Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    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.
    I don't see how this is a matter of debate. While the exact number may never be known, it is widely thought of as within 20-30 million. To say that Stalin "killed" them however is misleading. While thousands died in the Gulags, which he can be held directly responsible for, the vast majority died through starvation as a result of the failure of collectivist agriculture. Such an experiment had never taken place in the history of mankind, and mistakes, however massive and tragic, are to be expected. Recall also that the Soviet Union was then the largest contiguous state in the world (even the much smaller Russian Federation today spans 11 times zones) . In the age of the telegraph, carrier pigeon and extremely limited telephone infrastructure, it would have taken extremely long periods of time to send news of famine to Moscow. Of course, we can speculate as to whether that would have changed Stalin's perspective on the validity of the experiment, but all we have is speculation.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by enon)
    Russian industry had been dead in the water since the death of Peter the Great, and the Tsars had only made it worse.
    :confused:
    By the way Peter the Great died at begin of 18th century and Russia captured Germany in the middle of 18th century.So British money didn't help Fridrih der Grossen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Vivisteiner]He was a bad man, but he helped to defeat a badder man.


    To say that Stalin was not worse than Hitler isnt neccessarily true baring in mind some historians put the number that he murdered before WW2 at around 20 million. Hitler did obviously murder 6 million innocent people, but this was less than the number Stalin had the NKVD kill.

    However i suppose Hitler did provoke the war which killed around 55 million - so obviously there is a debate to be had there on who was 'badder'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I do think its wise to debate who was "badder" or the most evil. Who knows how many more people Hitler may have killed if given the chance, same could be said about Stalin. One murder on a person's hands is enough to clasify that person as "evil" in my opinion.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by borismor)
    You mean without "general winter".
    Soviet soldiers were experiencing exactly the same conditions.

    (Original post by 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.
    "Circumstances"?! I would like to hear some justification for that statement. It was not he who defeated the Nazis, it was the Soviet soldiers and their anger for all the Soviet blood spilt by the Germans. The Germans didn't just kill the fighting men when they advanced, the women and children were also put to the sword - their ideology taught them that Slavs are only one step higher on the racial ladder than the Jews and must also be exterminated to provide Germany with Lebersraum (living space) in the conquered territories, diaries from captured German soldiers often referred to Soviet men as dogs and scum, women as whores etc

    (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?
    are you referring to "GULAG deaths" or deaths in the war? GULAG deaths were most certainly unnecessary, anyone can see that, this is why Stalin IS indeed evil and I would rather have had him not happenned - however we must look and what DID happen, and Stalin was, whether you like it or not, responsible also for the set up of the industrial facilities necessary for the mass production of euqipment and war machinery for the Soviet soldiers to defeat the Nazis - and whether you like it or not the defeat of Germany by the USSR is better than the defeat of the USSR by Germany - it was not in the pursuit of communism, surely you can see that it is a veneer set up by Stalin to safeguard his position of power using fear and terror

    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    By the way Peter the Great died at begin of 18th century and Russia captured Germany in the middle of 18th century.So British money didn't help Fridrih der Grossen.
    i believe this refers to the defeat of Frederick the Great by a Russian led alliance in the Seven years war, and the miracle of the House of Brandenburg, where Russia's epress died and her successor was vividly pro-Prussian and pulled the Russian troops out of Germany, thus collapsing the alliance, when the Russian troops were encircling Berlin and Frederick the Great was on the verge of suicide

    also i am SICK AND TIRED of people referring to soldiers in WW2 as "Russian", this is equivalent to referring to the British soldiers in WW2 as "English" and ignoring the Welsh, Scots, N. Irish AND all the people from the British empire that also endangered and lay down their lives tp stop the Axis threat, be in German or Japansese in origin - the Soviet soldiers were not just "Russian", they were from all of the Soviet repuplics and should be referred to as Soviets - some fought because their territories had already been captured and families killed/enslaved, others fought because they knew if the Nazis weren't stopped their republics would end up getting invaded too and their families would end up suffering the same fate as those of their Ukranian/Belorussian/Moldovan/Eastern Russian comrades
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *BCM*)

    also i am SICK AND TIRED of people referring to soldiers in WW2 as "Russian", this is equivalent to referring to the British soldiers in WW2 as "English" and ignoring the Welsh, Scots, N. Irish AND all the people from the British empire that also endangered and lay down their lives tp stop the Axis threat, be in German or Japansese in origin - the Soviet soldiers were not just "Russian", they were from all of the Soviet repuplics and should be referred to as Soviets - some fought because their territories had already been captured and families killed/enslaved, others fought because they knew if the Nazis weren't stopped their republics would end up getting invaded too and their families would end up suffering the same fate as those of their Ukranian/Belorussian/Moldovan/Eastern Russian comrades
    The British are our friends.Especially fieldmarshal B.Montgomery.So if all British nations start to send us small groups of soldiers for each year Victory parade that would be wonderful.
    I have heard that government already decided that they make special parade group for alive veterans.But that may be awful,how can the veterans marching,they are at list 80 years old.
    I really think that the Day of Victory is our mutual Holiday.When I like tourist visited tank battle reconstruction under Moscow and after show we went to touch real (working) WW2 tanks with my friend I found that some of them were drived by people speaking English.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by enon)
    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'.
    Actually it doesn't, the dictatorship of the proll's is a phase in the transformation between capitalism and communism ,communism being the final phase - a stateless agricultural society.

    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).
    The communist doctrine holds that communism will not be possible until the bourgeois have been stripped of their political power, hence the "dictatorship" phase, in which industrialization is needed to support the needs of the socialist state. However in the long run, once the bourgeois are no longer a threat, the state has to be dismantled and society reduced to agriculture. Otherwise class division will necessarily re-emerge through specialization.

    Pol Pot merely jumped to the final phase.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *BCM*)
    Soviet soldiers were experiencing exactly the same conditions.

    Harsh conditions always work in favor of the defending side - that's why the Russians lost the winter war to Finland.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *BCM*)



    "Circumstances"?! I would like to hear some justification for that statement. It was not he who defeated the Nazis, it was the Soviet soldiers and their anger for all the Soviet blood spilt by the Germans. The Germans didn't just kill the fighting men when they advanced, the women and children were also put to the sword - their ideology taught them that Slavs are only one step higher on the racial ladder than the Jews and must also be exterminated to provide Germany with Lebersraum (living space) in the conquered territo ries, diaries from captured German soldiers often referred to Soviet men as dogs and scum, women as whores etc
    I was referring to the "circumstances" which led the Soviet Union to fight the German's, and what I meant was that the reason the Red Army fought the German's is because Hitler broke the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and invaded the Soviet Union. Had Hitler not broke the pack, Stalin's army may have never fought the Germans.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Paul PTS)
    The British are our friends.Especially fieldmarshal B.Montgomery.So if all British nations start to send us small groups of soldiers for each year Victory parade that would be wonderful.
    I have heard that government already decided that they make special parade group for alive veterans.But that may be awful,how can the veterans marching,they are at list 80 years old.
    I really think that the Day of Victory is our mutual Holiday.When I like tourist visited tank battle reconstruction under Moscow and after show we went to touch real (working) WW2 tanks with my friend I found that some of them were drived by people speaking English.
    lol their marching days are over, they have served their country well as it is - im sure they wouldn't refuse if asked though, and would probably be able to keep pace well

    yeah, well Victory Day (VE day in Britain) is not celebrated much around here tbh, it's very sad - speculatively, i reckon if you asked a random sample of like 1000 people from all ages and walks of life most would struggle to even recall the date

    (Original post by borismor)
    Harsh conditions always work in favor of the defending side - that's why the Russians lost the winter war to Finland.
    history fail - the finns were forced to cede Karelia to the USSR as well as some smaller teritorries along the border that were captured :rolleyes:

    a rather sketchy claim at best, any evidence for it please? - and actually in general terms the USSR were only on the defensive during the winter of 1941, in the winters of 1942, 1943 and 1944 they were the attacking side (the Soviet offensive operation in Stalingrad at the end of 1942, often cited as the turning point of the war on the Eastern front, began in November)
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by quizster)
    I was referring to the "circumstances" which led the Soviet Union to fight the German's, and what I meant was that the reason the Red Army fought the German's is because Hitler broke the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and invaded the Soviet Union. Had Hitler not broke the pack, Stalin's army may have never fought the Germans.
    hmmmm OK - well it is certainly true that the Nazi invasion (which occurred without an official declaration of war) was the direct cause of the actual military confrontation - however the pact was NEVER going to last simply because part of the rotten core of Nazi ideology was the idea that among others Slavs are "Untermenschen" (inferior people), Hitler and Stalin authorised its signing both knowing full well that it was only temporary - the main idea behind it was to split Poland between the two states anyway, not permanent peace
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    President Roosevelt said he would hold hands with the devil to insure an allied victory for world war two. I think by joining the with the soviets was deemed the lesser of two evils.
    Certainly Stalin had his flaws but if the allies were willing to concede more they may have been able to stop the divison of europe and prevented the USSR from becoming such a recluse.
    But Stalins tatics were not wise, and perhaps helped divide europe further and spread fear of the Reds.
    We do owe him and Russia a debt of gratitude for helping the allied cause but dam that man was a bugger in internal Russia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I know very little about this topic, I don't mind admitting, but yes, I do agree, that Hitler or Stalin, would have almost certainly forgot about the pact when it suited them, if Hitler hadn't invaed the Soviet Union, I'm sure at some point in history, had the outcome of the war been different, Stalin and Hitler would have crossed paths again and upset one another.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quizster)
    I know very little about this topic, I don't mind admitting, but yes, I do agree, that Hitler or Stalin, would have almost certainly forgot about the pact when it suited them, if Hitler hadn't invaed the Soviet Union, I'm sure at some point in history, had the outcome of the war been different, Stalin and Hitler would have crossed paths again and upset one another.
    So true Europe was like a ticking time bomb. There were like 3 ideoligies just waiting to throttle to each other, If the war hadnt happened like it did germany and the USSR could have quiet possibly come to blows.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *BCM*)
    history fail - the finns were forced to cede Karelia to the USSR as well as some smaller teritorries along the border that were captured :rolleyes:
    Well I still consider it a victory for Finland, but how you want to call it is not a matter of fact, but of opinions. Point is - conditions worked in favor of the Finns and against the Russians which could not even get their tank engines running because of the cold.

    a rather sketchy claim at best, any evidence for it please?
    Well I just did gave you evidence - it worked great for the Finns and for the Russians against the Germans.

    Want more?

    Who benefits from the Harsh desert conditions in Afghanistan? The Afghans, both agains the SU and the US.

    Same for Vietnam.

    - and actually in general terms the USSR were only on the defensive during the winter of 1941, in the winters of 1942, 1943 and 1944 they were the attacking side (the Soviet offensive operation in Stalingrad at the end of 1942, often cited as the turning point of the war on the Eastern front, began in November)
    Of course by that point the German army was fatigued, which was the whole point of letting them run around in the cold. The attacking side has to concentrate it's effort in order to win, which is why harsh conditions always work against it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *BCM*)
    lol their marching days are over, they have served their country well as it is - im sure they wouldn't refuse if asked though, and would probably be able to keep pace well
    yeah, well Victory Day (VE day in Britain) is not celebrated much around here tbh, it's very sad - speculatively, i reckon if you asked a random sample of like 1000 people from all ages and walks of life most would struggle to even recall the date
    I also think that our Military minister joked about veterans.
    But we have military Parade every year and not only in Moscow.In different cities.
    Only best soldiers all over the country have right to take part in Parade near Kremlin.
    Russian Impire returns.Soon it will be Great again.When I watch it I get pleasure,really.
    For example I found this at youtube.
    "Impire Forward"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xC5drvBCC4
    When I take hard exam,after it I go from institute to Kremlin,just 15-20 minutes walk.Go to big store near it - drink a lot of beer in local pub,after that I go to the place of Parade - Red Square and marshing as if I'm also take part in the Parade.Some my friends accompany me there,others- mostly Moscow residents go to celebrate to the homes.
    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.
    Hitler is not a ruthless killer?

    He tried to commit genocide. If he had been left to his own devices, all Jews would have been killed and millions and millions of people would have died as a result of his ethnic cleansing. Ultimately it is my belief that Hitler would have killed more innocent people than Stalin if he'd had the chance, because Hitler hated everyone who was not Aryan.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vivisteiner)
    He was a bad man, but he helped to defeat a badder man.


    Thats my advanced summary of the situation.
    They were as bad as each other to be honest
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sundous)
    =/
    No need to be a gramma Nazi.

    Anyway, I said 'badder' on purpose since later on I described my sentence sarcastically as an 'advanced summary'. The 'badder' was used to highlight that sarcasm.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a fan of him on facebook.
 
 
 
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
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.