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, 01:04 PM   #51
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: Belfast
Posts: 170

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tashbaba View Post
"Russian victory against fascism" is the biggest tall tale since both the Nazis and Communists were socialists with slight differences. Soviets invaded Poland together and entered the war side by side with the Nazis, organized military parades together. Soviet newspapers of the time were full of admiration for Hitler that said "to oppose Nazism and Hitler means opposing Lenin". But Stalin, who shared Europe with Hitler and fueled the Nazi war machine for years, suddenly became "the victor" next to the U.S. and Britain. If Hitler did not invade the U.S.S.R, probably they would have won the war too.
In other words - Stalin and Hitler were cut from the same cloth. If you look at the early life of Stalin, the similarities between Dugashvili and Schicklgruber, make very interesting reading - His father was a shoemaker with a penchant for drunkenness, who left Gori when Stalin was young to seek employment in the city of Tiflis. Thus Joseph's mother, Yekaterina, made the more profound impact on his life--it was she who directed his education.

Stalin contemplated forming a defensive alliance with Britain and France prior to the start of WW2. Deja vu? There was the Triple Entente prior to WW1.

I don't think it can be denied that he gave one of those North Korean dictators who like to call themselves "Kim", the go-ahead to start the Korean War.

Finally, Stalin lay dead for three days before anybody would check on him. The fear of him was so great.
Res Ipsa Loquitur is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 16th, 2016, 01:07 PM   #52

robto's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 5,093

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res Ipsa Loquitur View Post
In other words - Stalin and Hitler were cut from the same cloth. If you look at the early life of Stalin, the similarities between Dugashvili and Schicklgruber, make very interesting reading - His father was a shoemaker with a penchant for drunkenness, who left Gori when Stalin was young to seek employment in the city of Tiflis. Thus Joseph's mother, Yekaterina, made the more profound impact on his life--it was she who directed his education.

Stalin contemplated forming a defensive alliance with Britain and France prior to the start of WW2. Deja vu? There was the Triple Entente prior to WW1.

I don't think it can be denied that he gave one of those North Korean dictators who like to call themselves "Kim", the go-ahead to start the Korean War.

Finally, Stalin lay dead for three days before anybody would check on him. The fear of him was so great.
I think Stalin and Hitler were polar opposites when it comes to personality, and their ascendancy to power also followed very different patterns.
robto is offline  
Old November 16th, 2016, 01:37 PM   #53
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 2,329

Quote:
Originally Posted by robto View Post
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.
Their gdp per capita was never proper calculated, it is a myth. They were going through forced industrialization and urbanization, there was a mythology of manual work and most people worked for close to 0 (and millions of slaves in camps for 0) 95% of soviet citizens were social cases who received a state appartment as a wellfare. Forget decent maintenance of anything out of show parts in city centers and a decent level of products for consumers, a choice of simple products as meat and clothing for example. There were always rows for everything in shops.

Stalin destroyed Russian society, so many have died for nothing or were forcibly moved that it looked as a hellhole. Check WWII: About 80% of young males in their twenties died. What do you think it ment for a family structure?

But who needed family if there was a party and who needed parents if there was Stalin.

Soviet citizens were best off in seventies when state paranoia and control were lessened a bit. Times of Stalin were hellish in all aspects.
macon is offline  
Old November 16th, 2016, 01:45 PM   #54

Ajax_Minoan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Washington State, USA.
Posts: 690
Blog Entries: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by robto View Post
You have to fully put into account that the Soviet Union was a powerful nation, gifted with weapons innovation and great industrial capacity thanks to the economic and industrial policies of Stalin himself.

USSR right after the death of Lenin was a completely fragmented, destroyed, poor nation composed of illiterate peasants with almost no industrial capacity whatsoever. Stalin's policies during the 1930s prepared the nation for the war, even despite the fact that he committed some major flaws along the way, like the great purges that weakened the military leadership.

If Russia didn't had Stalin during the 1930s, or rather if Russia was still ruled under the Tzar or some ineffective liberal regime during operation Barbarossa, the Germans would achieve a tremendous victory. The guy completely united the country for a common cause, that was completely different to what happened in WWI.

Note: the climatic factor is hugely overrated, btw...
It's true that the Soviet Union became the greatest land-power under Stalin. I would need to read a lot more to know how much Stalin had to do with it.
I know when the T-34 tank went into production in 1940, it was easily the greatest tank in the world. They were already starting to move past bolt action rifles, and on to battle-rifles. The Soviet military had so much going for it.
It's hard to understand why the Soviets bungled their defense so badly early on Stalin has to be blamed. Of course, Germany was the greatest land-power at the time of invasion as they had gone through rapid build-ups, and were using ground breaking tactics. They attacked the Soviets with over 3 million men. They had a lot of allies in the attack as well.
Ajax_Minoan is offline  
Old November 16th, 2016, 01:48 PM   #55
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 2,329

Quote:
Originally Posted by robto View Post
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.
Stats were never calculated by outside observers and communists were always presenting themselves and their achievements in best possible lights. All their data was modified to look better.

Yes, everyone went through basic education and literacy courses, that was a step forward compared to tzar's times. Otherwise there were no steps forward.

Who gives a quack about new cities in middle of nothing in colds of Siberia and about mastodont factories which were producing crap? Do you think that people moved there on a voluntary base?

Let's make an allegory: in socialism tens were manually digging a trench for a water hose with shovels. All were busy and having a job and receiving some food and a miserable pay for doing it (maybe 10% of pay of western manual worker).

At the same time one private contractor in west completed the same job in half or less of a time with his excavator.
macon is offline  
Old November 16th, 2016, 09:45 PM   #56

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 7,571

Reading the book ' Gulag A History ' by Anne Applebaum will give the reader a fencing side view of the labour camps of the worker's paradise in the time of Stalin. This is a Pulitzer prize winning book, and the careful research shows through the superbly literary work. Highly recommended but please avoid reading in the evenings, when the shadows lengthen and life appears meaningless. Compared to this book, ' One day in the life of Ivan Denisovitch ' by Solzhenytsin appears soft and fictitious.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old November 16th, 2016, 09:50 PM   #57

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 7,571

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax_Minoan View Post
It's true that the Soviet Union became the greatest land-power under Stalin. I would need to read a lot more to know how much Stalin had to do with it.
I know when the T-34 tank went into production in 1940, it was easily the greatest tank in the world. They were already starting to move past bolt action rifles, and on to battle-rifles. The Soviet military had so much going for it.
It's hard to understand why the Soviets bungled their defense so badly early on – Stalin has to be blamed. Of course, Germany was the greatest land-power at the time of invasion as they had gone through rapid build-ups, and were using ground breaking tactics. They attacked the Soviets with over 3 million men. They had a lot of allies in the attack as well.
Many of the great Aviation and Space Technology experts had spent time in the Gulag camps. It was lucky for the Russian people that they survived Beria and Stalin and went on to contribute to the victory over the Nazi s and thereafter to the triumphs of Soviet space efforts.

Last edited by rvsakhadeo; November 16th, 2016 at 10:02 PM.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old November 17th, 2016, 03:45 AM   #58

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 7,571

A good reference to killings of the sort we are discussing is here. Gives overall picture worldwide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_k...munist_regimes
More specific to Stalin is this reference.
http://factsanddetails.com/russia/Hi...ntry-4968.html
Yet another reference is here.

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

Last edited by rvsakhadeo; November 17th, 2016 at 04:28 AM.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old November 17th, 2016, 04:31 AM   #59

Constantine Monomachos's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Byzantine Empire
Posts: 41
Blog Entries: 2

How can we consider a political leader to be great? On one hand, Stalin was a pretty efficient ruler; he dragged a semi-feudal economy into the 20th century and industrialized it, managed to defeat Hitler (albeit with US help) and in his post-war years he secured for the USSR all of Eastern Europe and had made the USSR one of the two superpowers of his age.

On the other hand, Stalin was a tyrant who massacred more people than Hitler ever did. He massacred millions of his own people, caused a genocidal famine in Ukraine, committed war crimes and instituted an economic system that was doomed to fail in the long term, thus planting the seeds for the USSR's downfall. His regime was one of the most repressive in human history, even more so than the (repressive too) Nazi state.

So, was he a great leader? I would say that he was one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century, but not a great leader.
Constantine Monomachos is offline  
Old November 17th, 2016, 04:51 AM   #60

Domnall Ballach's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2016
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Blog Entries: 2

No, hardly. It doesn't take leadership to succeed to a lot of guns at peoples' heads. It certainly doesn't take leadership to fire them. It might take an ounce of it to fire them tactically and productively, but Stalin didn't do that. He was a force-monger. Nothing more.
Domnall Ballach is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
20th, century, leader, stalin



Search tags for this page
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 08:20 AM
Did stalin do terrible things before he become leader of russia wario2255 General History 9 February 4th, 2014 09:55 AM
The 20th century: the most eventful and important century in human history lokariototal General History 22 July 2nd, 2013 12:36 PM
The 20th century: A century of global brainwashing without precedent? lokariototal General History 29 November 21st, 2011 04:42 AM
The three greatest French Presidents of the 20th century? Thessalonian European History 6 October 29th, 2011 05:05 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.