Discussion of Stalinism

[Ice]

Did anyone ever hear the theory that the USSR was about to launch a preemptive war into Europe, but was taken completely by surprise by the attackingGermans (even after soviet spies warned of such an attack?)

That kind of paints Stalin in a different picture, now doesn't it?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Did anyone ever hear the theory that the USSR was about to launch a preemptive war into Europe, but was taken completely by surprise by the attackingGermans (even after soviet spies warned of such an attack?)

That kind of paints Stalin in a different picture, now doesn't it?

Nope. That theory is false. Cite some good sources. Stalin knew about the invasion but he wanted Russia to be seen as a victim and not an aggressor, which is why he did not attack. He did not know the attack would come so soon, which is why he was unprepared. Even though the spies kept telling him that. However, he was finally persuaded the day before the commencement of Barbarossa.

[Ice]

Nope. That theory is false. Cite some good sources. Stalin knew about the invasion but he wanted Russia to be seen as a victim and not an aggressor, which is why he did not attack. He did not know the attack would come so soon, which is why he was unprepared. Even though the spies kept telling him that. However, he was finally persuaded the day before the commencement of Barbarossa.

How do you know that theory is false? Is it because it doesn't fit neatly into your views of the Soviet dictator?

This guy, a former Soviet intelligence officer, wrote a few books about it:

http://www.solargeneral.com/mirrors/...om/suvorov.htm

Edit:

Soviet Dictator, not Russian.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I know it is false because of all the history books I have read and all the people I have listened to said the same thing. Why should one isolated example be the right one? And I do not like Stalin, for the fourth time.

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

[Ice]

I know it is false because of all the history books I have read and all the people I have listened to said the same thing. Why should one isolated example be the right one? And I do not like Stalin, for the fourth time.

What information was used to write those history books? Appeal to authority isn't a great argument to use.

I'd hope you wouldn't like the Stalin. The man was an absolute monster, and so was Hitler.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I also do not like comparisons between the two... But who cares

Someone please tell Kush if you know the history behind his decision to not attack Hitler first. I need some support here.

[Ice]

I also do not like comparisons between the two... But who cares

Someone please tell Kush if you know the history behind his decision to not attack Hitler first. I need some support here.

Why don't you convince me yourself? I'm well aware conventional history in World War II. Stalin believed he had Hitler as a great ally. I do not agree with the part about him having no plans to attack Western Europe.

[Jolt]

I'm pretty sure that if by some miracle Germany started collapsing on the Western Front by its own (Say, actually losing to the French and British), Stalin would rub his hands and send in his armies to attack Germany so he could gain something out of it.

[Ice]

I'm pretty sure that if by some miracle Germany started collapsing on the Western Front by its own (Say, actually losing to the French and British), Stalin would rub his hands and send in his armies to attack Germany so he could gain something out of it.

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

[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.

[Sarmatian]

Perhaps because various Russian archives were missing, destroyed, or not written at all in the first place? I provided all kinds of hard evidence and links to you about this - you are choosing to ignore it. It is remarkably similar to the tactics used by Holocaust deniers.

No you didn't. You said you would but you never did.

Two things. Firstly, you're presuming that Stalin killed eighty million people all at once. Secondly, I don't recall personally quoting a figure higher than 67 million.

No I don't. I've said over a couple of decades. Stalin ruled from 1922-1953.

I remember it from a link you provided. Could be that I'm mistaken, it's been some time, but I'm pretty sure 80 millions was among the figures in that link. Link was to a paper from some US university, iirc.

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

Absolutely yes he was, and those who deny it should be held in the same regard has Holocaust deniers.

Well, I personally never liked to limit anyone's freedom of speech and thought. I do not consider a subject of Holocaust a taboo, something that couldn't or shouldn't be discussed. Just so happens that there is overwhelming evidence that it did happen and I have never heard any good arguments for the opposite...

[Vuk]

Aemilius Paulus, I am in Hungary studying right now and do not have access to any of my sources or books. This is a great shame, because if I did, I think I could change your mind on Stalin if it is at all possible. Stalin waged an ideological war against Christians denominations, Ukrainians, Magyar, Poles, Germans, Finns, Latvians, Lithuanians, Cossacks, etc. To meet his ends of efficiency he butchered and enslaved millions. You need only look at the documents housed in the House of Horror museum (they are copies, the originals are in archives throughout the world) and see the footage they have. You have only to talk to Polish or Magyar survivors of the Stalin regime. Russians have been brain washed by Stalins government, and then by a media driven by the same ideology. I hope that you do not find that offensive, but it is the truth. As I do not have my sources with me, I will only point you to a set of books you may want to read, both written by Simon Sebag Montefiore, a distinguished historian. One is called Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, and the other is called Young Stalin. While I do not agree with him on many of his ascertains, it is an invaluable list of sources at least...ones that you should check out.

As for comparing denying atrocities with Holocaust Deniers, I think that two things are important. First of all, to distinguish between liking Hitler/Stalin in spite of their atrocities, and not believing them. Someone could be the victim of brainwashing media, have read books that make them believe otherwise, or whatever. Just because they do not believe them does not mean that they should be held in contempt or be deserving of a powerful stigma like 'Holocaust Denier'. If you truely believe that you are right, you should listen to their argument, take them seriously, and be confident that your argument is correct when you present it.
Secondly, things are not always black and white. Many people branded with the stigma 'Holocaust Denier' do not actually deny the Holocaust, but simply think that it is somewhat exagerrated, or that the groups persecuted are misrepresented. (I for one know a lot of Poles who seem to think that there is good evidence that the six million jews killed in the death camps was over 3/4 Slavic, not Jewish. As I pointed out to them, many people who were not Jews were persecuted as Jews under Hitler's tyrrany, and many Slavs were Jewish Slavs. Most of them use pretty good evidence, but they usually end up agreeing with me) My point is that those Poles are branded 'Holocaust Denier', and people think that they are NeoNazis who want to do it all over again, when in fact they simply (right or wrong) believe that historical perseption is wrong. Not only is applying this stigma harmful, but it stifles all free thought and speech. I firmly believe (and know that I can prove) that Hitler and Stalin commited those attrocities, so when I am faced with someone who does not, I can always present a winning case, and they usually end up changing their mind. Doesn't mean that they were bad people who became good, simply that they did not agree, saw the evidence for it, and do now.

Sorry to go on so much about that, but I think that it is a pretty important point.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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?

[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