This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Stalin

Scroll to see replies

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?

Reply 41

ScotlandStandUp

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.

Reply 42

Paul PTS

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.

Reply 43

Paul PTS

ScotlandStandUp

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.

Reply 44

quizster

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.

Reply 45

borismor

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.

Reply 46

borismor

ScotlandStandUp

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.

Reply 47

Joluk

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?

Reply 48

Paul PTS

borismor

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.

Reply 49

Georgecopter

Stalin wasn't pursuing Communism

Reply 50

enon

Joluk

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.

Reply 51

ScotlandStandUp

Joluk

Stalin didn't kill 30 million Soviets, that's an outrageous claim that has been proven to be false countless times.

Reply 52

hollo

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.

Reply 53

borismor

Paul PTS

History fail.

Reply 54

Paul PTS

borismor

History fail.

Tell us better what the God ordered to King Saul to do with Hanaan nations?
And where are Hanaan nations now?

Reply 55

borismor

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.

Reply 56

Joluk

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.

Reply 57

borismor

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.

Reply 58

enon

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.