Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reinterpetation of Stalin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Reinterpetation of Stalin

    overall general view on him?
    Last edited by SolidSnake10; 24 Sep 12, 20:31.

  • #2
    Originally posted by SolidSnake10 View Post
    was he really a bad guy... people label him with Hitler "Hitler and Stalin" totalitarians, evil men...

    Stalin evil? come on... it just seems like its an attack on Stalin.....
    Well, he was a totalitarian by definition.

    A political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarian
    You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

    -- Ataturk

    Comment


    • #3
      Evil? Ridiculous. He didn't kill more than 20, 30 million of his own people. Maybe 100 million, but that may be a bit high. Let's not exaggerate and try to make him look bad.

      Practically a saint.
      "The dangers of life are infinite, and among them is safety." - Goethe

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Origen View Post
        Evil? Ridiculous. He didn't kill more than 20, 30 million of his own people. Maybe 100 million, but that may be a bit high. Let's not exaggerate and try to make him look bad.

        Practically a saint.
        Where's Emtos and Shaa?

        The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!

        You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

        -- Ataturk

        Comment


        • #5
          To me Stalins a great speach maker and inspires his country but off the field he was a d*** and killed everyone for no reason.

          So for me I don't know I say he's bad but not 100% evil if ya understand.

          Comment


          • #6
            'The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!'

            Can 'Whittaker Walt' be far behind?

            Sincerely,
            M
            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #7
              He was almost as bad a megalomaniac like Hitler.
              This bass guitar kills TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SolidSnake10 View Post
                overall general view on him?
                More successful than Hitler but just as evil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rebpreacher View Post
                  He was almost as bad a megalomaniac like Hitler.


                  In many ways He was even worse.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    He was worse in the way that he caused millions more deaths than Hitler, but he is less worse in the ways that he did not specifically target different ethnicities, nor did he intentionally mean for the people to die. The Holodamor was a result of very inefficient attempts to collectivize agriculture, stepping back from Lenin's effective socialization of it into totalitarian use; you weren't given equal share, you were given whatever the government said you got. He was aware of the deaths which is why he wanted foreign aid, and though he ignored them in pursuit of his plans for industrialization, he did not intentionally mean for people to die. Hitler, on the other hand, made it his mission to kill those he saw as inferior. He did, however, target the religious and Cossacks.

                    He was also less stubborn than Hitler in WWII. Hitler, who was a decent defender but a horrible strategist, constantly interfered with his brilliant generals, leading to many to plot against him or fail in their own efforts. Stalin initially blundered, but he saw his blunders and stepped aside for his officers to manage their own work. Unfortunately, he of course took the majority of the credit post-War.

                    He was a horrible man personally, but without him, the USSR never would've mobilized like it did to take on the full force of Germany, and the W. Allies would've been much, much worse off if he hadn't.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      A paranoid and totally ruthless and bloody dictator- no question.

                      However, he was an ICON. "Uncle Joe", by his very existence came to be the personification of the Soviet Union and the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War.

                      In many people's minds he was Soviet Russia in the struggle against the Axis.
                      "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                      Samuel Johnson.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Crackshot View Post
                        Where's Emtos and Shaa?

                        The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!

                        Oh yeah!!!!!!!!! Here we go!
                        The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ricthofen View Post
                          He was worse in the way that he caused millions more deaths than Hitler, but he is less worse in the ways that he did not specifically target different ethnicities, nor did he intentionally mean for the people to die. The Holodamor was a result of very inefficient attempts to collectivize agriculture, stepping back from Lenin's effective socialization of it into totalitarian use; you weren't given equal share, you were given whatever the government said you got. He was aware of the deaths which is why he wanted foreign aid, and though he ignored them in pursuit of his plans for industrialization, he did not intentionally mean for people to die. Hitler, on the other hand, made it his mission to kill those he saw as inferior. He did, however, target the religious and Cossacks.

                          He was also less stubborn than Hitler in WWII. Hitler, who was a decent defender but a horrible strategist, constantly interfered with his brilliant generals, leading to many to plot against him or fail in their own efforts. Stalin initially blundered, but he saw his blunders and stepped aside for his officers to manage their own work. Unfortunately, he of course took the majority of the credit post-War.

                          He was a horrible man personally, but without him, the USSR never would've mobilized like it did to take on the full force of Germany, and the W. Allies would've been much, much worse off if he hadn't.
                          That is about as fair an assessment as one could ask for. Stalin is a difficult persona on the stage of world history, perhaps the single most difficult character to understand. He has been variously built up and torn down, mythologized and demonized to the point where it is nigh on impossible to get more than a superficial impression of the man himself. He is always described with superlatives, all the good, the bad and the ugly.

                          Stalin is notorious for the death by starvation of millions of peasants in the early 1930s. Normally, that's all that's said, apart from politically correct allegations of malice aforethought and genocide. What is not mentioned is that in 1932 the whole world was in the middle of a giant Depression accompanied by drought and crop failures around the whole world.

                          There is no doubt that the peasants were caught in the middle, victims of a forced reorganization of the economy that was undertaken without their consent, and that many died as a consequence of a complete collapse of agriculture in the primary food-producing areas of the USSR. In the end, the government succeeded as governments always do, forcing some to suffer "for the greater good of the people" who don't live there. There is malice ascribed by propagandists, although I believe they were "collateral damage", consequential victims of the Grand Plan the Party was intent on instituting in the USSR.

                          Stalin is notorious for "the Purges", the repression and persecution of selected groups that were perceived as threats or "Enemies of the State". This could be anyone, but the leadership of the Army and the Party were significant for the impact their absence had on subsequent events.

                          Again, there is no doubt that this was the handiwork of a truly demented person, paranoid and insecure and brutally ruthless in weeding out potential troublemakers en masse. That said, there is another overlooked context. Stalin was born into a family of anti-Tsarist political radicals and grew up with fear of the secret police, violence, radicalization and death in custody of family members, according to at least one legend. These traits were part of his nature, ingrained from childhood, so how can there be any surprise that he lived as he was raised? He was a creature of his circumstances, brilliant, ambitious and completely without scruples.

                          Against that dark background, Stalin's successes must also be realized. The Grand Plan that led to the death of millions also brought electricity, literacy, health care and upward mobility to tens of millions more who had been without. Warts and all, for most people the Soviet system was better than what had gone before. (Mind you, for some people, the Soviet system was better than what has come since. That is part of the enigma that is Stalin, Stalinism and the even Soviet Union, which despite the best efforts of Krushchev and later Gorbachev, never quite shook off the hand of Stalin's ghost.)

                          There can be no doubt that without the accomplishments of Stalin's Five-Year Plans the USSR would not have been able to withstand the Nazi onslaught ten years later. The year 1941 was one of bloodshed, traded for time while the country scrambled to salvage what they could of industry after Barbarossa and make it work again, and then it did. There was enough in place by then to demonstrate that Russians were now "modern" enough, mechanically literate and robust enough in the military and economic arenas to rally and retaliate and ultimately drive the Nazi horror back to Berlin.

                          That deed in itself casts a very long shadow. Inasmuch as Stalin had his hand in everything, amplified by Soviet propaganda, Stalin is identified as the architect of Victory, which is enough to extinguish past sins in the minds of many.

                          Postwar, the Cold War is incredibly easy to blame on the USA, leaving Stalin with no crap on him. All he wanted was what the USSR deserved, another easy case to make before a devastated country. "They're all out to get us, have been since 1918, so we have to stick together", a sardonic counterpoint to "the Commies want to take over the world!" Paranoia loves company.

                          Anyway, Stalin, born Iosip Vissarionovich Dzhugashvilli, will remain an enigma to me. There is no denying his lust for violence and blood, his ruthlessness or sociopathic nature, his dark side. There is likewise no denying his will to succeed at whatever cost, up to and including his morality as someone who did not embrace the Golden Rule. That is his indictment, more than anything, but I don't judge that case.

                          Anyway, it is an interesting topic. It's a great topic, actually, one well worth discussing. I expect it will run many pages.

                          Kudos
                          Scott Fraser
                          Last edited by Scott Fraser; 25 Sep 12, 04:44.
                          Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

                          A contentedly cantankerous old fart

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Crackshot View Post
                            Where's Emtos and Shaa?

                            The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!

                            You're right. They're late. The Commie-haters have already sortied. This should be interesting, maybe even entertaining.

                            Scott Fraser
                            Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

                            A contentedly cantankerous old fart

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              No need for the "Russians" to come, they are probably fed up with these discussions already. Scott nailed it the best I think.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X