Printable View
Panzer and I we had a short discussion about Stalin. Was he a communist? Panzer seemed to think so. I think he is rather a fascist. What do you think?
(I know that he was head of a so called Communist Party. But Hitler was head of a so called Socialist Party - so what?)
I'd rather see this in the Monastry. But it could lead to political discussions. Well, the moderators can move it if they want to.
Stalin was a Stalinist. The regime of North Korea is often called not just a communist regime but a Stalinist Regime.
Personally I think Stalin was definetly a despot who used communism for his own agenda.
Stalin was a fascist.
I would even go as far as to say that with regards to some important aspects the US is closer to the actual idea of Communism than the Stalinistic USSR was.
Stalin was a true national socialist.
he was a communist.....the thing is that once in power there really isn´t much of a diference( in practical terms) between a communist and a fascist.
Actually, to advance my former statement, consider this:
If the definition of communism is a belief in the principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
If the definition of fascism is a belief in the principles of Order, Discipline and Hierarchy.
Then surely Stalin reflected the latter far more than the former.
Stalin was nuts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
best definition so far
Men died for less!
The absolute hordes of people who queued to see his coffin suggest that he can't have been all bad. He did manage to force Russia from being a backwards pre-industrial nation to being a world superpower, which is highly respectable. Some people just got in his way I guess.
It was all propaganda! Some people still believe in him today.
Why would you call him a fascist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
IMHO he did what had to be done.
Stalin was evil.
My grandpa was telling me about when he was in post war germany.
He saw some russian soldiers he made fun of them or something while walking by. One Russian responded back in perfect english. My grandpa went back and talked to the guy. It turned out the guys family was still in russia and unless he came back and into the military they would be shot. This happened to many people.
From both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
IliaDN, I just refered to Panzers definition, which is not bad:Quote:
Originally Posted by IliaDN
Benevolent fascist - which includes beliefs in a strong military, aggressive foriegn policy, traditionalism, nationalism, anti-communism/socialism, government-industry cooperation, a strong role for the military in the government and does not include beliefs in genocide, concentration camps, political assassinations and all those nasty habits that gave fascism such a bad name in the 30s.
I think Stalin was everything.
How do you call him?
Stalin was most similar to a fascist, though he definately brought his own twist to it.
He definately was not a good guy and was not good for Russia, how can killing off the officer class be good? Especially with an expansionist Germany on your borders?
His purges greatly weakened Russia and many of the projects that were built by the Gulag system were never really used, for example the waterway to Archangel. It was built and required iirc 9 gates to lower the water level, many people died while building it. It never recieved much use and was never a practical project, it was pure propaganda and even today only a few ships go through a day.
It was done to mantain order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
Stalin was a commie simple as that. Communism is EVIL Regimes like North Korea And The soviet union is what will happen with communism.
1.Belief in strong military - how many strong countries without such belief do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
2.Traditionalism - don't UK have it as well?
3.Other points you mentioned are common for any dictatorship (except only anti-communism/socialism ).
This thread is getting better than supposed!
IliaDn, can you explain your picture of Stalin?
Ok, here is a picture:
I don't approve all of his actions ( there were a lot of not clever things done either by him or by his name ( e.g. such as restricting different branches of science ).
But as for his stict regime - it was necessary, because the country didn't fully heal after the civil war and the risk of the second revolution was high + many foreign countries were at rather bad relations with the USSR ...
SO in general he was that strong hand which was needed to mantain country in stability.
I see what you mean.
I do not want to compare him with Hitler but many people in Germany might have used the same words about him in 1939. Very interesting!
You know maybe it is too hard to say if the person was good for country and nation or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
As for Stalin's regime our country needed global changes not to roll down to some 3 world countries ... and the price was paid ........
was 40 million people worth it??? in your opinion??
Tell me how did you get this number.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Well, I'm don't want to sound insulting to IliaDN, but from what I hear and read in the news, Russia is quite a crappy country right now. A lot of people think that what Stalin and his fellows have done was 'the best thing to do', and that everything was better back in USSR (no unemployement, no guys like khodorkovski, no terrorism).
As a westerner, I can't really understand how the Russians still like someone who appears to have crippled their country, killed millions of people, and whose only achievement was to turn Russia into the 2nd biggest military power and to invade a lot of other countries that became bloody communist dictatorship.
That's exactly what you hear when you listen to some neo-nazis when they speak about Hitler : "Germany was weak, he achieved to turn it into the most powerful country in Europe and deserves some respect. The Holocaust ? It was needed/It has been invented by the jews and the US".
1. No offense taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
2. It was the price, but not all those millions were inncents.
3. He did much more then you have mentioned.
4. Nowadays people just want order, and if you ask me at least half of our goverment must be shot or send to build roads in Syberia.
Well, I'm not sure that a leader has to kill millions of people to turn a bacward country into a world military/economic power, but then, I've never ruled any country (hopefully).
I don't really see how the Tatars, the Volga Germans, the Poles killed at Katyn, the Ukrenians killed between 1918 and 1922 were guilty of anything, and for that matter, more guilty than the Jews killed by Hitler.
I think Stalin was the bloodiest man that ever existed on earth, and I probably won't change my mind on this.
Other useful link : http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#StalinQuote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
I once read the book of Falin, I think he was advisor of Gorbatschow. It was about the USSR in WW2. It was a completley different view from what I have learned. Very interesting. I do not agree with everything he sadi but at least it shows that the things may not always be the way we in the west think they are.
Those dates are civil war, not rule of Stalin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
That's a very scary thought...Quote:
Originally Posted by IliaDN
One could propose killing off or incarcerating all teenagers to accomplish the same thing. That wouldn't actually be too far from Stalin's approach.
Stalin was an absolute tyrant. His was a system all about maintaining control for STALIN, not for the people. Stalinism is the best description. He killed and incarcerated many of the USSR's best and brightest, because they were a threat to HIM, not ot the state.
He killed off tens of millions in purges and made the USSR incredibly weak militarily by purging the officer corps. He created the conditions that allowed Russia to be overrun by the Nazis, even though that wasn't his intent.
edit i just checked it was 20 million
The majority of countries have only a rather modest military...as long as there are totalitarian regimes out there, the democracies and republics are going to maintain larger armies than they would necessarily like to have.Quote:
Originally Posted by IliaDN
While Stalin may have "believed" in a strong military, his purges weakened it. And locking up talented aircraft designers and the like hardly contributed to a strong military.
Some of the reviews of the deaths associated with Stalin give him credit for at least half the USSR's war dead...since he was as much responsible for it as Hitler.
He was tenacious in trying to preserve his nation for himself after it was attacked, that I can give him credit for. However, he also used his civilians as a "meat shield" (borrowing TW games terminology.)
How is it connected to the topic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Any arguments except this one?
:stunned:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
LOL, considering it was in response to one of your points, that's rich. So I guess you are trying to say you were off topic with your defense of Stalin? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by IliaDN
Russia seems to have a national desire to be ruled by strongmen, even if they happen to be dictators. It is my hope that the country will mature, and take control of its own affairs, rather than wishing for a benevolent dictator (or any dictator) to "restore order."
1.I wanted to ask whom do you consider Stalin.
2.You are bit off topic about the current situation in my country.
Dictatorship could be one of the best variants of future, but not the desired one.
~The system of the communist party in Russia was set up to keep one man in Russia in power until his death. If Lenin had lived longer or if Trtsky had lived longer they would be like Stalin except maybe less brutal. Still dictatorial though.~
Topic is about Stalin, stay on topic, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
BP was wholly on topic. Most people agree that Lenin and Trotsky were Communist. BP is saying that the USSR would have turned out similarly under them to what it did under Stalin. Ergo, Stalin was a Communist. I agree with that logic. The essence of the USSR - the one-party system, state ownership, collectivisation, forced industrialisation, fermenting revolution abroad etc were shared ideals of the Bolshevik leaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by IliaDN
What Stalin added, IMO, was a vicious paranoia that led him to butcher many of his fellow Bolsheviks and many ordinary people in purges. If you think such purges were necessary to keep "order", that just shows how worthless maintaining the Communist "order" was.
1. By staying on topic I meant to say what is his opnion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
2. Mantaining just a simple order.
Edit: Because country was ready to tear apart.
~I think I stated that my opinion was that the communist (bolshevik) party's system of leadership was set up so Stalin or whoever would stay in power for as long as they lived. It wasn't necessarily Stalin's own doing that he was a dictator. That's my opinion and now it's clear.~
Hehe ... one aspect I am referring to would be e.g. the ownership of production assets. As a matter of fact significant parts of the US industry are indeed owned by the workers via pension funds or directly via shares that are owned by employees. I would not say that in the Stalinistic USSR the workers could really claim to own the assets. They were rather state-owned, and as (at least IMHO) in the Stalinistic USSR the State was not equivalent to the working-class (it was rather an Oligarchy), I would say that the US comes closer to the idea of the working-class owning the assets than Stalin's USSR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Also my impression is that "smalltown-USA" were the individual citizen can (to my knowledge) influence a lot of policies is closer to the idea on "Council Communism" than the Communist Party centered approach of Stalin's USSR.
But to put you at ease - it would probably be more precise to say that Stalin's USSR was further away from the ideals of Communism that the US, that to say that the US is closer to the ideals of Communism ~;)
He was maybe the most evil man to ever walk the earth even surpassing Hitler. Its funny two men and nations fought eachother so hard when in actuality they were like two peas in a pod.
Stalinism is an offshoot of Communism. Therefore, Stalin was a Communist.
Trotskyism is Stalinism with a different name. So is Leninism and Marxism.
Thanks bmolsson. I agree with you.
And if I could find the source again, I would give it.
I remember reading that the last of the Romanovs was turning Russia from a joke into a powerhouse. Between 1900 and 1914 Russia had a huge industrial turn-around along with massively increasing literacy. If only I could find the source! Romanov Russia was not a backwoods joke of a country ruled by an inept despot at the start of the 20th century.
But then...the Czar stepped in it. WWI has gutted eastern europe to this day. Civil war and then Communism showed up and gutted the country.
Azi
We are probably fortunate that they did - imagine the world if they really had joined forces and tried to divide up the world between them :worried2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
So, the U.S. is a workers paradise! Cheers Comrade!~:cheers:
or maybe this would be better given our collectivist sentiment: ~:grouphug:
(Pindar looks for his wallet to go buy a Mao suit and a red flag.)
Well ... I certainly would prefer to be a worker in today's US than in Stalin's USSR ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Without a doubt.Quote:
So, the U.S. is a workers paradise!
from the arguments given in this thread alone.. i vote fascicommunist!!!
I voted i dont care.I know many Russians consider him as hero.Im Finnish and i consider him as an monster.Only good thing i can say about Josif Vissarionovits Dzugasvili is that he took over an country of musiks and transformed it to country of labourers.In short he created the industrial revolution in Soviet Union.
Well he sure was alot of things, but no true communist. I know a few communists and they all view Stalin as the main destroyer of communism at that time.
If you ask me Russia was one of the worst nations to start the communist world revolution. Many ive talk to, even rightwingers all agree that western europe would have been a more succesfull place to turn into a communist nation.
but anyway, Stalin was a Stalinist, a corrupt form of communism wich is far from the original idea.
Grr..
Stalin was a communist. He disbanded private property and personal wealth, except for the politicos. He collectivized farming and put industry solely in the hands of government. He completely overthrew the hierarchy and ruling class - well actually his leader Lenin did that but he was a player when that happened. Russian money was worthless, which is a trademark of a communist state.
Hitler's control over people only extended to the political realm. Even during wartime he left industry and most private property in the hands of its owners, and those industry leaders bid for military contracts. His most ambitious social policies didn't even get near the social engineering done during Stalin's reign. The hierarchy and class system was mostly left alone. Hitler had many populist ideas, but he was a traditionalist at heart. He wanted, or said he wanted, all Germans to be happy - but he also loved the traditional German institutions. Stalin throughout his career fought against the Tsarist russian system. (And by the way, I think Hitler went far beyond true fascism into dictatorship, but his government is the best example for comparison because it was based in fascist principles.
I've read a lot about Stalin and he was a true communist at heart in the beginning, and his track record shows that. It seems that he gave communism his best efforts and realized it wasn't working and became much more of a dictator than a true communist.
This is how it always happened. We saw true communist "ideas" attempted in China, Cambodia and a host of other countries. When those "ideas" were shown to be completely detrimental to society, the communist government was forced to become much more dictatorial to stave off the same sort of popular uprising that put them into power.
I must say I don't understand those who say he was a fascist at all. "Other" would be a better option, but certainly not fascist. Its obvious from his early control of Russia he had enough faith in communist ideals to destroy much of his country while trying to implement them.
Gotta go with Redleg on this one. Stalin was definitely a Stalinist. Come on folks, how obvious could that one be?
It's just like Lou Gehrig dieing of Lou Gehrig's Disease. How the hell did his doctors not see that one coming?
~:smoking:
Well, you're hardly a worker if you don't have a job are you? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You can lead a horse to water but you can not always make them drink. ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Stalin was a Fascist. He was a dictator. It seems that in the end though all communisms turm up being dictatorships.
I like the Stalinist idea. ~D
He wasn't a true facist, but he was far closer to facism then communism, IMO. He wasn't even that socalist, really...
How was he closer to fascism than communism? He implimented communist principles throughout his rule.
Being a dictator does not make one a fascist.
You're telling me. All 4 people in my family that died after WW1-shortly after WW2 all died at the hands of Stalin. 2 transported to labour camps (1 was a decorated officer in Stalin's army as well!), 1 shot in battle, and the other shot execution style for being a German in Berlin when the Soviets came through.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
You are forgetting about shameful war with Japan in 1905.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
About factories and industries:
they were good in western part of country, some central parts, but in general they were not ( for such a big empire )
Communications between regions were awful.
~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
He achieved the purest communistic principles possible using the only means possible: raw brutality.
Crazed Rabbit
Other countries have achieved far greater good for their countries without mass murder. I do not remember Britain wiping out English people to perform reforms, nor the USA wiping out millions of its people to modernise.
I don't remember NZ or Australia modernising through mass murder.
Stalin murdered people to protect himself. Russia could have modernised much faster and better if Stalin after getting to power had made it a democracy instead of a dictatorship.
Washington was given the choice of being King or making a democracy. His legacy was far greater because he choose democracy over personal gain.
You have to understand the nature of the beast before you can judge him.
Stalin was born into a fierce and angry household, his father beat him and his mother terribly... so bad in fact that one of stalin's arms was shorter than the other and next to useless, the beatings went on and on, and Stalin's father was a blantant alcoholic, one day Stalin had enough of his Dad beating him and his mom, and the only reasonable way to destroy that bond was to destroy his father... he killed him. At this time, Russian Authorities would have done nothing to prevent the ceasless assaults. After his Father's Death his mother sent him an Orthodox School so he could become a priest, he got in with a group of people who were Marxists, when the priests found out, he was locked into the School's basement for days, suffering from Hunger and beatings... instead of doing what the priests desired (I.E. Turn him away from Communism) it fueled his hatred for Religion and he became a full on Communist, and with good reason in my opinion, this is a guy who would not go down without right killing him.
Soon after, he left School, and joined the Bolshevik Party... at this time a band of guys who disliked the Czar because of the misery the Peasant Class went through (Stalin blamed the Czar for his terrible childhood), he became a petty thug and was arrested and sent to Prison several times, escaped Siberia 7 times! and then he finally gave up after the 8th, waiting for the Bolsheviks to take power. During his misadventures with Crime, you can well imagine he gained some pretty rough friends. During the Russian Civil War, Stalin was relieved from Siberia and given a position of power under Lenin (he commanded the Assault on Baku, and actually did relatively well for never having commanded anyone in his life.) After the Bolsheviks took power, Stalin got as close to Lenin as possible, and although Lenin didn't trust him, took him under his wing, as well as Trotsky. Trotsky and Stalin hated each other from the beginning, Stalin was a hard core Communist... coming from a land that historically hated the Czars (Georgia).
After Lenin's death, Stalin quickly took charge during the political vacuum that followed. He had pictures made, making him look as though he was close to Lenin, even though they were all superimposed, the people thought Stalin would be the next Lenin, they thought Trotsky was far to Liberal and Soft on many political issues whereas Stalin, who made himself look like a Leninist, would be firm. After Stalin took power, he deposed of any Political Rivals via the NKVD, many of which were Officers in his army.
His 5 year Plans were made because Stalin was aware that the Czars really cared more about personal wealth, then that of their people, he knew that these people would not willingly abandon their homes and jobs to work in some god aweful land building factories, so he forced them too, and with it got a taste of revenge. He never liked Cossacks who had invaded Georgia... so he deposed of most of them... he never liked Russians who occupied his Homeland, so he deposed of as many of them as possible... he was taught to hate these people as a Child.
Later on, his 5 year plans indeed proved more fruitful than even he expected even with Barbarossa. Had Hitler been kinder to the Russian people, most would've joined him, instead he took a hard line, the Russian People had a choice... Support the German Dictator or Support the Russian One? Obviously they supported the Russian One. Stalin was the first man to rule Russia in a long time to actually stir Russian Pride and Faith in the Soviet Model, even more so than Lenin.
Stalin gained many vices throughout his life, paranoia being the largest of them. Before he died, it was assumed he had writs of execution on 4000 people every day for 3 years, he had fallen into madness in his last years of life, and from years of stress and cigar smoking died in Rightful Agony. During his burial, the Russian people actually encased him in Concrete and dropped him in the ocean, such was their fear of him.
Yes, Stalin was a Diehard Communist in every way, shape, and form... he was a Communist with a taste for vengeance. His life story is very sad... and if you read a more detailed book on him, you'll understand him far more than what I have written.
Stalin was a mad man....
And he killed 36 million people(officially, unoficially, many more!!)
Right! Being a fascist makes you a dictator.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Himself?Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
He did it himself? ~:confused:
With the help of auxilliary people...
How can you think he, himself, killed 36 million people with his body and it's organs?!
Also I don't consider Stalin to be good ( as some of you could thought ), I just defend him now, because many people here accuse not only him, but the regime in whole ( as well as the country ), they say that they heard how it was hard to live in the Stalin's USSR, but they no nothing of it ( most of them at least ), they pretend to saw hundreds of those who disliked the regime, but there were millions who liked it.
Really it was not that bad.
Edit: I fight whole backroom for the person of whom I am not fond of myself.
No you do not! I am glad to have someone here from Russia. We just heard the story from the distance ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by IliaDN
About Soviet Union and communism, Soviet Union wasn't a communistic nation. It was socialistic (union of socialistic rebublics or something like that),atleast in Karl Marx's standarsts.
So what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kääpäkorven Konsuli
I had to say it to show how intelligent i am. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by IliaDN
Than you could also say that socialism is a one of the steps in the ladder to communism ( in the communistic idealogy ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kääpäkorven Konsuli
Yes yes. Btw has any nation ever reached the last step (Communistic sociality)? Cuba is socialistic, China is somekind of mix and I don't know about North-Korea.Quote:
Originally Posted by IliaDN
Utopia did. Do you know where I can find it?
Err... Utopia? The name sounds bit african. Have you looked from there? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
stalin was a mix between communist and fascist. he definitly is one of the cruellest men that ever wandered the world