Discussion of Stalinism

[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.

[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.

[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!