Discussion of Stalinism

[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…

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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, but I believe it went a little further than that. Saying that Stalin may have done some good things is fine, but outright praise of him and drastically playing down the numbers of those he killed certainly is not.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

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!

This basicly echos my take on the whole issue. I wrote an essay in Year 11 History entitled 'What Hitler did for Germany', specificly arguing that if he didn't go to war then he would be considered a good leader. I personally abhor any sort of dictatorship, and readily admit Hitler did many terrible things, but it is fact that elements of his rule, even if done for the wrong reasons had a good outcome.

I know little of Stalin so I wouldn't be able to give specific examples for him without drawing heavily on what has already been said (so I won't....).

[LittleGrizzly]

Saying that Stalin may have done some good things is fine, but outright praise of him

This is probably where we come down to our personal subjective opinions, but i haven't seen what i would call outright praise of him....

and drastically playing down the numbers of those he killed certainly is not.

I suppose this comes down to the validity of Sam's arguments, there is certainly nothing wrong with discussing the numbers, and valid points which partially discredit the numbers aren't Stalin praise. this again comes down to subjective opinions on the validity of Sam's points. Then lastly it is the intent you garner from the poster, which is why i think its wrong to accuse Sam of Stalin worship as he doesn't come across to me as a Stalin lover in his posts...

I wrote an essay in Year 11 History entitled 'What Hitler did for Germany', specificly arguing that if he didn't go to war then he would be considered a good leader.

I would probably agree. Hitler did alot of good for Germany in his early days... the main problem i had however was to what degree the good successes he had relied on the bad things he did...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

This basicly echos my take on the whole issue. I wrote an essay in Year 11 History entitled 'What Hitler did for Germany', specificly arguing that if he didn't go to war then he would be considered a good leader. I personally abhor any sort of dictatorship, and readily admit Hitler did many terrible things, but it is fact that elements of his rule, even if done for the wrong reasons had a good outcome.

The repression and extermination of Jews and other ethnic minorities, communists, liberals, homosexuals et all was not part of the war - I assume that was an oversight on your part.

Furthermore, nearly all of the things done during his regime were part of systematic abuse of the politically, physically, or culturally "unfit", not to mention forcing independent commerce to cater to those repressions.

So yes, if Hitler hadn't killed or repressed people, he would've been a good leader. He wouldn't have done anything.

[Brenus]

"had a good outcome." Like what? Motorways?

[Caius]

"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.

Moscow had no importance but yet they tried to capture the city?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

The repression and extermination of Jews and other ethnic minorities, communists, liberals, homosexuals et all was not part of the war - I assume that was an oversight on your part.

Furthermore, nearly all of the things done during his regime were part of systematic abuse of the politically, physically, or culturally "unfit", not to mention forcing independent commerce to cater to those repressions.

So yes, if Hitler hadn't killed or repressed people, he would've been a good leader. He wouldn't have done anything.

Hey I didn't say that I didn't mention that and this was from 4 years ago. I was just making the point that saying elements of a regime's results are a good thing isn't the same as admiring the means it was acheived or the regime itself.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I recall only arguing that side of it because my teacher said anyone who did would be insane... I got an A...

[Sarmatian]

No, but I believe it went a little further than that. Saying that Stalin may have done some good things is fine, but outright praise of him and drastically playing down the numbers of those he killed certainly is not.

Bah, there's no reason for me to play down the numbers. I'm not Russian, actually I'm not from any of the former Soviet republics, I'm not a communist and I don't have any love for Stalin. It is actually you who are inflating the numbers, constantly refusing to look at the demographic situation, which speaks volumes in this case.

How many Ukrainians you said Stalin killed through Holodomor? 20 millions? Ok, let's see.

According to 1897 census in the Russian Empire there were 22,380,551 Ukrainians in Russian Empire. Now, it would be better if we had some later census to take a look at as it would allow us to estimate more accurately the number of Ukrainians in 1932-1933, but census scheduled for 1915 never happened because of the first world war. Never fear though, as we can compare how much population increased in other European countries during the same period and make a pretty accurate estimation. So, let's see.

(in millions)
France:
1900 - 38.9
1930 - 41.6

Spain:
1900 - 18.5
1930 - 23.3

Portugal:
1900 - 5.4
1930 - 6.8

Germany:
1900 - 56.4
1930 - 65.1

Italy:
1900 - 32.4
1930 - 40.9

We see that population increase was mostly between 10% and 20%, and we know that in 1900 there were app. 22 million Ukrainians. If we apply the trend we've seen in other European countries there couldn't have been more than 25-26 millions of Ukrainians in 1930. But just for the fun of it, let's assume than in the case of Ukraine population increase was 50%. That would place the total number of Ukrainians in 1930 at slightly above 30 millions. Now, 5.5 millions of these 30 lived in Poland in the interwar period, because they were in the territories Russian Empire lost and they were out of Stalin's reach and not affected by Holodomor. That leaves 25-27 millions Ukrainians in the USSR in 1930's. So if your number is correct, it means that during that one year of Holodomor, more than 80% of all Ukrainians in USSR died, leaving only 5 millions. And then again those 5 + 5.5 from Poland became 50-60 millions today, which means that in roughly 70 years, Ukrainian population increased 500% or 600%.

That's assuming there was a 50% increase in population between 1900 and 1930. If we assume that increase in population was like in all other European countries, we can only conclude that more Ukrainians died than ever lived in the Soviet Union and to get to the number of Ukrainians today, there would have to be an increase 1000% to 1200% (from those 5.5 millions left in Poland).

If you would be so kind to explain to me how is that possible, I'd be very grateful...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It is actually you who are inflating the numbers, constantly refusing to look at the demographic situation, which speaks volumes in this case.

On the contrary, I use historical works and the meticulous compilations of reliable historians and universities. You try to use demographics to show the whole story, despite repeated statements that they cannot.

How many Ukrainians you said Stalin killed through Holodomor? 20 millions? Ok, let's see.

I said no such figure. In fact, that is twice the number that is estimated by historians on the high end. No offence, but you're pulling figures out of thin air to try to prove someone wrong on a statement they haven't made because of an opinion they do not hold.

[Sarmatian]

On the contrary, I use historical works and the meticulous compilations of reliable historians and universities. You try to use demographics to show the whole story, despite repeated statements that they cannot.

I'm just showing that even a quick check of something as plain and as available as population numbers discredits those figures.

I said no such figure. In fact, that is twice the number that is estimated by historians on the high end. No offence, but you're pulling figures out of thin air to try to prove someone wrong on a statement they haven't made because of an opinion they do not hold.

You really didn't. I was 100% sure that you did, so much that I even didn't bother to check and quote that post. Bah, I was arguing a point no one made, and it took me 10 minutes to write that post

Sorry about that

[Kralizec]

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 ?

I don't think that there is, or has been, a single person who only has done bad things or only has had bad qualities. I bet there were quite a few serial killers who lovingly cared for their cats or dogs.

The autobahn netword was planned for by the chancellor before Hitler, by the way.

[Brenus]

“Moscow had no importance but yet they tried to capture the city?” Communication centre, industry, and prestige. What a propaganda coup it would have been…
Not sure it would have end the war, but…
"The autobahn netword was planned for by the chancellor before Hitler, by the way." Most of the economical achievements credited to Hitler were de facto the result of Weimar... Even the good chape of the Reichwher (sp?).