Discussion of Stalinism

[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.

[rory_20_uk]

I am sorry, but I do not have very much respect for Stalin sympathizers or anti-semites. I am gonna leave this thread before I get myself banned.

Yup, pointless topic, even for the backroom. What's next, Pol Pot was a good leader of Cambodia?

[Fixiwee]

I am sorry, but I do not have very much respect for Stalin sympathizers or anti-semites.

I never thought I'd defend AP, but you obviously didn't read or try to understand his posts. Because as far as I understand he is nothing of the both things you accuse him here.

[Vuk]

I never thought I'd defend AP, but you obviously didn't read or try to understand his posts. Because as far as I understand he is nothing of the both things you accuse him here.

On the contrary Fix, I did, and it is from that where my disgust comes. He tells us that 'Oh, Stalin may have done some naughty things, but not nearly as naughty as you think, and he did all this good which far out ways it though. He actually did excellent stuff for humanity...I hate him BTW'. He defends and glorifies Stalin, tells us that he was not actaully that bad of a guy, at least he did more good than bad, then tells us that he does not like him. I don't think that he could make his admiration for Stalin much more apparent. Also, his last post degenerating into an unprovoked, off-topic attack on Jewery, how is that NOT anti-semetic?

[Sarmatian]

On the contrary Fix, I did, and it is from that where my disgust comes. He tells us that 'Oh, Stalin may have done some naughty things, but not nearly as naughty as you think, and he did all this good which far out ways it though. He actually did excellent stuff for humanity...I hate him BTW'. He defends and glorifies Stalin, tells us that he was not actaully that bad of a guy, at least he did more good than bad, then tells us that he does not like him. I don't think that he could make his admiration for Stalin much more apparent. Also, his last post degenerating into an unprovoked, off-topic attack on Jewery, how is that NOT anti-semetic?

It is entirely possible to admire good things and hate bad things, even if we're talking about the same men or the same event. It is possible to hate the bloodshed during the French Revolution and to admire positive aspects of it. It is possible to hate Napoleon's wars of conquest and his imperialism but to admire his tactical genius and to use metric system. It is possible to admire the efforts of the US during ww2 and to hate their policy of installing dictators in Latin America afterward. It is possible for me as a Serb to be disgusted with Ottoman atrocities in the later period of their rule and to acknowledge the positive aspects of it in the first period...

Why does everything has to be black or white?

[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.

[Marshal Murat]

To be fair to all the Germans, without Guderian and Manstein, Germany wouldn't have won WW2, led alone succeeded in invading France. The French and British tanks were slowed than the German ones, but they were more heavily armed and better equipped with guns. The Germans had speed and coordination, that they only succeeded in using because Guderian was able to convince Hitler that there could be a strike through the Ardennes, despite General Staff opposition. If Germany had gone, as originally planned, through Belgium, then the war would've been over far sooner, as Germans would've exhausted themselves in a blundering campaign against dug-in and well-prepared foes.

I understand AP's points about Stalin's figure being overblown, but the thread is "a discussion of Stalinism".

[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.

[Sarmatian]

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

That's a great idea, let's go even further back. Let's go back to 1914, WW1 and take into account all the people died in that war in then Imperial Russia, then add the number of people died during the Russian Civil War, then add the number of people died during the Russo-Polish war then 40 million from Stalin and 27 million from WW2. That covers the period of 39 years (1914-1953).

Under your presumption that figure would easily go over 100 millions which would account to over 2/3 of the population of Imperial Russia. Also keep in mind that Imperial Russia also lost almost a third of the population with the territories it lost after the war. In 1922 USSR had about 130 million people and in 1940 it had 194 million. If you are correct, to compensate for all those millions killed, Russian birth rates must have been something unrecorded in the history of the entire world. And before you mention it, Poles and Ukrainians also experienced similar growth in population.

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

My sympathies. I also lost relatives, during Nazi occupation, whose crime was only their nationality and genes, but neither has anything to do with this discussion...

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

I wouldn't really agree. We can say that industrialization started under Tsar Alexander in the 1860-ties, but both during his and Lenin's reign, it was at a snail's pace compared to Stalin's reign.

In 1922 80% of the population worked in agriculture, with basic, rudimentary tools. In the same year only 16% of the population lived in cities. In 1940, 33% lived in cities. In 1928 USSR was producing 36 million tons of coal, 5 billion kwh of electrical energy, 4 million tons of steel. In 1940 it was - 166 million tons of coal, 48 billion kwh of electrical energy and 18 billion tons of steel. In 1928 there was virtually nothing but basic tools in the agriculture, by 1934 there was 278,000 tractors in use...

So, most of the credit, pretty much all of it, for the industrialization goes to Stalin....

France was conquered during WW2 because France had some of the most stupid generals one could ever dream of, but also because French didn't want to fight another exhausting and endless war against Germany, and because a democratic government cannot force its citizens to fight to death if they don't want to.

I'm also of opinion that French thought it's gonna be more like WW1 and earlier wars - we'll exchange a few provinces, pay reparations and that's it...

[PershsNhpios]

I was temporarily banned for being offensive in the front room, and thereafter pursuing my opinion in a baiting and unneccessary manner.
I agree with my punishment, and I have since decided that I will remain in the Main Hall from now on.
(I believe I will not be missed!)

However I have read this thread through, thinking it may have come from my argument.. but it has not.

My argument was involving politics. This is an argument over history, or political history.
I argued which power and leader was the most harmful and deceitful at this very moment, using parts of their history, and I was refuted with claims to those who were most harmful and deceitful half a century before.
We both discussed the history of our respective antagonists, with the difference that mine is still in existence.

I would like to say that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, although responsible for terrible acts, were actually human beings neither had horns or tails, and neither had little red phones and a hotline to hell and the devil.
I believe it is possible, by following the history of their lives, to find respectable reasons for their decisions in later life, and I have always tried to avoid dancing on their graves with the rest of the western world. East is West and West is East...

Most romanticised military figures of history were indirectly responsible for horribly high numbers of human deaths, and I would have you realise that you are arguing heatedly over numbers for the most part, and these numbers will be not so much forgotten as forgiven within this 21st century.
Stalin was indirectly responsible for millions of deaths. He killed millions.
But they are all dead, including Stalin and his regime.

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

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

I asked myself that - what was the use of my argument, poisonous as it was?
Surely, if I were in position of political power, if I were able to move someone to my perspective - there would be a practical reason for it, for the problem I see still exists.
But what help, what progress could I make here on the .Org? I came here originally to download a mod for Rome: Total War!

It is simply not neccessary.
It is unneccessary for you to be arguing nastily over the actions of dead men, and at once to be distracted by the self-same kind of atrocities which are being committed by different nations and different leaders even whilst you bicker. What can you do for the former? What will you do for the latter, the present?

And it is unneccessary for me to continue.

I am sorry that my opinions are so unpopular.

[Fragony]

I would like to say that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, although responsible for terrible acts, were actually human beings neither had horns or tails, and neither had little red phones and a hotline to hell and the devil.

It isn't about what they thought it's about what they did. Hitler may have cared about his lot, and if he really thought jews are that terrible you could even call him a good man. But let's face it some things really shouldn't be.

I am sorry that my opinions are so unpopular

Join the club

[Vuk]

I was temporarily banned for being offensive in the front room, and thereafter pursuing my opinion in a baiting and unneccessary manner.
I agree with my punishment, and I have since decided that I will remain in the Main Hall from now on.
(I believe I will not be missed!)

However I have read this thread through, thinking it may have come from my argument.. but it has not.

My argument was involving politics. This is an argument over history, or political history.
I argued which power and leader was the most harmful and deceitful at this very moment, using parts of their history, and I was refuted with claims to those who were most harmful and deceitful half a century before.
We both discussed the history of our respective antagonists, with the difference that mine is still in existence.

I would like to say that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, although responsible for terrible acts, were actually human beings neither had horns or tails, and neither had little red phones and a hotline to hell and the devil.
Sure, they were humans...evil humans. That is as far as anyone has claimed so far, I have seen no one mention horns of tails. It does not matter anyway if they were evil devils, evil aliens, evil octopus, or evil humans, it is the 'evil' part that was important.
I believe it is possible, by following the history of their lives, to find respectable reasons for their decisions in later life, and I have always tried to avoid dancing on their graves with the rest of the western world. East is West and West is East...
Respectable? Sorry, I can respect the decision to massacre, torture, starve and enslave tens of millions of people. I do not care what their reason was, I cannot respect it. Even if they thought that what they were doing was good for their cause(Hitler because Jews and Slavs were evil, and Stalin because...I don't know, he was god? It is hard to justify Stalin as everything he did was for himself), but the end does NOT justify the means, and they knew that their means were inhumane and evil. You can say the same for any small time serial killer, but evil is evil. Stalin was a paranoid nut who murdered and enslaved millions.

Most romanticised military figures of history were indirectly responsible for horribly high numbers of human deaths, and I would have you realise that you are arguing heatedly over numbers for the most part, and these numbers will be not so much forgotten as forgiven within this 21st century.
These numbers Glenn, represent human beings. They are more than just numbers.
Stalin was indirectly responsible for millions of deaths. He killed millions.
But they are all dead, including Stalin and his regime.
Does that make it any better? Does that suddenly make Stalin less worthy of contempt? And they are not dead BTW, there are still people alive who have suffered under his regime. It was only 56 years ago, not exatly distant history.
Then what is the use of your arguments?
Truth. It is the lack of truth that enables people like Stalin and Hitler to reign. The duping and brainwashing of the entire population was needed for both of them to do what they did. Truth is important, and worth arguing over.
From what I have seen, the English, Austrians and Russians are quite admiring of Napoleon in our times.
There is a difference between killing people when you are fighting for your country and enslaving and brutally and inhumanely executing 10s of millions (including of your own country) so that your corrupt regime can make you more powerful. I, myself am a fan of Napoleon's military genius (though not of Napoleon himself). Napoleon was mostly an honorable man, not a senseless butcher like Stalin of Hitler. Also, he IS distant history, and dangerous political remnants of his regime and political ideology are not powerful in this world, unlike with Stalin's communism. Therefore people admiring Napoleon does not pose the same threat as people liking Stalin.

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

I asked myself that - what was the use of my argument, poisonous as it was?
Surely, if I were in position of political power, if I were able to move someone to my perspective - there would be a practical reason for it, for the problem I see still exists.
But what help, what progress could I make here on the .Org? I came here originally to download a mod for Rome: Total War!

It is simply not neccessary.
It is unneccessary for you to be arguing nastily over the actions of dead men, and at once to be distracted by the self-same kind of atrocities which are being committed by different nations and different leaders even whilst you bicker. What can you do for the former? What will you do for the latter, the present?
You cannot understand the present without understanding the past. If you refuse acknowledge history, because it does not fit with your beliefs, then you will do the same with present day events. Most of the horrors of the world could have been avoided if people paid more attention to history, and heeded its warning better. We are not gods, and there is not much that the individual can do for what they believe in today, aside from getting information out and voting. I have been doing both to the best of my abilities for what I believe in. History does not distract from the present, it puts the present into perspective.
And it is unneccessary for me to continue.

I am sorry that my opinions are so unpopular.
As Frag said, you and me both. I believe the main reason that people got mad at you was not your opinions though, but your state of address (which is very cordial and not at all offensive in this post).

I hope you see my point,
Vuk

[Caius]

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

Here, people, is one of the worst mistakes to be made by any who workship Stalin and the like. Stalin, like Hitler, like Videla in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, and so many other dictators made what Stalin called: political cleaning.

What is political cleaning? It is the authoritarian attitude to eliminate, for once and all, all those people, religious autorities, media, political parties and thinkers that can make any kind of "opposition" to the ruling coup. All the dictatorships had different ideologies, yet they supported one idea in common; to not to have any kind of opposition, they had to do something. They didn't care how many censorship, manipulation, propaganda, State Terrorism they managed to use, they would say if 2+2 = 5 if they say so... what they didn't know that if somebody else thought that 2 + 2 = 4, and that person wouldn't said that... he would be free and knowing there is something else of what they say. Statal terrorism was conducted by dictatorships to last longer.

It's something else than: If you don't follow us, then we send you to Gulags. Its the failure of knowing that there are other points of view, everyone can learn from those others points of view, but yet they are too busy trying to prove their point.

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

They both were dictators, harrased with their enemies sending them to concentration camps. Enough said.

He killed a massive number of Poles, for example.

There was a file, I think it was called The X Paragraph or something, which stated that there was xenophobia between Russians (Of Commie Russia) and the rest of the countries that were part of the USSR.

[Strike For The South]

Both men used scapegoats and scare tactics. Both men killed millions. As an American I really don't have a dog in this fight. Most of my relatives fought in the pacific.

However One of My Grandfathers speaks perfect Russian (long story the years of 44-54 had allot in store for Granpappy) and although he was to young to fight in WWII he interrogated Russian troops and he says many of them hated Stalin with all there hearts. Granted many of these men defected so take all this with a grain of salt. But if your people hate a winning head of state thats gotta mean something

[Aemilius Paulus]

They both were dictators, harrased with their enemies sending them to concentration camps. Enough said.

Yes, but I called it "thankless" because Stalin technically saved the world from Hitler. of course, along with the major help of Allies, but without Stalin, victory would have been impossible, just like without the rest of the Allies. Like it or not, he saved our butts.

But if your people hate a winning head of state thats gotta mean something

So? Is it not natural for there to be opposition to a leader? HAs there not been millions who disliked or hated Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Wilson, etc? I do not see your point. Not to mention, Stalin was a man to hate, or rather to fear. He was not lovable, quite certainly. And I would add more than just a grain of salt. Perhaps a dash; a large dash. Or better yet, a handful It takes one heck of a hatred to betray one's country, one's motherland in favour of an ally-soon-to-be-enemy.

[Vuk]

Yes, but I called it "thankless" because Stalin technically saved the world from Hitler. of course, along with the major help of Allies, but without Stalin, victory would have been impossible, just like without the rest of the Allies. Like it or not, he saved our butts.

1st of all, it is a highly debatebly point whether or not the allies could have won if Stalin was defeated, that means nothing though. We can thank Hitler for weakening Stalin, so that he did not have the power to roll through Europe after the war, and possible (probably) the US. I do not get into the habit of thanking merciless butchers and madmen for pursuing their own ambitions...even if it has an unintended postive effect for me. I will thank God for Hitler being defeated, not Stalin.

[Meneldil]

To be honest Vuk, most of the fight in Europe was done in USSR. Had USSR been defeated, the allies would probably never had set a foot on Europe. Most German casualties occured on the eastern front, and the best german divisions were sent to the USSR.
Without USSR, the war would never have ended without the nuclear bomb, and said nuclear bomb would probably have been created by ze germans.

Does that make it any better? Does that suddenly make Stalin less worthy of contempt? And they are not dead BTW, there are still people alive who have suffered under his regime. It was only 56 years ago, not exatly distant history.

That would be a valid point, except that most russian old-timers still think of Stalin as the greatest leader ever. They're building statues and monuments for him, and they think Putin is a liberal whiner sold to the US.
I mean, I've met some Kazakh people. They're around 20-25, their grandparents have been deported to Siberia, and yet, they think that Stalin was a great leader, and that the USSR was much better than the corrupt country they live in today. That probably means something doesn't it ?

Then to be honest again, most communists nowadays don't ask for a stalinist government. Calling all communists 'stalinists' is about as stupid as calling all right-wingers 'fascists'. A lot of people believe in communism and despise Stalin, Kroutchev, Pol Pot and Mao.
I know a few communist old-timers are still praising Stalin and what not, in the western world, but they're not a majority.

And, to end my contribution here, as much as I think Napoleon was a genius who did a lot for Europe, he's also guilty of genocide. Few people know that he's responsible for the death of thousand of civilians in French colonies. I do, but that doesn't change the fact I still think he was a genius and had a positive impact on Europe as a whole.

[Caius]

Yes, but I called it "thankless" because Stalin technically saved the world from Hitler. of course, along with the major help of Allies, but without Stalin, victory would have been impossible, just like without the rest of the Allies. Like it or not, he saved our butts.

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

[Sarmatian]

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

Yeah it was. Russian Winter(tm) was produced in the Soviet Union in great quantities. They perfected their winter over the years and arguably Russian winter was the best of all winters around the world. That's why it was patented. But, Russians didn't stop there. They found out that if they take a little bit of snow into their hands, they can make little balls out of it. This revolutionary new concept later became known as Snowballs. They used to throw these Snowballs at the Germans, creating panic among German lines because Germans never saw a Snowball or experienced its destructive power. Can you imagine the fear the Germans must have felt when entire army groups started throwing snowballs at them? 100,000 Russians throwing snowballs all at once. Of course, it didn't stop there. Soviet engineers developed an impenetrable barrier for German panzers made of snow, called the Snowman. They were expertly placed so even if in a rare case a panzer group managed to find a space to slip through, they faced a Snowball armed Soviet division laying in ambush.

Needless to say, Germans had no hope under those circumstances...

[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.