Discussion of Stalinism

[Lord Winter]

But all that aside, Stalin did industrialise USSR. He was the one who built up its military and produced close to 30,000 tanks before WWII, many of which were vastly superior to the German tanks used in the beginning of the war. Stalin did lead USSR to victory. It is hard to understand whether someone else in his place would have done better. If not for his militancy, Russia may not have held out against Hitler. The Nazis got to outskirts of Moscow in the winter of 1941. After capturing it, they would have won half the war.

We all owe our lives to Stalin, technically. If USSR was defeated, the world would have crumbled against the Nazi hammer. Sure, it is possible that a rebellion would have taken place and some of the world freed itself from the Nazi dominion, but still, what if the Nazis finished their A-bomb research? Then they would have a deathgrip on the world. Whatever one argues, by defeating Russia, the Nazis could have done so much more, and possibly even have exterminated as much as 95% of all Jews. Just look at what happened to Polish and German Jewry. What would have stopped Hitler from doing the same to other countries?


Sure, Stalin was evil, but to compare him to Hitler is ignorance. Thankless ignorance.

While Stalin did contribute to industrialization he wasn't the only person who could have modernized Russia, by far. The process had already begun, although slowly and irregularly. You're also exaggerating Stalin's role in the defeat of Germany. Yes, he ruled during the war, but giving him credit for Zuckovs, Chivoks and others victories is akin to saying Hitler was responsiable for Germany's success. Instead Russia's victory should be viewed as noteworthy not for the Stalin's role in insuring but because it overcame all the obstacles that Stalin had made. The purges, inept millitary involvement ect are all examples of his bad decisions. Show me one place where Stalin contributed to the victory. Nevertheless the point is irrelevant. Industrialization and WWII did not require the mass slaughter that took place. Be it 15,20 or even just five million. Stalin's policies were still unacceptable.

[Vuk]

While Stalin did contribute to industrialization he wasn't the only person who could have modernized Russia, by far. The process had already begun, although slowly and irregularly. You're also exaggerating Stalin's role in the defeat of Germany. Yes, he ruled during the war, but giving him credit for Zuckovs, Chivoks and others victories is akin to saying Hitler was responsiable for Germany's success. Instead Russia's victory should be viewed as noteworthy not for the Stalin's role in insuring but because it overcame all the obstacles that Stalin had made. The purges, inept millitary involvement ect are all examples of his bad decisions. Show me one place where Stalin contributed to the victory. Nevertheless the point is irrelevant. Industrialization and WWII did not require the mass slaughter that took place. Be it 15,20 or even just five million. Stalin's policies were still unacceptable.

I actually have to agree with you. Both Hitler and Stalin made so many disastarous military decisions that it is a wonder that either had any success. Looking at some of Hitler's moves (when all of his generals were telling him otherwise), it almost seems like he was fighting for the other side. :P Germany and Russia did well in spite of their leaders, because they were strong countries with strong people (not to mention Russia's climate). To be fair though, both Stalin and Hitler made it possible by mobilizing the entire country in way that few others would have been able to.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Vuk, as I said, it is not those who were held by the Soviet propaganda machine or those who were unaware of the extent of Stalin's crimes that deserve the label. It is those who, when faced with overwhelming evidence that Stalin was a mass murderer, continue to deny it.

[Vuk]

Vuk, as I said, it is not those who were held by the Soviet propaganda machine or those who were unaware of the extent of Stalin's crimes that deserve the label. It is those who, when faced with overwhelming evidence that Stalin was a mass murderer, continue to deny it.

lol, I just call them liars. :P When you are faced with absolute proof of something and deny it, what else are you?

[Fragony]

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

[Aemilius Paulus]

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

For the fifth time, I hate the guy. I am only arguing for him because most of the people are arguing against him and because he is made more evil than he was. Read all of the posts in the thread or do not post at all. This is one of those threads.

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

I sure hope you are not accusing Stalin of being treacherous. First of all, he was in no way obligated to help Allies, with whom he had less in common than with Hitler. He was a communist after all. Second of all, it turned out that the West was the one who had the idea to let Russia exhaust itself until finally, in the summer of 1944, when Germany was collapsing, the Allies landed on Normandy and claimed to have reached a turning point in their history books. Bah, what about Stalingrad and Kursk? Churchill himself publically said that Soviet Union was bled white by the Allies.

Anyway even if it's 67 million it doesn't change anything. Add app. 27 million that died during ww2 and you get 94 million between 1922-1953. Impossible, it would have made chaos of unimaginable proportions in USSR.

Precisely my argument. Anything above 20 million during the Purges before WWII is too much. Then again 10 million of purges during and after WWII and you get 30 million at the most. That is still a lot for USSR after WWII, with 120-140 million people total. I have already noted that while everyone seems to have a family member lost to the Nazis in WWII, very few have lost family members due to Stalin in comparison. I think I am the only Russian here.

While Stalin did contribute to industrialization he wasn't the only person who could have modernized Russia, by far. The process had already begun, although slowly and irregularly.

By whom? By what? How? See, I used to be like you, thinking Stalin did his best to inflict defeat upon USSR, but now I know better after reading some history books on him. He was the one who industrialised USSR. Read history. Everyone admits it. I gave you the example of tsarist Russia. The Russian Empire on the eve of WWI.

They were industrialising, at a good steady pace. Lot of good that did, as the soldiers deserted and refused to fight. They did not have weapons or ammunition. No tanks of their own. They lost the war. WWI was lost by Russia. Would it have been so hard to lose again, especially since Nazi Germany was much stronger than the Germany under Wilhelm II? The Nazi Germany conquered France, something it could not do in WWI, meaning that France was not much stronger. But it did not conquer Russia, meaning it was much stronger.

Russia was always an agrarian nation, and it would have stayed that way unless someone applied a lot of force to change it. Then ,even with that, the change would have taken at least half a century. Stalin did it in 20 years. That is why I say he contributed so much.

lol, I just call them liars. :P When you are faced with absolute proof of something and deny it, what else are you?

I hope you are not calling me a denier. Because I am calling you a fabricator. Eighty million is preposterous. Face it. Add the WWII losses of 20 million as someone put it and you will have 100 million. So you are saying only 40 million Soviets remained? Give me a final figure of how much you think Stalin killed and I will see what I say about it.

You are one of those people who would swallow any figure of Jews killed by Hitler, whether it was the current 6 million or 20 million. Heck, poor Zionists, I bet they are tearing themselves apart for keeping the Holocaust figure so accurate and truthful. Now when everyone is exaggerating so much, their figure seems so minuscule in comparison. Oh well, the Jewish lobbies are still functioning well... At least some hope for the Jews remains.

[Fragony]

For the fifth time, I hate the guy. I am only arguing for him because most of the people are arguing against him and because he is made more evil than he was. Read all of the posts in the thread or do not post at all. This is one of those threads.

Wasn't meant as a personal attack, sorry if it appeared like that.

[Vuk]

I hope you are not calling me a denier. Because I am calling you a fabricator. Eighty million is preposterous. Face it. Add the WWII losses of 20 million as someone put it and you will have 100 million. So you are saying only 40 million Soviets remained? Give me a final figure of how much you think Stalin killed and I will see what I say about it.

You are one of those people who would swallow any figure of Jews killed by Hitler, whether it was the current 6 million or 20 million. Heck, poor Zionists, I bet they are tearing themselves apart for keeping the Holocaust figure so accurate and truthful. Now when everyone is exaggerating so much, their figure seems so minuscule in comparison. Oh well, the Jewish lobbies are still functioning well... At least some hope for the Jews remains.

I was not calling you anything, but after that post, how does anti-semite sound? First of all, I never said anything about 80 million, or 40 million, or 20 million, or any other figure.
Second of all, your attacks on Jews are unrelated and completely uncalled for. Not that it is ANY of your business, I believe evidence proves that lots of those 6 million killed were NOT Jews, however I do not think that means they are lying about it, or that makes the killing, torture, etc of the ones who did die any less horrible. You on the other hand seem to think that as long as Stalin killed ONLY 20 million human beings it is not any big deal!
I am sorry, but I do not have very much respect for Stalin sympathizers or anti-semites. I am gonna leave this thread before I get myself banned.

[Jolt]

Would it have been so hard to lose again, especially since Nazi Germany was much stronger than the Germany under Wilhelm II? The Nazi Germany conquered France, something it could not do in WWI, meaning that France was not much stronger.

I agree with the latter sentence. In WW1 you wouldn't see French saying "Better Hitler than Blum." That coupled with bad strategic decisions led to the fall of France. If France had fortified the Belgium border accordingly (And should have done so since they already had the enemy's battle plans.), I doubt anyone would be boasting Germany's Wehrmacht as much stronger than the Deutsches Reichsheer. If France had held the line in Belgium/Northern France, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be seeing a World War lasting as long as the first did. Germany's economy was artificially sustained and without loot to keep the war machine going, it would have collapsed before long.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Precisely my argument. Anything above 20 million during the Purges before WWII is too much. Then again 10 million of purges during and after WWII and you get 30 million at the most. That is still a lot for USSR after WWII, with 120-140 million people total.

I think you and Sarmatian may be making two fatal errors. Firstly, Stalin did not just kill people who were in the USSR. He killed a massive number of Poles, for example. Secondly, nobody is suggesting that everybody was killed all at once - Stalin ruled for thirty years, and even before that he had power to murder - executing Tsarists, burning villages and killing peasants, etc. Also, not all of the dead were during the purges. Nonetheless, the quoted figure for Stalin usually hovers around forty million, not sixty to seventy - the latter number generally applies to the whole Soviet Union.

I have already noted that while everyone seems to have a family member lost to the Nazis in WWII, very few have lost family members due to Stalin in comparison. I think I am the only Russian here.

As stated, he did not only kill Russians. I myself lost four relatives to their brutality, and various others were tortured and then released by the Soviets. What was the crime, you may ask? The fact they were German.

[Meneldil]

Precisely my argument. Anything above 20 million during the Purges before WWII is too much. Then again 10 million of purges during and after WWII and you get 30 million at the most. That is still a lot for USSR after WWII, with 120-140 million people total. I have already noted that while everyone seems to have a family member lost to the Nazis in WWII, very few have lost family members due to Stalin in comparison. I think I am the only Russian here.

Agreed. Although I'm not denying Stalin was probably one of the worst dictator ever, behind Hitler and a few other megalomanic racist genociders, claiming that he killed up to 70, or even 50 millions of people is simply crazy. Add to these 70-50 millions the 20 millions that died during WWII, and you are looking at a grand total of 70-90 millions.
Add to these the few millions that died during WWI and the civil war, the Polish war and what not, and you could probably reach 100 millions, according to these so-called scholars.

Could a country such as USSR, who had overall low birth-rates and a total population ranging from 100 to 140 millions, sustain the loss of 100+ millions and not collapse immediatly, or turn into a wasteland? I mean, it's about time these so-called scholars make a reality-check and try to learn demographics.
That's not to say I respect Stalin, or other communist dictators (I loathe every single one of them), but the good ol' 'communists killed 33 billions of people, true story!' we're being served by the right in order to somehow lessen the crimes of fascism and nazism is getting old.
No matter how hard you try, Stalin can't be compared to Hitler. Now, if we're talking about Pol Pot for example, that's another matter. Pol Pot killed only 2 millions people (still 1/4 of Cambodia population), but he did it in a way that makes him as evil as Hitler IMO.

They were industrialising, at a good steady pace. Lot of good that did, as the soldiers deserted and refused to fight. They did not have weapons or ammunition. No tanks of their own. They lost the war. WWI was lost by Russia. Would it have been so hard to lose again, especially since Nazi Germany was much stronger than the Germany under Wilhelm II? The Nazi Germany conquered France, something it could not do in WWI, meaning that France was not much stronger. But it did not conquer Russia, meaning it was much stronger.

That's where I disagree. Industrialization started under Lenin, and had then much better results than under Stalin.
The Russians didn't have tank during WWI because none but the French and Brits achieved to build somehow working tanks. Soviet soldiers didn't have ammunitions at the beginning of WW2 either, and were probably as poorly trained and equiped as their WWI predecessors, mostly thanks to Uncle Joe, who managed to kill all competent officers and to screw up his whole army.

France was conquered during WW2 because France had some of the most stupid generals one could ever dream of, but also because French didn't want to fight another exhausting and endless war against Germany, and because a democratic government cannot force its citizens to fight to death if they don't want to.
USSR wasn't conquered during WW2 because Stalin would have sent to death every single people available before surrendering, something Tzarist russia couldn't afford to do, as it was a weak state shaken by riots and social disorder.

[Ice]

I sure hope you are not accusing Stalin of being treacherous. First of all, he was in no way obligated to help Allies, with whom he had less in common than with Hitler. He was a communist after all. Second of all, it turned out that the West was the one who had the idea to let Russia exhaust itself until finally, in the summer of 1944, when Germany was collapsing, the Allies landed on Normandy and claimed to have reached a turning point in their history books. Bah, what about Stalingrad and Kursk? Churchill himself publically said that Soviet Union was bled white by the Allies.

I was simply stating that it was in Stalin's intention to let Nazi Germany weaken itself against the West, then to lead a massive surprise attack and roll through Europe.

It's interesting how you didn't attempt to refute any of the arguments in my posted link. I supplied evidence, as requested, and you simply brushed into under the rug while encouraging others to refute me.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

CR

Indeed. Two cheeks of the same arse, Hitler and Stalin. Few discussions are more tiresome than fans of either defending their hero for his great contribution in defeating the other mass-murdering dictator bend on world domination.




The more history has moved on, the clearer the insight that the mortal enemies fascism and communism were simply two branches of the same tree. A specific product of their age, modernistic, totalitarian experiments.
That anybody would still support and defend either is beyond silly.

[Vuk]

Indeed. Two cheeks of the same arse, Hitler and Stalin. Few discussions are more tiresome than fans of either defending their hero for his great contribution in defeating the other mass-murdering dictator bend on world domination.




The more history has moved on, the clearer the insight that the mortal enemies fascism and communism were simply two branches of the same tree. A specific product of their age, modernistic, totalitarian experiments.
That anybody would still support and defend either is beyond silly.

A heck of a lot worse than silly, it is evil at worst and utterly stupid at best.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Indeed. Two cheeks of the same arse, Hitler and Stalin. Few discussions are more tiresome than fans of either defending their hero for his great contribution in defeating the other mass-murdering dictator bend on world domination.




The more history has moved on, the clearer the insight that the mortal enemies fascism and communism were simply two branches of the same tree. A specific product of their age, modernistic, totalitarian experiments.
That anybody would still support and defend either is beyond silly.

This is the POTM. Well done Louis.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Stalin nearly lost the war in 1941. His forces were reeling, his orders had placed many of the Soviet forces and air units too far forward and relied too much on Germany being occupied through the beginning of 1942, and his issue of military orders making unauthorized retreat a punishable offense hampered an already chaotic tactical situation.

On the other hand, his harsh attitude DID stiffen Soviet resolve. After all, while they knew they risked death fighting the Wehrmact, they were reasonably certain that Stalin would have them and their families killed if they didn't fight. Not very "sportsmanlike" of Uncle Joe, but Joe wasn't much for subtlety when facing down the opposition. Just "axe" Trotsky.

Fortunately for the CCCP, Hitler lost his nerve during Barbarossa and held up the panzers. Had he given them free reign, it is considered likely by some that they WOULD have reached Moscow prior to the onset of the worst of the wet weather. With that hub torn out of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Army's ability to turn things around would certainly have been slowed.

[LittleGrizzly]

Bad people can do good things, if not even for a good reason, even for thier own selfish reasons bad people end up doing good things.

But when bad people do good things should we ignore thier good deeds. Should we accuse those who speak of thier good deeds of being a lover of this bad person ?

No we shouldn't. Someone who speaks of the construction of Autobahn is not professing thier love for Hitler anymore than someone who speaks of the Russians doing most of the work on the eastern front. To be honest im surprised some of the members are at the level of maturity where they can't seperate praise for individual actions from praise for the person in thier entirity...

To put the entire eastern front down to the Russian Winter (tm) is a little much... that saying so makes you a lover of Stalin is ludacris!

[Brenus]

“Hitler lost his nerve during Barbarossa” In doing what?
Barbarossa failed because the Blitzkrieg failed… The initial plan (a little bit like Napoleon) was to destroy the Russian/Red army at the borders then to oblige the Tsar/1st Secretary to negotiate or capitulate.
In both case it didn’t work and the Russian armies did succeeded to retreat with heavy loses in both cases.
Then the German’s equipment was not designed for a long war of attrition (no strategic bombers, short range fighters, light and medium tanks with narrow caterpillars –good for French roads, not good for Russian plains and mud).
However, the first counter-offensive in Moscow is launch by Zhukov in end of 1941, so merely 6 months after the start of Barbarossa.
These are facts.
Putting the German defeat on winter is absurd. As one of them said if you can’t predict the weather you can predict the season, so to be surprise by winter is more that surprising…

“Had he given them free reign” Again, to do what? They did what they could, until they faced not only KV5 and T34 but generals able to manoeuvre them…

The panzers were useless in Stalingrad, Leningrad or Sebastopol. The Red Army succeeded in imposing their war to the Germans. No fast and daring manoeuvres, no, just fortified position and use of artillery and infantry you can’t ignored or avoid.

“All of Hitler's generals begged him not to do it”: So what the generals wanted to do? Kursk was a gamble. It looks like Hitler and Stalin had some secrets negotiation and Stalin wanted a return to the borders of 1941. Hitler decided to show he still had teeth…
Even a victory in Kursk wouldn’t have defeated the Red Army at this point…
Remember that the attack on Kursk was called off because the Russian started an offensive on other flank (and because the Russian defences were still holding)… It was the last cast of dices to regain the upper hand, the initiative.
Like most of the Hitler’s plans, it makes sense until you’ve got the realty check…But that was the idea…
Concerning Moscow, Stalingrad and other major failures, most of the time that wasn’t Hitler initial plan… It was his generals who convinced him to take Moscow, or Stalingrad (and later of couse blamed him for their own failures).
Hitler was more obsess by oil and ore (reason why he had to attack Greece when the Italians embarked in this war, The Italian defeat put the Rumanian oil fields within the English bombers range) than in symbols. At least at the start of the war…

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But when bad people do good things should we ignore thier good deeds. Should we accuse those who speak of thier good deeds of being a lover of this bad person ?

No, but I believe it went a little further than that. Saying that Stalin may have done some good things is fine, but outright praise of him and drastically playing down the numbers of those he killed certainly is not.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Bad people can do good things, if not even for a good reason, even for thier own selfish reasons bad people end up doing good things.

But when bad people do good things should we ignore thier good deeds. Should we accuse those who speak of thier good deeds of being a lover of this bad person ?

No we shouldn't. Someone who speaks of the construction of Autobahn is not professing thier love for Hitler anymore than someone who speaks of the Russians doing most of the work on the eastern front. To be honest im surprised some of the members are at the level of maturity where they can't seperate praise for individual actions from praise for the person in thier entirity...

To put the entire eastern front down to the Russian Winter (tm) is a little much... that saying so makes you a lover of Stalin is ludacris!

This basicly echos my take on the whole issue. I wrote an essay in Year 11 History entitled 'What Hitler did for Germany', specificly arguing that if he didn't go to war then he would be considered a good leader. I personally abhor any sort of dictatorship, and readily admit Hitler did many terrible things, but it is fact that elements of his rule, even if done for the wrong reasons had a good outcome.

I know little of Stalin so I wouldn't be able to give specific examples for him without drawing heavily on what has already been said (so I won't....).

[Sarmatian]

No, but I believe it went a little further than that. Saying that Stalin may have done some good things is fine, but outright praise of him and drastically playing down the numbers of those he killed certainly is not.

Bah, there's no reason for me to play down the numbers. I'm not Russian, actually I'm not from any of the former Soviet republics, I'm not a communist and I don't have any love for Stalin. It is actually you who are inflating the numbers, constantly refusing to look at the demographic situation, which speaks volumes in this case.

How many Ukrainians you said Stalin killed through Holodomor? 20 millions? Ok, let's see.

According to 1897 census in the Russian Empire there were 22,380,551 Ukrainians in Russian Empire. Now, it would be better if we had some later census to take a look at as it would allow us to estimate more accurately the number of Ukrainians in 1932-1933, but census scheduled for 1915 never happened because of the first world war. Never fear though, as we can compare how much population increased in other European countries during the same period and make a pretty accurate estimation. So, let's see.

(in millions)
France:
1900 - 38.9
1930 - 41.6

Spain:
1900 - 18.5
1930 - 23.3

Portugal:
1900 - 5.4
1930 - 6.8

Germany:
1900 - 56.4
1930 - 65.1

Italy:
1900 - 32.4
1930 - 40.9

We see that population increase was mostly between 10% and 20%, and we know that in 1900 there were app. 22 million Ukrainians. If we apply the trend we've seen in other European countries there couldn't have been more than 25-26 millions of Ukrainians in 1930. But just for the fun of it, let's assume than in the case of Ukraine population increase was 50%. That would place the total number of Ukrainians in 1930 at slightly above 30 millions. Now, 5.5 millions of these 30 lived in Poland in the interwar period, because they were in the territories Russian Empire lost and they were out of Stalin's reach and not affected by Holodomor. That leaves 25-27 millions Ukrainians in the USSR in 1930's. So if your number is correct, it means that during that one year of Holodomor, more than 80% of all Ukrainians in USSR died, leaving only 5 millions. And then again those 5 + 5.5 from Poland became 50-60 millions today, which means that in roughly 70 years, Ukrainian population increased 500% or 600%.

That's assuming there was a 50% increase in population between 1900 and 1930. If we assume that increase in population was like in all other European countries, we can only conclude that more Ukrainians died than ever lived in the Soviet Union and to get to the number of Ukrainians today, there would have to be an increase 1000% to 1200% (from those 5.5 millions left in Poland).

If you would be so kind to explain to me how is that possible, I'd be very grateful...

[Kralizec]

But when bad people do good things should we ignore thier good deeds. Should we accuse those who speak of thier good deeds of being a lover of this bad person ?

I don't think that there is, or has been, a single person who only has done bad things or only has had bad qualities. I bet there were quite a few serial killers who lovingly cared for their cats or dogs.

The autobahn netword was planned for by the chancellor before Hitler, by the way.