Discussion of Stalinism

[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.

[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.

[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.