Stalin

[Franconicus]

Panzer and I we had a short discussion about Stalin. Was he a communist? Panzer seemed to think so. I think he is rather a fascist. What do you think?
(I know that he was head of a so called Communist Party. But Hitler was head of a so called Socialist Party - so what?)

I'd rather see this in the Monastry. But it could lead to political discussions. Well, the moderators can move it if they want to.

[Redleg]

Stalin was a Stalinist. The regime of North Korea is often called not just a communist regime but a Stalinist Regime.

Personally I think Stalin was definetly a despot who used communism for his own agenda.

[Ser Clegane]

Stalin was a fascist.

I would even go as far as to say that with regards to some important aspects the US is closer to the actual idea of Communism than the Stalinistic USSR was.

[Al Khalifah]

Stalin was a true national socialist.

[Ronin]

he was a communist.....the thing is that once in power there really isn´t much of a diference( in practical terms) between a communist and a fascist.

[Al Khalifah]

Actually, to advance my former statement, consider this:

If the definition of communism is a belief in the principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
If the definition of fascism is a belief in the principles of Order, Discipline and Hierarchy.

Then surely Stalin reflected the latter far more than the former.

[bmolsson]

Stalin was nuts...

[Ronin]

Stalin was nuts...

best definition so far

[Franconicus]

Men died for less!

[Al Khalifah]

The absolute hordes of people who queued to see his coffin suggest that he can't have been all bad. He did manage to force Russia from being a backwards pre-industrial nation to being a world superpower, which is highly respectable. Some people just got in his way I guess.

[Franconicus]

It was all propaganda! Some people still believe in him today.

[IliaDN]

Panzer and I we had a short discussion about Stalin. Was he a communist? Panzer seemed to think so. I think he is rather a fascist. What do you think?
(I know that he was head of a so called Communist Party. But Hitler was head of a so called Socialist Party - so what?)

I'd rather see this in the Monastry. But it could lead to political discussions. Well, the moderators can move it if they want to.

Why would you call him a fascist?
IMHO he did what had to be done.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Stalin was evil.

My grandpa was telling me about when he was in post war germany.


He saw some russian soldiers he made fun of them or something while walking by. One Russian responded back in perfect english. My grandpa went back and talked to the guy. It turned out the guys family was still in russia and unless he came back and into the military they would be shot. This happened to many people.

[IliaDN]

It was all propaganda!

From both sides.

[Franconicus]

Why would you call him a fascist?
IMHO he did what had to be done.

IliaDN, I just refered to Panzers definition, which is not bad:
Benevolent fascist - which includes beliefs in a strong military, aggressive foriegn policy, traditionalism, nationalism, anti-communism/socialism, government-industry cooperation, a strong role for the military in the government and does not include beliefs in genocide, concentration camps, political assassinations and all those nasty habits that gave fascism such a bad name in the 30s.
I think Stalin was everything.

How do you call him?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Stalin was most similar to a fascist, though he definately brought his own twist to it.

He definately was not a good guy and was not good for Russia, how can killing off the officer class be good? Especially with an expansionist Germany on your borders?

His purges greatly weakened Russia and many of the projects that were built by the Gulag system were never really used, for example the waterway to Archangel. It was built and required iirc 9 gates to lower the water level, many people died while building it. It never recieved much use and was never a practical project, it was pure propaganda and even today only a few ships go through a day.

[IliaDN]

Stalin was most similar to a fascist, though he definately brought his own twist to it.

He definately was not a good guy and was not good for Russia, how can killing off the officer class be good? Especially with an expansionist Germany on your borders?

It was done to mantain order.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Stalin was a commie simple as that. Communism is EVIL Regimes like North Korea And The soviet union is what will happen with communism.

[IliaDN]

IliaDN, I just refered to Panzers definition, which is not bad:
Benevolent fascist - which includes beliefs in a strong military, aggressive foriegn policy, traditionalism, nationalism, anti-communism/socialism, government-industry cooperation, a strong role for the military in the government and does not include beliefs in genocide, concentration camps, political assassinations and all those nasty habits that gave fascism such a bad name in the 30s.
I think Stalin was everything.

How do you call him?

1.Belief in strong military - how many strong countries without such belief do you know?
2.Traditionalism - don't UK have it as well?
3.Other points you mentioned are common for any dictatorship (except only anti-communism/socialism ).

[Franconicus]

This thread is getting better than supposed!

IliaDn, can you explain your picture of Stalin?

[IliaDN]

Ok, here is a picture:
I don't approve all of his actions ( there were a lot of not clever things done either by him or by his name ( e.g. such as restricting different branches of science ).
But as for his stict regime - it was necessary, because the country didn't fully heal after the civil war and the risk of the second revolution was high + many foreign countries were at rather bad relations with the USSR ...
SO in general he was that strong hand which was needed to mantain country in stability.

[Franconicus]

I see what you mean.
I do not want to compare him with Hitler but many people in Germany might have used the same words about him in 1939. Very interesting!

[IliaDN]

I see what you mean.
I do not want to compare him with Hitler but many people in Germany might have used the same words about him in 1939. Very interesting!

You know maybe it is too hard to say if the person was good for country and nation or not.
As for Stalin's regime our country needed global changes not to roll down to some 3 world countries ... and the price was paid ........

[scooter_the_shooter]

was 40 million people worth it??? in your opinion??

[IliaDN]

was 40 million people worth it??? in your opinion??

Tell me how did you get this number.

[Meneldil]

Well, I'm don't want to sound insulting to IliaDN, but from what I hear and read in the news, Russia is quite a crappy country right now. A lot of people think that what Stalin and his fellows have done was 'the best thing to do', and that everything was better back in USSR (no unemployement, no guys like khodorkovski, no terrorism).
As a westerner, I can't really understand how the Russians still like someone who appears to have crippled their country, killed millions of people, and whose only achievement was to turn Russia into the 2nd biggest military power and to invade a lot of other countries that became bloody communist dictatorship.

That's exactly what you hear when you listen to some neo-nazis when they speak about Hitler : "Germany was weak, he achieved to turn it into the most powerful country in Europe and deserves some respect. The Holocaust ? It was needed/It has been invented by the jews and the US".

[IliaDN]

Well, I'm don't want to sound insulting to IliaDN, but from what I hear and read in the news, Russia is quite a crappy country right now. A lot of people think that what Stalin and his fellows have done was 'the best thing to do', and that everything was better back in USSR (no unemployement, no guys like khodorkovski, no terrorism).
As a westerner, I can't really understand how the Russians still like someone who appears to have crippled their country, killed millions of people, and whose only achievement was to turn Russia into the 2nd biggest military power and to invade a lot of other countries that became bloody communist dictatorship.

That's exactly what you hear when you listen to some neo-nazis when they speak about Hitler : "Germany was weak, he achieved to turn it into the most powerful country in Europe and deserves some respect. The Holocaust ? It was needed/It has been invented by the jews and the US".

1. No offense taken.
2. It was the price, but not all those millions were inncents.
3. He did much more then you have mentioned.
4. Nowadays people just want order, and if you ask me at least half of our goverment must be shot or send to build roads in Syberia.

[Meneldil]

Well, I'm not sure that a leader has to kill millions of people to turn a bacward country into a world military/economic power, but then, I've never ruled any country (hopefully).
I don't really see how the Tatars, the Volga Germans, the Poles killed at Katyn, the Ukrenians killed between 1918 and 1922 were guilty of anything, and for that matter, more guilty than the Jews killed by Hitler.

I think Stalin was the bloodiest man that ever existed on earth, and I probably won't change my mind on this.

It is generally agreed by historians that if famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and state terrorism (deportations and political purges) are taken into account, Stalin and his colleagues were directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions. How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million. Comparison of the 1926–37 census results suggests 5–10 million deaths in excess of what would be normal in the period, mostly through famine in 1931–34. The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million and in 1937 another census found a population of between 162 and 163 million. This was 14 million less than the projected population value and was suppressed as a "wrecker's census" with the census takers severely punished. A census was taken again in 1939, but its published figure of 170 million has been generally attributed directly to the decision of Stalin[7] (see also Demographics of the Soviet Union). Note that the figure of 14 million does not have to imply 14 million additional deaths, since as many as 3 million may be births that never took place due to reduced fertility and choice.

Since "the margin of error" with regard to the number of Stalin's victims is virtually impossible to narrow down to a universally accepted figure, various historians have come up with extremely varying numbers of Stalinist terror victims.

Other useful link : http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

[Franconicus]

I once read the book of Falin, I think he was advisor of Gorbatschow. It was about the USSR in WW2. It was a completley different view from what I have learned. Very interesting. I do not agree with everything he sadi but at least it shows that the things may not always be the way we in the west think they are.

[IliaDN]

the Ukrenians killed between 1918 and 1922 were guilty of anything, and for that matter, more guilty than the Jews killed by Hitler.

Those dates are civil war, not rule of Stalin.