Discussion of Stalinism

[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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Without USSR, the war would never have ended without the nuclear bomb, and said nuclear bomb would probably have been created by ze germans.

I've heard/read the opposite, really. The Germans were off or behind on all sorts of things, and the timeline for the American bomb would've been likely the same (or faster, in a panic).

That probably means something doesn't it ?

Humans can be wrong?

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.

]
Really? I get the genius bit, but he didn't really do much for Europe as a whole but build grudges... I don't know enough about his reforms/changes within France, but how did he positively change Europe? And I'm genuinely interested in hearing your answer, too.

[Vuk]

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 occurred 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.

It is true that the Germans burnt themselves out going at Russia, but it is highly debatable how the war would have turned out otherwise.

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 ?
Yeah, it means that they grew up listening to propaganda their whole lives. When you hear something since birth, it is a crime to say otherwise, and everyone around you who you respect believes it, it is hard not to believe it yourself. I am not sure of your point when you say it means something? What does it mean, that Stalin was really a good leader? :P I doubt you meant that, so all I can think of is that they had really good propaganda.

Then to be honest again, most communists nowadays don't ask for a Stalinist government. Calling all communists 'Stalinist' 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.

We are talking about Stalinism though, not Communism. Also, history has showed that Communism almost always results in reigns of terror like that of Stalin.

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.
Genocide means to delibrately wipe an entire race of people out, is that what Napoleon did? You can say that he murdered people, or mass murdered people, but please do not abuse the word genocide. It has an EXTREMELY strong and exact meaning, and it is all too often abused nowadays. That just trivializes real genocide.

Vuk

[Jolt]

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.

I have my utmost serious doubts. The Germans were far far behind in the nuclear bomb development, using heavy water.

The joint American, British, and Canadian Manhattan Project developed the uranium and plutonium atomic bombs, which helped bring an end to hostilities with Japan during World War II. Its success is attributable to meeting all four of the following conditions:[98]

1. A strong initial drive, by a small group of scientists, to launch the project.
2. Unconditional government support from a certain point in time.
3. Essentially unlimited manpower and industrial resources.
4. A concentration of brilliant scientists devoted to the project.

If any one of these four conditions had not been met, the Manhattan Project would have failed, and, in actuality, it succeeded only after the war in Europe had been brought to a conclusion. In Germany, only the first condition was met, and then only in a weaker sense than for the Manhattan Project. Added to this, mutual distrust between the German government and the scientists existed. For the Manhattan Project, the second condition was met on 9 October 1941 or shortly thereafter. Significant here is that by the end of 1941, it was already apparent that the German nuclear energy project would not make a decisive contribution to ending the German war effort in the near term, and control of the project was relinquished by the Heereswaffenamt (HWA, Army Ordnance Office) to the Reichsforschungsrat (RFR, Reich Research Council) in July 1942, essentially making it only a research project with objectives far short of making a weapon. Concerning condition three, the needs in materiel and manpower for a large-scale project necessary for the separation of isotopes for a uranium-based bomb and heavy water production for reactors for a plutonium-based bomb may have been possible in the early years of the war, but in the latter years it would have been impossible to mount such an effort. Also, these large-scale facilities would have been recognized and included as targets for the Allied bombing missions, which grew in intensity as the war continued. As to condition four, the high priority allocated to the Manhattan Project allowed for the recruitment and concentration of capable scientists on the project; in Germany, the priority and a focused project for such recruitment and concentration of personnel did not exist past mid-1942. Thus, weakly meeting only the first of these four conditions, Germany fell far short of what was required to make an atomic bomb.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

Already been addressed. And even if the USSR was integral to the Allied victory, why should we thank Stalin? He was a complete lunatic.

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.

That's what decades of propaganda does for you.

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 ?

Yes, it means one or all of the following:

1) Very good propaganda.
2) Stalin being played up in the modern era.
3) Many people not knowing that Stalin actually killed more than even Hitler (though that may not apply in this case)
4) They are young and naive.
5) They are complete idiots.

Stalin was a brutal murderer. Anyone in Germany who says that Hitler was a good leader is shunned and ridiculed, and rightly so. It sickens me that Russians do not do the same for admirers of Stalin - of which there are unfortunately far too many.

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.

No, calling all communists Stalinists more like calling all fascists Nazis. Your analogy of right-wingers being called fascists would be more like all social democrats being called communist.

I know a few communist old-timers are still praising Stalin and what not, in the western world, but they're not a majority..

I sure as hope not.

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.

How ironic. But hey, if it's up to the right to expose what Stalin did in the face of the far-left and Russophile opposition, then fine. We're certainly not doing it to lessen the crimes of fascism - in fact, most of us on the .Org centre-right and right consider ourselves to be the first enemies of fascism, especially since fascism is one of the perfect examples of the big government we so despise.

In short, that is a laughable assumption and completely ironic, considering we are not denying any of Stalin's crimes, unlike some.

No matter how hard you try, Stalin can't be compared to Hitler.

Murdering millions for their race or nationality? Check.
Murdering millions in organized camp systems? Check.
Powerhungry and xenophobic dictators? Check.

The only difference between the two is that they were on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

[Kralizec]

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 ?

Hitler was defeated and subsequently discredited. Stalin was not, though Kruschev exposed the worst of his crimes he was sidelined himself. Do we owe Stalin personally for the defeat of Nazi Germany? No, we have the red army to thank for it despite Stalins blunders. Soviet communism did the world two immense favours by ridding us of fascism and then collapsing mostly by itself 40 years later.

Russia would probably have been less developed if it wasn´t for the industrialisation drive in the 30ties, but I´m sure that people profited from the destruction of Pompeii too, since vulcanic ash makes for fertile farming soil.