?

The BBC maintains that 5 million "rich" peasants - Kulaks - starved to death in 2 years from 1932-34 under the first 5-year plan, and agricultural production fell 15%.

Total production was reportedly up 400% over the first 3 5 year plans until 1941, but no-one can tell how much of this was real - when factory managers were liable for execution if they failed to achieve targets who can say how many lies were told?

Where the quantities were real teh quality was often appalling - up to half the tractors made in the Soviet Union in teh 30's were scrapped due to break down. In 1940-41 when the famous T34 tank came into produciton it's mechanicals were so bad the Russians thought of stopping production altogether rather than carry on with the appalling quality

The organisation set up to administer the 5-year plan targets themselves totaled 500,000 people USSR wide - all of them non-productive

AT LEAST 7 million disappeared in the purges from 1934-39.

Stalin was certainly a man of his times in Europe betwen the wars. tehre were many other dictatorships or near-dictatorships - obviously Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, but there were also nasty governments in Yugoslavia, Hungary, Poland, Czheckolovakia, etc.

What made Stalin successful is that he killed more people than, and outlasted, them all.

Not a pair of achievements to celebrate IMO.

The easiest thing in the world is to dismiss someone in the basis of the horror he caused. The hardest thing is to evaluate someone according to the truth, and not the stupid propaganda that is floating around - and as we know, the history is written by the winners.

I didn't said Jo was an angel - he wasn't. He would not be a person I would like to live close too (or even under, meaning in a state governed by him).

But so are others as well: Napoleon: The bloodshed this tiny Corsican caused, is way worst than the one caused by Stalin and his friends. But we do not remember the butcher Napoleon, the man who led 700.000 people to Russia and came back with only his horse, the man who caused a great demographic problem in the whole Europe, three (at least) great famines and more than 15 million victims in the Napoleonic Wars era.

Same goes for others, like Genghis Khan. Nobody seems to recall that this man is the greatest butcher in history: He is directly responsible for the death of 50.000.000+ and indirectly... the numbers are insane, but bloody true. He wiped out at least six flurishing civilizations and distinct cultures, ravaged more than 100 cities and slaughtered their population. But history does not remember that; history remembers what a great conqueror he was, and how he managed to create an enormous empire.

Do you want me to go on? There is a dark side to every great man in history, you know. Single-sided simplistic approaches, serve only those who try to force their agenda (like, in Stalin's case, the "communist was bad" agenda). Those silly approaches find an audience among people who tend not to stand critically to history, but swallow whatever others serve them.

That is not the right approach.

I stand for my case: Stalin was a mass murderer (Hakonarson, the numbers I gave are the correct ones, the "7 million dissapeared during the purges" is a groos excageration) but also a great leader, a paranoic dictator but also the man who rebuild USSR twice, an insecure alcoholic but also the leader who has the greatest share in the defeat of the Axis during WW2.

As I said, it's rather easy to apply a label "bad" to a man of his calibre and forget about it. But easy solutions are not applicable here. But historical personalities aren't "good" or "bad"; those are simplistic approaches fit for the kindergarten or the first couple of elementary grades. History does not know black and white: it's full of shades of grey.

Rosacrux I think you are woefully incorrect in how Napolean and Genghis Khan are remembered.

Napolean is often referred to as the antichrist. Not exactly what one would term an honourific.

Genghis Khan is remembered as a blood thirsty conqueror whose empire crumbled almost as quickly as it was formed. I suppose the term for that would be premature-empire-rejection http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif.

As for the greatest share in defeating the Axis no. Germany maybe. Not much effect on the Italians and none on the Japanese. Axis was formed of more then just the Germans.

Being able to fight primarily on a single front is a lot easier then being on an Island under seige while your colonies ships are being torpedoed and the Japanese were steadily advancing throughout South East Asia. That was a multi theater confict: Singapore, North Africa, Papua New Guinea etc. The more theaters the harder it gets.

And if Stalin hadn't been around and the purges had not occured it may have been that Russia would have had a complete command and control structure, better made tanks and an army that was well feed (Napolean was right that the army does march on its stomach). So Stalin can be seen as an anti-catalyst for his country.

Not every great leader has massacred millions. And to be a 'great' leader I would not include someone who killed millions of his own to feed his own meglamanic desires.

For comparison see how many Julius Casaer killed of his enemies and particularly important his own people. Roman leaders were very careful to look after their people both with food and entertainment. That is one of the reasons it endured because the nation was founded on a way of life to make Rome great not just the leaders. Roman Emperors who are despised in the histories are the ones who did the least good for their people ie Nero and Caligula.

The art of being a great leader is not in the destruction but the creation. Stalin would get a D for his stint as a dictator. Many others I am sure could have risen Russia out of the ashes without wiping out the people in the process. Compare Germany and Japan post WWII or Britain as the it under went the industrial revolution. In fact where else in the world can you find any industrial revolution that killed as many people as under Stalin?

Seems he scores the lowest on that one in the entire world I suppose I should down grade his report card.

-----

Ability to help others D
Ability to reform government D
Ability to industrialise his society F

I must say this child shows a tendancy to bully and beat up others where others would use leadership and teamwork. No other pupil has shown such an ineptitude for industrial reform. Instead of building a new factory in two years he wiped out a quarter of his best co-workers to build the factory in a year and 11 months. Not what one causes an even exchange.

File Rosacrux, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon did mass murders but they where so fine leaders that we only remember and agknowledge them as Great. The Russian people know only Peter as Great, not Stalin. If he did 10 good deeds for USSR and the Russians he did 100 evil.

Pape

Excactly how would USSR reform and be industrialized without Stalins efforts? You have some sources about some miraculous 5-year plans that would take a people of ignorant peasants, fearsome of everything new, and turn them into productive factory workers, engineers, and managers overnight? How would you do that?

He bloody did it though

You didn't read what I wrote in my opening post? In 1929 the Soviet industry was a bit bigger (and also a tad older) than the ...mexican one. In 1941 it was #2 (in terms of productivity and in sheer numbers) behind USA. I guess that proves me right and you wrong.

Stalin did create the Red Army. There was no Red Army before Stalin. How do you think that conglomerate of militia, temp. servicemen, gathered only "on occassion", without any sort of stable ierarchy and with no machinery, no armoured vehicles, no tanks, no airplanes, spiced up with several hundreds of party officials per division, would fair against the mighty Wehrmacht? I assure you, the panzerdivisionen would be as far as Novosirbirk in 6 months tops.

I give him the deserved disrepect (even loathe) for the murders he commited. But also I grant him (and I respect him) for his incredible feats.

Stalin was the right man, in the right place, in the right timeframe. Not easy to accept, but that's the truth.

Allthough me being a leftist and knowing that, what Stalin did killed the case for socialism worldwide (he was more effective in this than the real enemies of socialism - the capitalist governments and the multinationals - were, by twisting the whole leninistic concept to create "a state of one", a pure dictatorship) I do respect his ability to fight against incredible odds and succeed. And at the same time I despise his megalomaniac insecurity and look with terror at the crimes he commited.

But, really, that doesn't negate what he did. Is it so bloody hard to put aside emotions and look at the facts?

File Ktonos, I am not counting his good and bad deeds to weigh them. I certainly don't have to apply a label "good" or "bad" to the man. I can aknowledge what a bastard he was, but also recognize the ability and sheer productivity of his efforts.

Precisly what other nation underwent such drastic devastation due to industrialisation?

What other nation required so many purges to create an army?

I state it again. Russia could have became an industrialised nation with far less bloodshed. No other nation comes close to the destruction that Stalin did to become such.

An army could have been created by someone else with far less bloodshed.

Stalin is a failure because where every other true leader did these things without mass murder. The worst cases in Britain was the luddeties which resulted in hanging of the offenders. Compare that with millions of deaths.

Communism was proposed by Karl Marx to occur in a far more advanced country then Russia and it was to serve as a inbetween step between absolute authority and democracy.

Productivity by mass murder is a failure.

Productivity by inspiration and creating a positive environment is genius. In this case I would say that Henry Ford whips Stalins butt back and forth across the annuals of history.

As for modern societies like Australia productivity is a measure of how effective the workerforce is. Deaths and Accidents at work are seen as either a lack of training or management ineptitude. By that definition Stalin the head manager of Russia was terrible.

-----
History regards those as Great as someone to repeat their style. Someone who caused such destruction for such little gain is not someone that we would follow the example of.

If he was a great leader in history others would wish to emmulate his example. He would be leading a way of doing things. Instead people see the cost at which he paved his changes as far to expensive a price to pay. A great leader would have done it without the mass murders. That is the difference between a despotic idiot and a great genious both can achieve the same goals. The measure of the value is in how effortlessly they seem to do it. Watch an expert in their field and see how effortless they seem to do something. Then watch a newbie and compare the amount of strain they do to do the same thing.

Stalin strained, he creaked, he destroyed. A great leader would have modernised Russia without the mass murder. A great despot would do the mass murder as a personal means to power. I know which one Stalin is.

As for world leaders emmulating Stalin the only current world leader that I can think of trying to do so is Saddam Hussein.

Agreed at this certain point Rosacrux. Stalin created the requierements Ussr needed for being a major military/scient/teck/productive power for the next 40 years.
I believe that the methods he used eliminated his successes, but that is my opinion anyway.

OK gentlemen, we can agree to disagree, so we can come back like 100 years later (when the New Global Revolution will have succeed into throwing Capitalism into the trashcan of history) to discuss how history shall view Stalin then.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif

Agree to disagree.

Where do you live if you think communism is ever going to make a come back?

Over here it is the political equivalent of a Dodo. If any system is going to take out captialism in its present form it will be a green-captialist synthesis.

Not on Mars and I do not expect "communism" to take over; anarchy is the way to go into the future. A leftist-anarchism, of course, like anarcho-syndikalism. Because there is also corporate anarchism, which USA has experienced during the late 19th century in the far west - not something you'd like.

And... if socialism is the equivalent of the Dodo, Capitalism is the equivalent of a mammoth living in the 21st century.

What do you mean by anarchy? That one has always confused me and seems to have a multitude of definitions.

I said communism is a dodo not socialism.

For me socialism can be a strain of democracy. For instance Australia has a welfare state, education which is practically free to university level (you get a debt which is payed off as an extra tax when you earn enough money), free doctors for all, subsidised drug prescriptions, unemployment benefits, student benefits and loans etc.

---- Edit spelling ----

That's "socialist" only by the US standards (over there they believe even Britain is "socialist" and they considered Clinton "a leftie").

Anyway, communism = socialism. What USSR had was neither. X-Large subject, not prone to discussion right now.

Anarchy (leftist anarchy)=no central government, no police, no legal system. No wealth for the few - poverty for the little. No legal entities, only people. Even bigger discussion, you can start with this site if you need a slight overview and then we can talk about the specifics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Nov. 25 2002,05:15)]But so are others as well: Napoleon: The bloodshed this tiny Corsican caused, is way worst than the one caused by Stalin and his friends. But we do not remember the butcher Napoleon, the man who led 700.000 people to Russia and came back with only his horse, the man who caused a great demographic problem in the whole Europe, three (at least) great famines and more than 15 million victims in the Napoleonic Wars era.

---

This is just a good sign that you dont know a shit about the statics you are talking about like Stalin killed 4 million and then you say that Hitler killed 35 million. When someone said that Stalin killed more than 4 million (I think he killed about 40 million) you say that you cant know the numbers but how do you know that Hitler killed 35 million then?

Napoleon marched into Russia with an army of 600.000 people and came back with 50.000 not like you said that he came back with only his horse.

And I got two questions for you.

Where do you live?

How old are you?

Im not sure that you honest though because you seem to make many things up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif

Xer0-chen

If we are about to start throwing personal insults, let me cast the second stone, by criticising your incredible lack of proper grammar, syntax, punctuation and vocabulary in English... I mean, you sound (read) like Shrubya http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

As for how old I am ...I've written it down in the proper thread, take a look and you'll find it (the one everybody states his age... *hint, hint*). In another related thread (again: it states so clearly in the title) I've written my occupation and country of origin.

And, believe me, I know what I am talking about, which is not the case with you (obviously).

Hitler, for instance. Hitler started WW2. WW2 costed 55-60 million lives. It is a safe estimation to count those dead by the indirect actions of Adolf H. (which seems to be your favourite puppy... wonder why http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif ) in the area of 35-40 million, even though only http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif 10 million died in the gas chambers and concentration camps.

I know first hand, the village my people come from was burned to the ground along with 550 of it's inhabitants by the ravaging teutons of noble little Adolf. Hitler's hords of ravaging Huns slaughtered in cold blood more than 8.000.000 people in USSR, houndreds of thousands in Greece and Yugoslavia... not counting the combatants.

For first of all I have to say that Im swedish and live in Sweden but Im also half-finish and my english isnt the best sorry for that.

Anyway it was the allies(Britain and France for example) who were the aggresive that declared war on Germany when they attacked Poland so you cant blame all on Hitler.

6 milion died in the concentrations camps and 6-10 million others died in the terror(including germans) that Hitler was responsible for.

Let me guess. You live in Poland right?

And do you post on the alliedassault.com forum?

Rosacrux,

Stalin was both great and vile.

Everything you say makes perfect sense, until you start quoting "facts" and "figures".

Where does your information about Stalin come from? I'm not talking Chapter and Verse, just generally your sources, whether it be University courses you've taken or specific historical works that you've read.

I'm interested to know.

Thanks,

Azrael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Azrael @ Nov. 25 2002,10:26)]Where does your information about Stalin come from? I'm not talking Chapter and Verse, just generally your sources, whether it be University courses you've taken or specific historical works that you've read.

I'm interested to know.

Thanks,

Azrael

---

www.stalin-lover.com perhaps?

I don't understand the desire to re-evaluate or 'defend'the legacy of either Hitler or Stalin. They are both complex individuals who had great impact on their times but to bring up their 'good points' is to me like complimenting a serial killer for being polite and a snappy dresser.

I guess I'm an idealist but I can't accept the idea that either one of these men were necessary or the right man at the right time. To say so only makes it easier for their kind to rise again, and we're running out of room for mass graves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Nov. 25 2002,08:48)]Anyway, communism = socialism.

---

I disagree. Socialism as a political option does not necessarily equate with communism as a political option. This was not the case in most of the countries of the Eastern block, although the Comparty was in charge. And you can easily argue that Scandinavian countries are "socialist" as well, not to mention numerous socialist governments in Italy, for example. Or are you excluding social democracy from the definition of socialism?

Also, I would like to hear your opinion about the human side of things that you are talking about. Or is it just "the big picture" that counts? The strength of the "society" vs. lives and rights of the individuals? I understand that you are not categorizing things as "good" or "bad", but if collectivism, and the benefit to the "country" as some provisional entity, is all that matters in your eyes, then I will also have to agree to disagree with you.

But, btw, can you say the same apologetic things about Ataturk, for example? Can you imagine where Turkey would be now if it had "assimilated" Greece? What would you lose, only your heritage, religion (at least your ancestors would), several millions of your compatriots, maybe your ancestral possessions, and some human rights, not a big deal, right? Not more than the price paid by the Cossacks, or the Baltic nations, for example. All in all, a small price to pay to live in a super powerful Turkish state, with the army that could match, let's say, the French one.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Nov. 25 2002,08:48)]That's "socialist" only by the US standards (over there they believe even Britain is "socialist" and they considered Clinton "a leftie").

Anyway, communism = socialism. What USSR had was neither. X-Large subject, not prone to discussion right now.

Anarchy (leftist anarchy)=no central government, no police, no legal system. No wealth for the few - poverty for the little. No legal entities, only people. Even bigger discussion, you can start with this site if you need a slight overview and then we can talk about the specifics.

---

Socialism = (Communism + Capitalism) / 2


And Stalin was NOT worse than Hitler, to those of you that claim such. Stalin killed people out of hand, Hitler killed people for the pleasure of killing people.

And anarchy would result in an even worse concentration of wealth as people with guns proceed to become petty dictators everywhere. -_-

Azrael

I haven’t studied 20th century history in Uni (I took only a couple of courses in 19th century Balkans and in Byzantine history – I didn’t majored in history) but I’ve read a good deal about the whole thing. I’ll give you a complete list of my readings on Stalin and the period of WW2 in general, tomorrow. I haven’t got my bibliography at work, I am afraid. Good to see someone with a less passionate and more scientific approach to the whole deal. I wonder if anyone here, besides you, understands that I do not like Stalin at all. I just believe that the historical truth should be acknowledged, despite our feelings about certain people and actions.


Hrvojej

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]And you can easily argue that Scandinavian countries are "socialist" as well, not to mention numerous socialist governments in Italy, for example. Or are you excluding social democracy from the definition of socialism?

---

“Socialist” is not a label: either you are, or you aren’t. There is no “socialist” government in any western country. Never been. The closest thing is supposed to be the Swedish model, but only partly. I most surely exclude the “social democrats” because there is nothing “socialist” about them. One cannot possibly argue that the globalisation lackeys Blair, Simitis, Shroeder etc. have anything to do with the Left. They are just a tad “softer” on the rugh edges but they are nothing more than other versions of the traditional Right Wing parties. Nothing to do with the left, so no socialists.

The prime requisite for any socialist state is that the means of production are in the hands of the society, not the individuals. That is not the case in any country today – even the “socialist” states left are either poor models of the twisted Soviet interpretation (Cuba) or outright dictatorships (China, N.Korea).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Also, I would like to hear your opinion about the human side of things that you are talking about. Or is it just "the big picture" that counts? The strength of the "society" vs. lives and rights of the individuals? I understand that you are not categorizing things as "good" or "bad", but if collectivism, and the benefit to the "country" as some provisional entity, is all that matters in your eyes, then I will also have to agree to disagree with you.

---

I have clearly stated that I feel horrified by the terrible deeds and astounded by the mass murdering he commited, while considering him “megalomaniac” and “insecure”. That should suffice as my opinion about Stalin as a person and about the morals of his actions. But on the same time I do not fail to acknowledge what he did for his country. Which is not the case for most forumeers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]But, btw, can you say the same apologetic things about Ataturk, for example? Can you imagine where Turkey would be now if it had "assimilated" Greece? What would you lose, only your heritage, religion (at least your ancestors would), several millions of your compatriots, maybe your ancestral possessions, and some human rights, not a big deal, right? Not more than the price paid by the Cossacks, or the Baltic nations, for example. All in all, a small price to pay to live in a super powerful Turkish state, with the army that could match, let's say, the French one.....

---

Fist of all, I am not a Stalin apologist (hell, I am not even a communist&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif. And... Ataturk? Asimilated Greece? Excuse moi, by the time Mustafa Kemal has risen to power, the Greek state spanned not only in the Helladic area, but also in Eastern Thrace, save Constantinople, and the whole Smyrne Sanjak. I cannot find any kind of common points between Kemal and Stalin, would you care to elaborate on that? Kemal never tried to assimilate Greece, he couldn’t do so anyway. And Kemal was a leader of the hard-core nationalistic Turks, those who performed the infamous Armenian Genocide a few years before him. His aim was to create a nation “only of Turks”. Does this resemble Stalin’s effort to create a real Soviet Union and in what way?
Poor example, very poor indeed.


Thane Talain MacDonald

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Socialism = (Communism + Capitalism) / 2

---

Nice equation but wrong. Socialism is communism. Actually, communism is a better socialism, a latter stage in the evolution of socialism (all that in paper, of course) but both have the same principle: the means of production do not belong to any individual, but to the society. The soviet model of socialism (and not communism, as they were merely aiming at communism) was a heavy-on state and party version (read: interpretation) of Marx’s writings, already screwed by Lenin (and given the final blow by Stalin).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] And anarchy would result in an even worse concentration of wealth as people with guns proceed to become petty dictators everywhere.

---

That is the case with the evolution of USA, you know. The western parts of the country, for a rather prolonged period, suffered corporate anarchism, in which only the mighty had a chance to survive and the rich became richer. But that is not the case in the anarchism type I suggest. There are ways for joint and communal action, to prevent the society to fall into the hands of pocket-sized dictators.

Rosacrux,
1) socialism and communism
Ok, but how does that equate communism with socialism? We can debate about what is the definition of socialism, and who is or is not a socialist, but I still don't see the equation as a valid point. Is every socialist a less advanced communist, are all concievable socialist governments on a way to become communist as well? If communism is an advanced form of socialism, from your perspective was it ever achieved in practice, or is it even possible to be achieved in practice? And what would be the difference between what was achieved and what should be achieved for the society to be a communist one, as opposed to the socialist one?

2)state vs. people
Again, the difference between what he achieved for his counrty and for his people is what's bothering me. What was the benefit to a common citizen from having the strongest military, for example? Why would that be important, if your life and lifestyle is jeopardized by that? What's the benefit of the "effective" secret police? Unless you dissociate the country as a provisional entity, an idea, not as a society made up of people, I fail to see how anything could be "good" that benefits the idea alone.

3)Ataturk
Well, I might have phrased it a bit oddly for the point I was trying to make, but I still think it's a valid example. The "nation only of Turks" is what I was aiming for, actually, since JS was also creating a "nation of Soviets". I wasn't talking about Ataturk's takeover of Greece as something that was possible or probable, I was aiming more at the hypothetical scenario of having somebody like that destroying your own heritage, etc., while, again hypothetically, creating a very powerful state. Would you then think about the benefits of the state as an idea, regardless of the fact that you don't even feel it as your own? How important would having a strong military be to you in that case, and would you think that it is a good thing, and deem that the man who made that possible is in fact a great leader for "his country"?

Hrvojej

1) According to the Marxist interpretation of socialism (because there is also the utopists interpretation) a socialist state is a society with classes but in which the means of the production are social, ie. Not Private. The difference is (supposed to be) that the communist society has no classes at all, and we are all a bunch of happy people, working for the common good. Sounds utopic at best – and it is. Never achieved in practise and I strongly doubt it is feasible within the limitations of the human kind.

2) Quite clearly, the difference can be suggested by this scenario: Let’s suppose Stalin never rose to power. Let’s suppose Trotsky (or whomever it was in his boots) didn’t wish to go down the path of forced industrialization. And, same ways, he didn’t bother to change the face and structure of the army (even if he did, without adequate industry he would just create a better organized but still very poorly equipped army). What would happen if this army faced the Wehrmacht in WW2? How many weeks do you think it would take the panzerdivisionen to reach Novosirbirk, if they faced such a ludicrous army as the Revolutionary “Army” was? What do you think would happen to the Soviet people, most of those of Slavic origin, if Hitler conquered USSR? How many dozens of million people would he slaughter (in a mass-scale “final solution”) to “make room” (“lebensraum”) for the brave Arian Nazis? How many dozens of millions (all those left, actually) do you think that would be turned into slaves, to produce food and generally work for their German chiefs? So, yes, I believe in the long run those who did not died or suffered the loss of their beloved, did profitize on Stalin’s efforts. And I won’t even get in detail about how Stalin managed (with all the mistakes and the disrespect for human life – that of his soldiers too) to drive off the Nazis during the war.

3) Still it is a poor example. Ataturk had similarities to Hitler, not Stalin. Stalin did not wish to create a single-nationality or ethnicity state. He wanted to equalize all the subjects of the Soviet state. With the current social structure (which was enforced by the ethnic differences) he could not succeed. Even by destroying the social structure and the ethnical bonds, he succeeded very little (as showed by the split-up of the USSR after the collapse of the Iron Courtain). Nothing in common with Ataturk, who was nationalist and wished to have just “ein volk, ein land, ein fuhrer”… right, the wording comes from “Mein Kampf”, by A.Hitler himself. Again: Not a valid reference. Waaaaaay too hypothetical, and on the wrong direction too. Stalin wasn’t a Georgian who tried to assimilate the Esthonians and Lithuanians into his own ethnic group. He tried to create a “Soviet Citizen”. Find a better example and maybe you can have a more straight answer on this.

1) Agreed. A nice idea, but not really feasible. Not with the people as they are now, or have been in the past, and neither the leaders nor the populous are capable of that. I still don't think the equation sign was a valid one, since you yourself have provided the differences, but I get what you mean.

2) The forced part is what I disagree with. Was he aware of the Nazi threat when he started it? Was the goal to do it as quickly as possible to resist the Germans, or to do it in a way that suited his (personal interpretation of an) ideology, and megalomaniac dreams? Dreams about an idea, not about the people (maybe only in a dissociated and even cynical way). And Cheka helped to fight the Nazis how exactly? Who is to tell that e.g. Trotsky wouldn't have achieved the same while at the same time taking a different route?

3) I don't particulary care to be enlightened about Ataturk, I was only trying to put it into somewhat more familiar perspective for you. It's easy to say this or that about someone when you never had the risk of experiencing it yourself, or when it was about somebody else all together. And the difference between uniform "national" ethinicty and uniform "ideological" ethincity is a marginal one, if you think about it. Onemindedness however you look at it, regardless of what's behind it, isn't it? But still, hypothetically, what would you think about that? Would you be a proud Turkish citizen in that scenario? Never mind who would be "the great leader", just imagine the scenario of somebody trying to create a mighty Turkogreek or whatever nation for which everybody would have to forgo their identity, possesions, etc., some maybe more than others, some even their lives, in order to create a country that could rival the US in some institutional categories. Not that the society, as the vast majority of its members, would necessarily benefit from that, of course, but rather the institutions would; entities, not individuals. How would you feel about that, about the idea of a state that is her own purpose? If that's too hard to imagine, it's no wonder you cannot put yourself in the shoes of Cossacks, Lithuanians or Ukrainians........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Thane Talain MacDonald @ Nov. 25 2002,16:57)]And Stalin was NOT worse than Hitler, to those of you that claim such. Stalin killed people out of hand, Hitler killed people for the pleasure of killing people.

---

Both killed for they were sick people and Stalin killed more than Hitler. Convinced?

Rosacrux has some very strong points, but I do not belive that if any of us was hypotheticaly living in a 3rd world country would like to have a "Stalin" above him in order for his state to advance to the.."1st" world. Neither Stalin or Hitler are remembered as great leaders. Neither was. The fact is that Stalin won a war and Hitler lost it. *If*, a big if, Hitler was the winner of WWII would have accumulated the "Great". Because his crimes would be covered up and because he would be another Alexander or Napoleon. The basic reason for Hitlers infame is the lost world war, for Stalin the methods he used against his own people.

HM first time looking in this forum monastery. Noticed Stalin and thought hm lets look. There is Rosacrux presenting his work http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif .
And I missed this thread
I haven't red the replys from others so it's not nice from me to answer you that fast. I just rughly red your post. Nice
Few corrections (for this time) because of the Soviet work on taking away real facts from history it's difficult to know the truth about that time:
The Russian Empire's economy and industry of 1900 was booming wright before the revolution. Millions of peasents became workers in lets say 10 years.
socialism as a word and a concept was made up because they found themselv in a position when they understod that the goal (communism) was unreacheble so they got to explain in what the hell we are living wright now (while we will get to communism by real real hard work http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif)
Trotskii was the creator of the Red Army and was not that militia alike but close.
Germany invested in Lenin about hundreds of million of marks( to get rid of eastern front)
20 millions is the last and more or less suitable number of total stalin's afforts in getting rid of people(he had many years to get this numbers 37 and 53 were hes peaks, even now new anonimous cementerys are uncovered) You didn't wanted to be that soviet group that beat themselves back to friendly lines after encirclaments in lets say 1941... boy let me tell they were surprised .. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif .
Thats about all wright now, its late here.

Not yet
Those *2 millions* were ucranian peasents and it was 4 million.

Gah

I see lots of people taking it upon themselves to do the rest of us a favour and tell us "how things really happened", or what the "real figures" were.

If you want to do this, try and back it up with some with some scholarship.

"He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock". - Luke 6, 48

Azrael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Nov. 26 2002,03:23)]Thane Talain MacDonald

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Socialism = (Communism + Capitalism) / 2

---

Nice equation but wrong. Socialism is communism. Actually, communism is a better socialism, a latter stage in the evolution of socialism (all that in paper, of course) but both have the same principle: the means of production do not belong to any individual, but to the society. The soviet model of socialism (and not communism, as they were merely aiming at communism) was a heavy-on state and party version (read: interpretation) of Marx’s writings, already screwed by Lenin (and given the final blow by Stalin).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] And anarchy would result in an even worse concentration of wealth as people with guns proceed to become petty dictators everywhere.

---

That is the case with the evolution of USA, you know. The western parts of the country, for a rather prolonged period, suffered corporate anarchism, in which only the mighty had a chance to survive and the rich became richer. But that is not the case in the anarchism type I suggest. There are ways for joint and communal action, to prevent the society to fall into the hands of pocket-sized dictators.

---

That's EXACTLY what Socialism is. I'm going to take the definition from every textbook, whether history or economics, that I have ever laid eyes upon over your definition.

And no, there is absolutely no way for anarchy to avoid lapsing into petty dictatorships and the concentration of wealth, short of every single person in the anarchic society (oxymoron?) being entirely dedicated to the good of the group. That's Aristotle's Eudaimonia. Its a nice idea, its also completely impossible. History backs me on this, the Dark Ages post Rome were as close to a true anarchy as one can see, and the petty warlords that sprung up ended up creating the feudal system. I can imagine that apart from more advanced weapons, the exact same thing would happen today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Xer0 @ Nov. 26 2002,09:43)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Thane Talain MacDonald @ Nov. 25 2002,16:57)]And Stalin was NOT worse than Hitler, to those of you that claim such. Stalin killed people out of hand, Hitler killed people for the pleasure of killing people.

---

Both killed for they were sick people and Stalin killed more than Hitler. Convinced?

---

No I'm not. Stalin killed people out of hand, he didn't care whether they lived or died, he was completely amoral.

Hitler killed people because he wanted to, and enjoyed it, thus he was completely immoral.

Not to mention that Stalin killed people and Hitler tried to annihilate entire ethnicities, but that's another argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Ktonos @ Nov. 26 2002,10:08)]The basic reason for Hitlers infame is the lost world war, for Stalin the methods he used against his own people.

---

Though I agree that victors do write the history, Hitler's infamy is based upon his actions not his defeat. The Kaiser lost WWI but who considers him infamous. Hitler's crimes against humanity are overwhelming but what's often overlooked is that many of these victims were good German citizens. The Jews, for example, were a vital part of the vibrant artistic and intellectual culture that was greater Germany in the late 19th and early 20th century. Hitler and the Nazi's destroyed this culture long before the war was lost. Even if a shot was never fired Hitler's Reich would have stagnated culturally and intellectually and as his crimes against his own people became known it would have become a pariah among the world's nations.

I am not trying to defend Hitler here. I am just trying to compare him with Stalin. What I am writting is that it is less immoral to kill people than to kill your people.

I don't see the distinction. Hitler killed his own 'people'. The German state was ethnically mixed and he was responsible for their treatment by the state. The 'Pure German' was a construct. The white blond traits of the Aryan poster child, for example, were north slavic in origin (ironic huh).

I find both Stalin and Hitler so destructive that I don't worry about their relative immoralities. I do find Nazi Germany more disturbing than Stalin's Soviet Union though for many reasons.

First off, to be honest, more information was available on Hitler than Stalin when I was growing up. Though Russia was the enemy in the 60's the alliance with Uncle Joe was only 20 years in the past and his crimes of the prewar era were undoubtably muted so as not to call into question US morality in working with him.

But what disturbs me is that Hitler's policy of purification was insane and yet so many people followed it willingly. The death camps served no purpose. These people were neither a threat to the state or the Nazi party's control of it. I condemn Stalin, but I understand his actions in terms of his will to power. To put it in simple, graphic, terms, I see Stalin as a rapist and Hitler as a child molester.

Pause.

I thought the issue in communism had to do with "alienation". An over-arching state for which everyone produces and which then distributes according to the whim of politicos, does not overcome the alenation of the worker. The relationship between the worker and his/her production is as insubstantial as under the capitalist system ie:state-capitalism does not amount to communism.

Stalin may have succeeded in building an industrial society out of an agrarian society...but did he really have anything to with communism besides taking on the banner?

Stalin was Neutral Evil (he'd do anything as long as it fitted keeping himself in power), Hitler was Lawful Evil (he was on a moral crusade & was actually vaguely willing to sacrifice himself for the cause) - is there a real difference appart from D&D definitions??

Apart from the fact that Stalin killed people for the purpose of keeping himself in power while Hitler systematically attempted to annihilate entire ethnicities, no.

Rosacrux,

Still waiting on your sources for Stalin.

Azrael

Azrael

Sorry lad, I forgot all about it (been really busy the last couple of days) but tommorow I'll provide you with my full bibliography (ain't that big, though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif )

I think, when measuring up Hitler and Stalin one cannot let oneself be swayed to much by the accepted 'Norms' i.e Hitler was evil and ****** up Germany or Stalin was an evil tyrant who cared nothing for the USSR. \

True Hitler did have a hand in ****** up germany but he was not evil. Now people may cry in shock and horror to hear this but Hitler was not evil. His deeds were evil but as a man he was not. To be evil one must know what one is doing is wrong but still continue to do it. Hitler was so derranged that what he thought what he was doing was for the 'good of the german people' the jews, gypsies, etc. were a 'cancer' on the germans a cancer that should be cut out, Hitler saw himself as the doctor (now before you go accusing me of being a Nazi let me assure you i decry what Hitler and his henchmen did but one cannot just make blanket statements without backing them up)

Now Stalin, there are two ways of looking at this man. One, he was a cruel tyrant and two, he was a defender of the USSR and a great man. As for me, i believe the truth lies somewhat in between these two viewpoints. Sure Stalin was cruel and a murder, that fact is indisputible, but also he did modernise the USSR very rapidly and (after destroying the army in the first place) rebuilt the Red Army into a professional and disciplined force. It is beyond doubt that another leader could have industrialised the country and re-build the army in a more humane way, but on the flip side of that, had that been done then the USSR may very well have lost the second world war and then look where Europe would have been...........

It is all to easy to judge in hindsight. Make sure you know what you are talking about before you make blanket statements.

Edit: Bad language.

Edited by Ithaskar Fëarindel

Sorry but your excuse is the excuse that would make the actions of the KKK valid. I think you are mixing up immoral & amoral with good & evil.

Immoral goes against the common morals that they share.

Amoral has no sense of morally right or wrong.

Good, lets just put it down to use creative forces, like, love, caring all that 'nice' stuff to get things done.

Evil, well in the case of human to human relations I define it as ignoring the humanity and worth of others (normally in the extreme cases of racial hatred leading to murder). Evil would also be using destructive forces to get what you want ie mugging, raping, torture and murder.

Hitler ordered the Final Solution. That makes him evil. He rallied his party to attack those who were different jews, gypsies, intellectually handicapped that makes him evil.

Just because he saw what he was doing was right does not make it so. Evil is when one ignores the humanity of others. Hitler is definitly in that category.

Evil uses destruction not construction for gain. Hitler fits the bill in Evil, he does fit the bill for construction of the German industry... but when evil deeds are measured against the weight of a single feather it doesn't come out to well for him... anyhow how can someone say that creating automobiles and autobahn outweigh the lives of millions of people. A good person may ask millions to sacrifce themselves so millions more survive but this was not the case. No choice and it wasn't a question of survival. This was a hateful, spiteful, brutish way.

And at what point do you decide to separate his deeds from who he was? Genocide is an evil deed but it doesn't make the doer evil... that is a load of bulldust and makes you come across as a Nazi apologist.

Sorry but ones actions do reflect the core of the person. Looking at a continuum of actions one sees more of the core of the person. Given the amount of times Hitler neglects to see the humanity in others and chooses to wipe them out shows quite well how evil he is.

Sorry, i don't think my meaning came through in my last post. Before i continue i must say that i am NOT and NEVER WILL BE a Nazi apologist. What they did was vile and defy's all laws of humanity, neither am i a racist. Now that that's out of the way i will try to state my position more clearly.

What Hitler and Stalin did was great, as in large, expansive, sweeping, not as in good or positive. Their deeds were great, terrible yes, but great in that sense.

Nazi Apologism is seeking to absolve the Nazi's of their crimes, i.e. The Holocoust, The Destruction of Lidice and their quest for a 'master race'. I am not a Nazi Apologist and if my last post seemed to convey that image then it was in error, i was merely attempting to rationally view Hitler and Stalin in context and from a slightly psychological viewpoint, obviously it appears i have failed.

Mate I didn't say you are a xyz I said you were coming across as one. I realised by your statements that you did not agree with the Nazis.

But I do have a few questions.

1) Do you believe that a person can be evil? If so what do you define as evil.

2) If you do believe that a person can be evil what more did the SS and Hitler have to do to cross that line?

I myself believe that in any situation we have choices sometimes not very palatable ones but we always can chose how we react to a situation.

I for one cannot separate the actions from the actor. If someone does something then they are responsible for their actions be they good or bad. Now if someone does a crime then they are a criminal (there is a hierachy I use however... jaywalking on a street to run to the aid of someone in need of resusitation is not a crime... what I am talking about here is the broader strokes not the nit picking). If the crime is against property it is a lesser crime then that done to a person or group of people. Now by my own definition using concentration camps, wiping out millions of people all because you see yourself as superior is an act of evil.

To deny others their humanity is wrong, to then deny them their right to live based on that precept is the act of evil be it a single person who is murdered or a million.

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

I usually don't post a viewpoint, however:

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

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

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

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

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

Ok now to answer your questions pape:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Communism is a political and economical system.

From Random House Webster’s College Dictionary.

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

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

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

9. So now lets get to the subject.



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

R
Hitler, for instance. Hitler started WW2. WW2 costed 55-60 million lives. It is a safe estimation to count those dead by the indirect actions of Adolf H. (which seems to be your favourite puppy... wonder why ) in the area of 35-40 million, even though only 10 million died in the gas chambers and concentration camps.
I know first hand, the village my people come from was burned to the ground along with 550 of it's inhabitants by the ravaging teutons of noble little Adolf. Hitler's hords of ravaging Huns slaughtered in cold blood more than 8.000.000 people in USSR, houndreds of thousands in Greece and Yugoslavia... not counting the combatants.

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


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

-----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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