Turn on thread page Beta

Stalin more accepted than Hitler watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    No.


    I agree that people are far too uncritical of regimes like the USSR. Brushing the gulags, deportation of ethnic groups, and the Ukrainian famine under the carpet is just as bad as denying the existance of Auschwitz, in my opinion.
    But everyone knows that Communism is a nice and fluffy regime that helps the poor etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by temporary_username)
    Stalin had a proper mandate, I don't know why people don't accept that. If they were unhappy with his policies they would have just voted him out

    LMAO!!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by temporary_username)
    Stop using the term Gulag in a negative light. Gulag's were given 5 stars for conditions by Amnesty International
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophisti_kate)
    Have you actually read any Russian/Soviet history?! One could argue that maybe, and only maybe, Lenin had some sort of mandate from the people (ignoring the fact that the Whites, Liberals, moderates, Mensheviks etc outnumbered support for Lenin) but Stalin manouvered and manipulated his way into power after Lenin died and you certainly could not vote him out. Mutter even a word against the man and you would never be seen again.

    No fair, free or secret ballots even when there were elections for lower officials who had already been decided by Stalin and co.

    Read "The People's Tragedy" or "The Whisperers" and then come back here.
    Not to mention Lenin did not want Stalin to succeed him.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Stalin is a russia political leader,
    Hitler is a criminal,
    a criminal is of course harder to be acceptable
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eric Qin)
    Stalin is a russia political leader,
    Hitler is a criminal,
    a criminal is of course harder to be acceptable
    Stalin was a war criminal aswell, I'm afraid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But there's a logical explanation at the heart of why the Soviet ruler is still not seen as darkly as he should be; which is that we still exist, to some extent, in the long shadow of the rosy-eyed material about the USSR churned out by the Western Allies during World War II.
    This was pretty much my view. On top this, could it be possible that the hatred of Hitler's attrocities is mixed up with the 2nd World War. Insofar that people would not have cared as much if we hadn't fought a drawn out conflict with Hitler's Nazi regime and the attrocities were an extention of said regime. Wheras Russia under Stalin did all of it's attrocities without going to a shooting war with the west. This view will be unpopular and I'm not completely sold on it myself tbh, but it's seems quite plausible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrDuck)
    This was pretty much my view. On top this, could it be possible that the hatred of Hitler's attrocities is mixed up with the 2nd World War. Insofar that people would not have cared as much if we hadn't fought a drawn out conflict with Hitler's Nazi regime and the attrocities were an extention of said regime. Wheras Russia under Stalin did all of it's attrocities without going to a shooting war with the west. This view will be unpopular and I'm not completely sold on it myself tbh, but it's seems quite plausible.
    Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think there is a culture of condemning Hitler more vehemently than Stalin because the Holocaust gets way more publicity on the BBC and Channel 4, for example, than Stalin's wrongdoing. People don't really think about Russia.
    Personally, I think Russia's history is more interesting than that of Germany of the bad that occurred in the country is far worse.
    I suppose there may be an element of Britain talking more about Hitler also because Germany is nearer to us and the two countries were competitors in an economic race. We also have more links to Germany than to Russia, like with our Royal family and the Kaiser. I think Russia is such a vast, lately-developed country that is bewilders people. THeir military history perhaps unsettles or makes people steer further from it. Russia's history seems more sinister than Germany's more forthright regimes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by temporary_username)
    Stalin was democratically elected
    No, Stalin was never democratically elected and was never up for popular vote. He got into power and maintained it through murdering the opposition. Hitler, on the other hand, was democratically elected.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah well, Stalin was one who defeated Germany from eastern side. As we can say 'Winners are writing the history'. And communism is more accepted than fascism, Hitler is obvious icon of evil and suffering of milions of people, not everyone remember about Stalin's actions and policies, sadly which had to 'help' in building new soviet society and new order :rolleyes:

    @jacketpotato, absolutely true, even Lenin warned comrades about Stalin's hunger for power and his ambitions
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Stalin democratically elected?

    If killing and arresting all others in high positions, and replacing them with your cronies constitutes being democratically elected then sure, i guess Mugabe was democratically elected.

    Stalin killed tens of millions of his own countrymen, which is arguably just as bad as what Hitler did. I really don't understand how Russians themselves love him so much.
    Offline

    14
    I'm going to ignore the people here trying to justify Stalin, they're obviously just looking for a reaction.

    But I will say that I think Stalin and soviet Russia in general is too unknown. Everyone does so much Nazi Germany, and knows how bad fascism is etc but Stalin was in my opinion considerably worse than Hitler and nobody seems to realise. It'd be an important lesson about how the left can also go horribly wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Stalin was a war criminal aswell, I'm afraid.
    What court said this? Are you the judge and jury?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The young left love tyrants, the 21st venerates them on commercial clothing look at all the Che crap you can get.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think there's much point attempting to say whether Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany was worse. They were equally horrific. There's a point beyond which it becomes morbid and useless to compare wrongs.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    The people justifying Stalin on here seem to be saying he was democratically elected or had a popular mandate. Clearly they have never studied russian history.

    However, I do believe that some of what Stalin did was justifiable in that he took a very backward, unindustrialised country (95% of the population had been slaves less than 70 years before he came to power) and made it into a superpower. His regime may have been immoral, but it was certainly very effective and efficient in achieving certain goals despite the bureacracy.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    I'm going to ignore the people here trying to justify Stalin, they're obviously just looking for a reaction.

    But I will say that I think Stalin and soviet Russia in general is too unknown. Everyone does so much Nazi Germany, and knows how bad fascism is etc but Stalin was in my opinion considerably worse than Hitler and nobody seems to realise. It'd be an important lesson about how the left can also go horribly wrong.
    Do you really believe that Stalin was 'considerably worse' than Hitler? Is this about 'the numbers' or do you think Hitler has some endearing qualities which history has been unkind to?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarcastic pratchett fan)
    The people justifying Stalin on here seem to be saying he was democratically elected or had a popular mandate. Clearly they have never studied russian history.

    However, I do believe that some of what Stalin did was justifiable in that he took a very backward, unindustrialised country (95% of the population had been slaves less than 70 years before he came to power) and made it into a superpower. His regime may have been immoral, but it was certainly very effective and efficient in achieving certain goals despite the bureacracy.
    Stalin arguably built that bureaucracy, and his interference made the Soviet economy less efficient (arbitrary target re-setting, killing people who knew what they were doing, etc).

    The fact that 95% of the population were peasant serfs before 1861 doesn't really do much to alleviate the fact that pretty much everyone but Stalin, even to an extent including Stalin, eventually became a total slave of the Soviet state. I'd say that's worse, poorly built, poorly run, inefficient factories run on forced labour or not. Stalin also spent a hugely disproportionate percentage of GDP on the armed forces - their status as a "superpower" was based mainly on the size and threat of their army rather than a stable, long-term economic success IMO.

    But hey, at least they were industrialised right?!
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Yes Stalin established a highly inefficient bureacracy. Yes this bureacracy did hinder the USSR for years to come. Stalin's purges cripled the nation - the reason the USSR did so badly in WWII was they had no experienced commanders: Stalin had all the chiefs of staff, 90% of all Generals, 75% of those of rank above Captain and 50% of all commissioned officers killed or put in gulags. Similarly, the systems (ie, Communist) of production and the collectivisation of agriculture were not good for the USSR's long term econoic success. What he did do, however, was modernise russia. Up until the early 1900s, the whole of Russia survived almost entirely on subsistance farming. There was no industry whatsoever: whilst other nations had finished their industrial revolutions decades before, Russia had not started. This process did start before Stalin came to power, but it was very slow - particualrly in agriculture. Although Stalin put an inefficeint system in place (one which would not be able to compete with other modern economies in the late C20th) had effectively conducted Russia's industrial revolution in a decade whilst other nation's had taken place over 50 to a 100 years. Under Stalin, Russia effectively caught up with the rest of the world in its mechanisation, allowing it to compete for decades to come.

    I agree that the system he introduced was fundamentally flawed, but at least his implementation of Communism was infintely more efficient than that of leaders like Mao's.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,500

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.