Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 16th, 2016, 06:12 AM   #41
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 2,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvsakhadeo View Post
The revised Census of the Soviet Union of 1937 ( ? ) gave figures of 170 millions for the total population of the Soviet Union, experts say that it was inflated by about 1.5 million.
In my previous post i tried to find out why the 180 million was used and my guess based on 1939 & 1941 data is that it was population of the soviet union in early to mid 1940.

Regarding the population in 1937 please see the primary source, Andreev 'Population USSR 1922- 1990' written after the fall of union in 1993. /reference 2 from the wiki article about soviet union demographics/

Link: http://demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/nas..._1922-1991.pdf

Please scroll down to page 40 and check estimated data regarding the beginning of each year between 17.12.1926 и 17.01.1939

year 1927 population 147 million
year 1928 population 150 million
year 1929 population 153 million
year 1930 population 156 million
year 1931 population 158 million
year 1932 population 160 million
year 1933 population 161 million
year 1934 population 159 million
year 1935 population 159 million
year 1936 population 161 million
year 1937 population 163 million
year 1938 population 167 million
year 1939 population 170 million

Last edited by At Each Kilometer; November 16th, 2016 at 06:16 AM.
At Each Kilometer is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 16th, 2016, 09:58 AM   #42

royal infanta's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: United States
Posts: 1,418
Blog Entries: 1

No Stalin was not one the greatest ruler of the 20th century. Certainly one of the most powerful, but he is not deserving of the title of great. Mass starvation, gulags, mass political killings, corruption, etc exempts him from even coming close to being great. He industrialized Russia, but in his incompetency and ruthlessness killed millions upon millions of people, and that is not an effective ruler. A cruel and brutal ruler, but not effective.
royal infanta is offline  
Old November 16th, 2016, 10:19 AM   #43
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,474

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
The Soviets won WWII DESPITE Stalin.
I would disagree here. maybe a better politician had avoided the massive losses and the lots of defeats, but in the worsest hour it was Stalin's ruthlessness that helped to continue the war.
beorna is offline  
Old November 16th, 2016, 10:30 AM   #44

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 4,568

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
I would disagree here. maybe a better politician had avoided the massive losses and the lots of defeats, but in the worsest hour it was Stalin's ruthlessness that helped to continue the war.
Potentially without Stalin no ruthlessness would have been needed.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old November 16th, 2016, 10:32 AM   #45
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,474

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
Potentially without Stalin no ruthlessness would have been needed.
without Stalin, there maybe would not have been 20.000 tanks and millions of red Army soldiers. maybe there would not have been such industrialisation of the military sector.
beorna is offline  
Old November 16th, 2016, 10:59 AM   #46
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: USA
Posts: 169

Actually, I've thought before that you could maybe cite Stalin as the most 'successful' leader of the 20th Century.

-Part of the revolutionary effort to topple the Tsar
-Centralized his control of the state at the expense of rivals within the party
-Initiated the rapid growth of technology and urbanization from the Agrarian based state Russia had existed in
-Led the effort to defeat the Germans in WWII and took by far the greatest blow among the allied powers during the war effort itself
-Developed the nuclear bomb by 1949 to draw to within reach of balance with the USA/Western powers and therefore developed the balance of power between east and west that arguably was shifting in favor of the USSR at the time of his demise, 1953

For the above reasons I think that within the spectrum of his life span (in other words to his death, 1953) he could be viewed as the most successful. I put that caveat to the claim as I wouldn't find it fair to attribute the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union, for instance, in 1991 retroactively to his relative success or failure as a leader.
Rommel202 is offline  
Old November 16th, 2016, 12:55 PM   #47
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 6,972

Regardless of what "great" may mean - big? wonderful? Successful? - one thing is clear: he was horrible human being, simply an awful person. Compared to all the other Alled leaders - Churchill, Toosevelt, DeGaulle - he was a brutal neanderthal.
royal744 is offline  
Old November 16th, 2016, 01:02 PM   #48
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 1,678

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
I vote for killing nearly all his senior army officers because of paranoia immediately before a world war.
Please which part of following statement you don't understand:

"The purge of the Red Army and Military Maritime Fleet removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to five-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to three- and four-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts),[33] 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

Reality of course confirmed my statement. 1941 was such a disaster for Soviet army that they only survived because of German problems with logistics (too late start of offensive also comes into this section, if they would start 2 months earlier as planned than Soviet government would reside in Novosibirsk)

Stalin was a paranoic that's why he removed most of his senior officers.
macon is online now  
Old November 16th, 2016, 01:07 PM   #49
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 1,678

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
without Stalin, there maybe would not have been 20.000 tanks and millions of red Army soldiers. maybe there would not have been such industrialisation of the military sector.
Without Stalin there would be less tanks but more would be working properly. Of 20.000 starting tanks half or so stopped working without any German intervention.

Maybe you don't know a true nature of totalitarian systems as communism and a volume of human misery in them. Human misery is in ALL aspects of life in such systems.

Be happy that you are not knowing much.
macon is online now  
Old November 16th, 2016, 01:13 PM   #50

robto's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 3,707

Quote:
Originally Posted by macon View Post
Without Stalin there would be less tanks but more would be working properly. Of 20.000 starting tanks half or so stopped working without any German intervention.

Maybe you don't know a true nature of totalitarian systems as communism and a volume of human misery in them. Human misery is in ALL aspects of life in such systems.

Be happy that you are not knowing much.
Why stats show us that human development and certain indicators such as Life expectancy, GDP per capita and level of education was incredibly better and improved exponentially by the year of 1953 (year of Stalin's death) when compared to 1930? Even when comparing growth rates with other major countries during that period, Soviet Union stands out when it comes to rapid growth.
robto is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
20th, century, leader, stalin



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mid 19th century mortars: the basis on 20th century artillery? betgo War and Military History 2 April 7th, 2014 09:20 AM
Did stalin do terrible things before he become leader of russia wario2255 General History 9 February 4th, 2014 10:55 AM
The 20th century: the most eventful and important century in human history lokariototal General History 22 July 2nd, 2013 01:36 PM
The 20th century: A century of global brainwashing without precedent? lokariototal General History 29 November 21st, 2011 05:42 AM
The three greatest French Presidents of the 20th century? Thessalonian European History 6 October 29th, 2011 06:05 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.