Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frollo)
    You regard Hitler as a worse person than stalin? Though Hitler brings about nightmare to Europe, he helped German out from the depression very successfully and effectively. That was only achieved by president Franklin Rossevelt at the same time! Stalin kills over half of his military commanders to keep his throne safe! And that's why Russian army was flushed by the German at the first stage of the war. Hitler is a criminal, a bet loser who losed himself and German and the whole world, but he is not a foolish ruthless killer like Stalin.
    What about the jews, communists, blacks, gays, poles(and other eastern europeans) who were gased because of Hitler's ideology?

    Is that not a sign of a foolish ruthless killer?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by borismor)
    Doesn't change the fact that Stalin was willing to cooperate with him.

    Hence - scum of the earth.
    Well that's debatable, it's believed that he signed the pact to buy more time, he knew war was coming which is why he started mass-producing arms for the Red Army, I think deep down he knew the pact wasn't going to last forever as Hitler had already shown that he hated communists.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by borismor)
    As for the development of the Russian people - the generation that grew under Stalin is struck by trauma of hunger, poverty and constant fear. Life under Stalin was unbearable. My grandmother was so paranoid that even when she lived in Israel, she hid her money inside a frozen chicken instead of putting it in the bank (not kidding).

    I recommend that you read "we the living" for a personal account of life in communist Russia.
    Read "Ivanov and Rabinovich.I go to Haifa."
    And remember - most old people who lived under Stalin's reign tell about him mostly good things.For them he is national hero.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScotlandStandUp)
    Well that's debatable, it's believed that he signed the pact to buy more time, he knew war was coming which is why he started mass-producing arms for the Red Army, I think deep down he knew the pact wasn't going to last forever as Hitler had already shown that he hated communists.
    You are right.Red Army was building like attaking Army and not Defence.To retreat mean to betray.Like in the Roman Impire.If soldiers retreated-decimation - bullet for every tenth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Case of his negative contributions far outweighing his postive contributions to the world. Yes, sure he did help modernise the USSR, and circumstances led him to play a role in defeating the Nazi's, yet his human rights crime make all this pale into comparison.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    Read "Ivanov and Rabinovich.I go to Haifa."
    And remember - most old people who lived under Stalin's reign tell about him mostly good things.For them he is national hero.
    You have no idea what you're talking about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScotlandStandUp)
    Well that's debatable, it's believed that he signed the pact to buy more time, he knew war was coming which is why he started mass-producing arms for the Red Army, I think deep down he knew the pact wasn't going to last forever as Hitler had already shown that he hated communists.
    Actually it's not debatable at all. Stalin was building arms to conquer the part of Europe that was assigned to him, not to attack Hitler. Remember that he attacked Finland right after his pact with the Nazi's.

    As a matter of fact he refused to believe it when reports came in saying the Wehrmacht was preparing for an attack. That's how bad he's been fooled by Hitler.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DR_X)
    I see him as a neccesary evil.....
    That's a disgusting view, 30 million deaths were necessary?? I suppose you'd be an apologist for Pol Pot as well eh? Eradicating 20% of the people living in your country is all good and proper in the pursuit of Communism right?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by borismor)
    Actually it's not debatable at all. Stalin was building arms to conquer the part of Europe that was assigned to him, not to attack Hitler. Remember that he attacked Finland right after his pact with the Nazi's.
    Finland was asked beforehand - to remove it's border a little not to make danger to Leningrad.
    Finland was ruled by Mannergaim who was on another side during civil war.
    The part of Europe which you are talking about are Balkanian states which always asked to connect them to Russia.For centures.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Stalin wasn't pursuing Communism
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joluk)
    That's a disgusting view, 30 million deaths were necessary?? I suppose you'd be an apologist for Pol Pot as well eh? Eradicating 20% of the people living in your country is all good and proper in the pursuit of Communism right?
    Actually, Pol Pot's regime had nothing to do with Soviet-sponsored international communism. Pol Pot was seen as an extremist in his own country, and only came to power in 1975 after the American bombing of Cambodia from the late 60s onwards (in which more tonnage was dropped than in ALL of WW2, including Hiroshima+Nagasaki) forced ordinary Cambodians to fight for him, as they saw Prince Norodom Sihanouk as an American stooge.

    Pol Pot's brutal repression had little to do with Communist ideology. He instead implemented a much cruder version of agrarian Maoism, that rejected industrialization (and education, and currency systems, every facet of modern life really) and focused on economic autarky. To accomplish this however, he needed to take territory from Vietnam and restore part of the historical Khmer empire of Kampuchea Krom (which included control of several disputed islands with considerable military and economic value). His economic ideology was clearly collectivist, but politically he was a fascist all the way.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joluk)
    That's a disgusting view, 30 million deaths were necessary?? I suppose you'd be an apologist for Pol Pot as well eh? Eradicating 20% of the people living in your country is all good and proper in the pursuit of Communism right?
    Stalin didn't kill 30 million Soviets, that's an outrageous claim that has been proven to be false countless times.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScotlandStandUp)
    Do any of you regard him as the saviour of humanity or even an idol, influence or inspiration?
    No. If it hadn't been for him I think Communism would have done a lot better and there might have been some pretty successful socialist states inspired by the USSR. As it was, he failed to leave behind much of a legacy and following the collapse of communism Russians are looking back to his era a 'the good old days' because it left nothing for them now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    Finland was asked beforehand - to remove it's border a little not to make danger to Leningrad.
    Finland was ruled by Mannergaim who was on another side during civil war.
    The part of Europe which you are talking about are Balkanian states which always asked to connect them to Russia.For centures.
    History fail.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by borismor)
    History fail.
    Tell us better what the God ordered to King Saul to do with Hanaan nations?
    And where are Hanaan nations now?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by enon)
    Pol Pot's brutal repression had little to do with Communist ideology. He instead implemented a much cruder version of agrarian Maoism, that rejected industrialization (and education, and currency systems, every facet of modern life really) and focused on economic autarky.
    Well this has everything to do with Communism. The very word means a society made out of agrarian communes with no specialization of skill
    or use of currency.

    Pol Pot merely hastened the process.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScotlandStandUp)
    Stalin didn't kill 30 million Soviets, that's an outrageous claim that has been proven to be false countless times.
    It's hardly outrageous, most Historians agree that the number of deaths attributed to Stalin was 10-30 million, i guess 20 million (i.e Robert Conquest) is more realistic though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    Tell us better what the God ordered to King Saul to do with Hanaan nations?
    And where are Hanaan nations now?
    What the hell are you talking about, troll? Stay on topic.

    Finland was attacked after the pact, and Poland most definitely did not want to be occupied by the communists OR the Nazi's.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by borismor)
    Well this has everything to do with Communism. The very word means a society made out of agrarian communes with no specialization of skill
    or use of currency.

    Pol Pot merely hastened the process.

    Actually it doesn't. I don't know whether you've read any Marx/Engels, but Communism, both socialism as defined by Marx, and Soviet communism in practice were based on the dictatorship of the proletariat, which could only happen once the state had industrialized and implemented things like economies of scale and mass production...both of which refute your comment about 'agrarian communes' and 'no specialization'. If the point of communism was to de-industrialize, then neither Stalin nor Lenin would have wasted their time with collectivist agriculture and state ownership of natural resources...Russian industry had been dead in the water since the death of Peter the Great, and the Tsars had only made it worse. A strong military was also crucial to the sustenance of a communist regime (by deterring external intervention). Pol Pot knew that he had China (and to some extent, the US) on his side from 1975-79, so he could rely on their aid to build up his forces. Russia circa 1917 could not do the same, hence furthering the need for industrial development through military advancement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joluk)
    That's a disgusting view, 30 million deaths were necessary?? I suppose you'd be an apologist for Pol Pot as well eh? Eradicating 20% of the people living in your country is all good and proper in the pursuit of Communism right?

    Depends on the conquences of what would ahve happened if Russia didn't have stalin....
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 19, 2009
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.