Discussion of Stalinism

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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...

[Aemilius Paulus]

Great one, Sarmatian! Gave him what he deserved!!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sarmatian, that was hilarious, but you know exactly what he meant.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why don't you take a look at how many people Stalin killed? He was in absolutely every way as evil as Hitler. And you question why we are offended - a Jew would be offended if you tried to defend Hitler, and likewise people like me - just some of the millions who lost family - are offended when you try to defend Stalin.

Those who defend Stalin are precisely the same as those who defend Hitler. They are defending the two most evil regimes ever put on the face of the earth, and it disgusts me. I ask that anyone who tries to defend Stalin educates themselves before they continue defending such a monster.

In short, those who are unaware of Stalin's crimes when defending him can plead ignorance. Those who are aware of the millions he slaughtered and continue to defend him? Words cannot describe my contempt.

There are no excuses for either of them, and it tires and saddens me to see people pull out the same old lines.

CR

[Jolt]

Yeah it was. Russian Winter™ 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...

Post of the Month!

EDIT: We seriously need to create a Post of the Month Award so that these posts be forever engraved in the history of the .org

[Vuk]

Great one, Sarmatian! Gave him what he deserved!!

Yes, what he deserved for even questioning that the Soviets are not responsible for saving the world! (PS, I am NOT a Stalin sympathizer)

And if not for the ridiculously harsh winter that the Germans were in equipped for, it is very much likely that they would have succeded. Russian resistance was pathetic. Look at the Battle of Kursk.
All of Hitler's generals begged him not to do it, because not only was it useless, but the Russians had every advantage. The Germans had to take a nearly impossible fortified postion, were out number by an outrageous amount, were ill equipped, and fighting Russia's veterans. The Russians had high ground, spent days fortifying it with mines, tank traps, brabed wire, machine gun nests, artillery, etc. The Russians should have won with almost no casualties, instead, they got beaten so badly that if Germans had struck again, they would have had the numerical advantage and closer to even eqipment this time. EI, it is likely that if the Germans had struck again, they would have won. Here are the stats I pulled off of Wiki:

Casualties and losses
German losses according to German sources:
50,000 dead, wounded, or captured
248 tanks destroyed
200 aircraft downed
German losses according to Soviet sources:
500,000 dead, wounded, or captured
900 tanks destroyed
3,000 aircraft downed
Soviet losses according to German sources:
180,000 dead, wounded, or captured
1,600 tanks damaged or destroyed
1,000 aircraft damaged or downed
Soviet losses according to Soviet sources:
863,303 all causes
6,064 tanks damaged or destroyed
1,100-1,200 aircraft damaged or destroyed

The Germans way underestimated how many they had killed, so saw it as a stunning defeat. My point is that throughout the war the Soviet resistance and the performance of the Soviet army was pathetic. They suffered defeat after defeat where they had all advantages, and when the won victories, it was an so much a higher cost than it should have been. Of course they did not do everything wrong, but mostly they wore the Germans down by throwing tons of men at them. (Kind of like what that ***-for-brains gloryhound Nimmitz did in the Pacific Theatre)
Point is, that judging from the performance of the Soviet Army, I think that it is fair to say that it was not Stalin's military capability that defeated Germany, but rather the fact that his propaganda and use of terror would keep the citizens of Russia motivated enough to defend their homeland (similar to Churchill in England). Under different leadership, an army like the Soviet Army should have been able to do a lot better.

[Fixiwee]

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...

Hahaha. Awesome.

[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.

[Caius]

Great one, Sarmatian! Gave him what he deserved!!

During WWII the only cold winter was in 1941-1942, and the Wehrmacht lacked necessary supplies, such as winter uniforms, due to the many delays in the German army's movements. Hitler's plans for Operation Barbarossa also miscarried before the onset of severe winter weather: he was so confident of a lightning victory that he did not prepare for even the possibility of winter warfare in Russia. Yet his eastern army suffered more than 734,000 casualties (about 23 percent of its average strength of 3,200,000 troops) during the first five months of the invasion, and on 27 November 1941, General Eduard Wagner, the Quartermaster General of the German Army, reported that
"We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and materiel. We are about to be confronted with the dangers of deep winter."

My dear authoritarian, see what I say now? Your efforts to have a good impression with your comrade Stalin will be rewarded when the world is under the threat of communism. Communism is, of course, a good idea, but the best argument against communist is a five minutes talk with the follower (forgive me Winston).


But, like I said, authoritarians are too busy to prove their points, instead having other ideas, they put in ridicule any other ideas.


If you don't like that someone thinks in that way, prove that this person is wrong. This, my commie, is called discussion. When you are aware of this fact, please return. If you don't like this, then click in the X button. You know life can be harsh when they tell you that life is full of roses.

[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.

[Vuk]

My dear authoritarian, see what I say now? Your efforts to have a good impression with your comrade Stalin will be rewarded when the world is under the threat of communism. Communism is, of course, a good idea, but the best argument against communist is a five minutes talk with the follower (forgive me Winston).


But, like I said, authoritarians are too busy to prove their points, instead having other ideas, they put in ridicule any other ideas.


If you don't like that someone thinks in that way, prove that this person is wrong. This, my commie, is called discussion. When you are aware of this fact, please return. If you don't like this, then click in the X button. You know life can be harsh when they tell you that life is full of roses.

I am afraid that you may get in a little trouble for calling him a commie Caius, so I cannot say that I agree to that part (lest I may also get in trouble), but I agree with everything else. Communism (like socialism and anarchism) sounds perfect, but it is only a fairy tale, because it does not take reality into account. You cannot kill human nature without killing humans (something Communist did lots of). You need a system that will work WITH human nature (and to safely blunt the dark side of it), not ignore it.

[Caius]

I think I confused the term with communist supporter, which him has declared to be so. I apologize for the mistake.

[Sarmatian]

Yes, what he deserved for even questioning that the Soviets are not responsible for saving the world! (PS, I am NOT a Stalin sympathizer)

And if not for the ridiculously harsh winter that the Germans were in equipped for, it is very much likely that they would have succeded. Russian resistance was pathetic. Look at the Battle of Kursk.
All of Hitler's generals begged him not to do it, because not only was it useless, but the Russians had every advantage. The Germans had to take a nearly impossible fortified postion, were out number by an outrageous amount, were ill equipped, and fighting Russia's veterans. The Russians had high ground, spent days fortifying it with mines, tank traps, brabed wire, machine gun nests, artillery, etc. The Russians should have won with almost no casualties, instead, they got beaten so badly that if Germans had struck again, they would have had the numerical advantage and closer to even eqipment this time. EI, it is likely that if the Germans had struck again, they would have won. Here are the stats I pulled off of Wiki:

Casualties and losses
German losses according to German sources:
50,000 dead, wounded, or captured
248 tanks destroyed
200 aircraft downed
German losses according to Soviet sources:
500,000 dead, wounded, or captured
900 tanks destroyed
3,000 aircraft downed
Soviet losses according to German sources:
180,000 dead, wounded, or captured
1,600 tanks damaged or destroyed
1,000 aircraft damaged or downed
Soviet losses according to Soviet sources:
863,303 all causes
6,064 tanks damaged or destroyed
1,100-1,200 aircraft damaged or destroyed

The Germans way underestimated how many they had killed, so saw it as a stunning defeat. My point is that throughout the war the Soviet resistance and the performance of the Soviet army was pathetic. They suffered defeat after defeat where they had all advantages, and when the won victories, it was an so much a higher cost than it should have been. Of course they did not do everything wrong, but mostly they wore the Germans down by throwing tons of men at them. (Kind of like what that ***-for-brains gloryhound Nimmitz did in the Pacific Theatre)
Point is, that judging from the performance of the Soviet Army, I think that it is fair to say that it was not Stalin's military capability that defeated Germany, but rather the fact that his propaganda and use of terror would keep the citizens of Russia motivated enough to defend their homeland (similar to Churchill in England). Under different leadership, an army like the Soviet Army should have been able to do a lot better.

Your sources are quite off the mark. During the battle of Kursk, Soviet losses were 177,847 (70,330 KIA and 107,517 wounded), 1,614 tanks, SP guns and other armoured vehicles, 3929 pieces of artillery and 459 aircraft. In the counteroffensive (Orel offensive, 12 July) Soviet lost 429,890 men (112,529 KIA and 317,361 wounded). So even we take the losses from Kursk and the subsequent Orel offensive, Soviets lost about 600,000 men, about a third of it KIA the rest wounded.

Anyway, Soviet performance was pathetic only '41 and '42. In '43 and onward Soviets surpassed the Germans on strategic level, although they didn't catch up on tactical level up to '45. The main reason for it is that Soviet command cadre finally matured enough to properly use Deep Operations doctrine which was more than a match for Blitzkrieg.

My dear authoritarian, see what I say now? Your efforts to have a good impression with your comrade Stalin will be rewarded when the world is under the threat of communism. Communism is, of course, a good idea, but the best argument against communist is a five minutes talk with the follower (forgive me Winston).


But, like I said, authoritarians are too busy to prove their points, instead having other ideas, they put in ridicule any other ideas.


If you don't like that someone thinks in that way, prove that this person is wrong. This, my commie, is called discussion. When you are aware of this fact, please return. If you don't like this, then click in the X button. You know life can be harsh when they tell you that life is full of roses.

The idea that it was winter what stopped the Germans is laughable. At the beginning of Barbarossa, the goal was to to destroy the bulk of Red Army and not the capture of the specific city, Moscow in this case. The offensive on Moscow (Operation Typhoon) by Army Group Center, didn't start until September. Before Barbarossa, Hitler declared that "Moscow is of no importance". That's why he actually transferred many of the panzer groups from army group Center (which was the strongest of the three army groups) to army group South. The idea was to cripple the Red Army so much that USSR is forced to capitulate. Of course, it didn't happen, so in September army group Center was reinforced, got its panzer division back from the south and was supposed to take Moscow in October, in a last ditch effort to end the war swiftly. Very stiff Russian resistance (especially around Smolensk) slowed the offensive to a crawl so that it didn't reach the vicinity of Moscow until end of November. Other aspect is that the Germans simply weren't able to organize effective logistics, so their offensives were often stopped because of lack of supplies. Logistical problems and Soviet resistance was the reason the operation was almost 2 months behind schedule. The severe winter that stopped the offensive for a short time played much less important role than these two factors.

Of course, there is the other problem, that is, people assume that Soviets would surrender if they lost Moscow while everything points otherwise - Moscow industry was dismantled and shipped east, government was moved to Kybishev. Soviets were prepared for the possibility to lose Moscow and to continue fighting.

In general, winter, unless it was very severe, didn't stop operations. If you take a look at the Eastern Front, you'll see that every winter from '41 to '45 had major offensive operations. Unless very severe, winter time was actually welcome as the ground was solid which made easier for mechanized forces to move, for both sides. The problem wasn't winter but rasputitsa, the period in Spring when snow thaws and creates deep mud through which mechanized forces can't move. That's the only period of the war on the Eastern Front where there was practically no activity by either side.

[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!

[Brenus]

“Hitler lost his nerve during Barbarossa” In doing what?
Barbarossa failed because the Blitzkrieg failed… The initial plan (a little bit like Napoleon) was to destroy the Russian/Red army at the borders then to oblige the Tsar/1st Secretary to negotiate or capitulate.
In both case it didn’t work and the Russian armies did succeeded to retreat with heavy loses in both cases.
Then the German’s equipment was not designed for a long war of attrition (no strategic bombers, short range fighters, light and medium tanks with narrow caterpillars –good for French roads, not good for Russian plains and mud).
However, the first counter-offensive in Moscow is launch by Zhukov in end of 1941, so merely 6 months after the start of Barbarossa.
These are facts.
Putting the German defeat on winter is absurd. As one of them said if you can’t predict the weather you can predict the season, so to be surprise by winter is more that surprising…

“Had he given them free reign” Again, to do what? They did what they could, until they faced not only KV5 and T34 but generals able to manoeuvre them…

The panzers were useless in Stalingrad, Leningrad or Sebastopol. The Red Army succeeded in imposing their war to the Germans. No fast and daring manoeuvres, no, just fortified position and use of artillery and infantry you can’t ignored or avoid.

“All of Hitler's generals begged him not to do it”: So what the generals wanted to do? Kursk was a gamble. It looks like Hitler and Stalin had some secrets negotiation and Stalin wanted a return to the borders of 1941. Hitler decided to show he still had teeth…
Even a victory in Kursk wouldn’t have defeated the Red Army at this point…
Remember that the attack on Kursk was called off because the Russian started an offensive on other flank (and because the Russian defences were still holding)… It was the last cast of dices to regain the upper hand, the initiative.
Like most of the Hitler’s plans, it makes sense until you’ve got the realty check…But that was the idea…
Concerning Moscow, Stalingrad and other major failures, most of the time that wasn’t Hitler initial plan… It was his generals who convinced him to take Moscow, or Stalingrad (and later of couse blamed him for their own failures).
Hitler was more obsess by oil and ore (reason why he had to attack Greece when the Italians embarked in this war, The Italian defeat put the Rumanian oil fields within the English bombers range) than in symbols. At least at the start of the war…