Stalin

It's not about us, it's about Google our old friend. It says some weird stuff, like this, for instance: Urban Dictionary: Unkotare
Ignorant or not, people may start thinking bad thoughts. So Lusy, you got some splainin to do?

It's kind of like the "Teabagger" problem. I'm sure that wingnuts in 2011 thought they were being really clever calling themselves "Teabaggers", not realizing that it was slang for a sexual act performed mostly by gays.

Except they had the self-awareness to stop using the term when it was explained to them.

Anyway, not sure what any of this has to do with Josef Stalin,

Stalin was a ruthless bastard, whose actions resulted in millions of deaths, but made the Soviet Union strong enough to defeat Nazi Germany. We are all better off for it.
 
Stalin was a ruthless bastard, whose actions resulted in millions of deaths, but made the Soviet Union strong enough to defeat Nazi Germany. We are all better off for it.
Roughly, since 1921 till 1952 four million have been sentenced for so called political reasons, of which 815 000 have been shot. Was it justified or not is a moot matter. Maybe it was, opinions differ.
 
Roughly, since 1921 till 1952 four million have been sentenced for so called political reasons, of which 815 000 have been shot. Was it justified or not is a moot matter. Maybe it was, opinions differ.

I don't think shooting anyone for political reasons is justified, ever.

And in many ways, Stalin did damage. For instance, his purges of the Red Army meant that a lot of the better generals, the ones who had gotten Russia through the Civil War and the War with Poland, were dead, and the clowns who replaced them got caught with their pants down when the Wehrmacht showed up.
 
I don't think shooting anyone for political reasons is justified, ever.

And in many ways, Stalin did damage. For instance, his purges of the Red Army meant that a lot of the better generals, the ones who had gotten Russia through the Civil War and the War with Poland, were dead, and the clowns who replaced them got caught with their pants down when the Wehrmacht showed up.
Again, even some of our own asshole historians claimed the 60 mil figure, to please the western ones it looked like, but then the archive numbers were opened up and now it's more like only four. You're saying yourself that Stalin pretty much saved the world from Hitler, which means he was not at all a fool, why the hell then should he have killed his best generals if the country's survival was at stake? I've heard those stories about the innocent political prisoners too but then again there are stories that they weren't all together innocent either.
We won the war and that's basically what matters the most, without Stalin that would have been a great maybe.
 
his purges of the Red Army meant that a lot of the better generals, the ones who had gotten Russia through the Civil War and the War with Poland
To answer this in detail would take an entire article and I will post it someday. But for now in brief - Stalin had the BEST generals available, they beat the best german generals.
The Civil War was largely a semi-guerrilla war, so its experience was not suted for the motor warfare of the 1940s.
And by the way, the Red Army ended the war with Poland unsuccessfully.
 
To answer this in detail would take an entire article and I will post it someday. But for now in brief - Stalin had the BEST generals available, they beat the best german generals.
The Civil War was largely a semi-guerrilla war, so its experience was not suted for the motor warfare of the 1940s.
And by the way, the Red Army ended the war with Poland unsuccessfully.
No, Stalin had the WORST generals possible. they stumbled into disaster after disaster in the first two years of the war losing millions of troops dead or POWs and tens of thousands of tanks destroyed. The Red Army lost so much artillery that the Germans were outfitting the Wehrmacht with Soviet guns and producing ammo for them. The Red Army lost 218,000 artillery pieces in WWII that were 76mm or larger.
 
Stalin had the WORST generals possible
+1
n 1920, Joseph Stalin's performance during the Polish-Soviet War is VERY often cited as a negative example of his leadership. While the Red Army ultimately suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Warsaw, Stalin's strategic actions and command decisions, particularly his focus on Lviv instead of reinforcing Tukhachevsky, were criticized by Trotsky and others. This failure to cooperate with military leadership and his perceived strategic mistakes contributed to the Red Army's greatest loss
 
No, Stalin had the WORST generals possible. they stumbled into disaster after disaster in the first two years of the war losing millions of troops dead or POWs and tens of thousands of tanks destroyed. The Red Army lost so much artillery that the Germans were outfitting the Wehrmacht with Soviet guns and producing ammo for them. The Red Army lost 218,000 artillery pieces in WWII that were 76mm or larger.
I won't dignify your idiotic statement with a response. Why not? Ask any young kid with a brain that's not yet brain-dead, I'm sure he understands it better than you.
 
I won't dignify your idiotic statement with a response. Why not? Ask any young kid with a brain that's not yet brain-dead, I'm sure he understands it better than you.
You won't respond because you can't find a single fact to refute my statements. Stalin absolutely gutted the Red Army's senior officer's corps all the way down to battalion command levels. When Barbarossa started his politically appointed officers had no idea how to fight a modern war despite their experiences in Poland and Finland and squandered their forces in ill-advised counter attacks and stand and die defenses.
 
Again, even some of our own asshole historians claimed the 60 mil figure, to please the western ones it looked like, but then the archive numbers were opened up and now it's more like only four. You're saying yourself that Stalin pretty much saved the world from Hitler, which means he was not at all a fool, why the hell then should he have killed his best generals if the country's survival was at stake? I've heard those stories about the innocent political prisoners too but then again there are stories that they weren't all together innocent either.
We won the war and that's basically what matters the most, without Stalin that would have been a great maybe.

Um, yeah, but imagine a world where the USSR and the West cooperated before any of the shooting started to contain Hitler.

That would have been a lot better.

Instead, Stalin signed a deal with Hitler to get the Baltic States, Eastern Poland, and Moldava. The USSR did lose 20 million in the war, that's really not in dispute. So hurray, Russians died so Americans didn't have to, but it would have been so much better if no one had died.

Hitler masterfully played the West and Stalin off against each other.
 
1. Um, yeah, but imagine a world where the USSR and the West cooperated before any of the shooting started to contain Hitler.

2. Instead, Stalin signed a deal with Hitler to get the Baltic States, Eastern Poland, and Moldava.

3. Hitler masterfully played the West and Stalin off against each other.
1.From the moment Hitler came to power, this is exactly what the USSR was doing - trying to create an anti-Hitler coalition. But the West (Hitler's natural ally, by the way) did everything to allow Germany to strengthen and arm itself, namely, gave loans, looked away when the Nazis armed themselves and seized land, and when the war started to run it as “The Strange War” One of the main goals of this sneaky and stupid (as it turned out) policy was to direct Germany towards the USSR, especially since this was the task of the Nazis, openly proclaimed in “Mein Kampf”.

2. Stalin was the last person in Europe who signed such an agreement with Hitler. Everyone else had already done so. And he signed it after it became obvious in the summer of 1939 that England and France did not want to conclude an anti-Hitler treaty and even more so, an alliance between these states and Hitler was quite possible.
By signing the agreement, the USSR received a two-year reprieve to prepare for war. They did everything they could, considering that at the end of the 20s the USSR did not have many types of industry.

3. The opposite happened. Socialist state and capitalist states became Allies, and Hitler got a war on two fronts. Before Hitler's attack it was important to know on which side the USA would be and for this purpose it was necessary not to become an aggressor, that is why the policy of preventing the possibility of giving a formal reason for war with Hitler was carried out. Hitler attacked, became the aggressor and the U.S. was forced to act on Truman's June 1941 statement: “If we see Russia winning, we will help Germany and vice versa. And let them fight and kill each other as much as possible.”
 


mass murderer, dictator, deal with Hitler which started WWII. If Stalin backed Poland in 1939 Hitler would not have invaded. There still may have been war later on perhaps.

He was an evil antisemitic guy. But in WW2 he was on the good side, fighting Hitler. See "Barbarossa Op." .
 
Last edited:
1.From the moment Hitler came to power, this is exactly what the USSR was doing - trying to create an anti-Hitler coalition. But the West (Hitler's natural ally, by the way) did everything to allow Germany to strengthen and arm itself, namely, gave loans, looked away when the Nazis armed themselves and seized land, and when the war started to run it as “The Strange War” One of the main goals of this sneaky and stupid (as it turned out) policy was to direct Germany towards the USSR, especially since this was the task of the Nazis, openly proclaimed in “Mein Kampf”.

Ah, is the translation software not working well today, Ivan? What you are referring to is the period known as the "Phony War", between October 1939 (when Poland surrendered) and Spring 1940, when Hitler moved West in earnest. The problem here was that France had spent their military money on defensive measures like the Maginot Line instead of on tanks and planes to conduct offensive operations.

Your argument makes no sense, really. The west didn't enforce the provisions of the Versailles treaty because by the middle of the 1930s, even they realized that it had pushed Germany into fascism. They had also spent most of the 1920s disarming and redirecting funds into social programs.

The real problem was that when Hitler broke his promises at Munich to only claim the Sudetenland (and ended up dismembering the rest of Czechoslovakia), Chamberlain decided to write a blank check to the Polish Colonels instead of encouraging them to negotiate with Germany in good faith on territories that were in fact, German. He wasn't in any position to cash that check, that was the problem, any more than he was capable of supporting the Czechs.

2. Stalin was the last person in Europe who signed such an agreement with Hitler. Everyone else had already done so. And he signed it after it became obvious in the summer of 1939 that England and France did not want to conclude an anti-Hitler treaty and even more so, an alliance between these states and Hitler was quite possible.
By signing the agreement, the USSR received a two-year reprieve to prepare for war. They did everything they could, considering that at the end of the 20s the USSR did not have many types of industry.

Actually, Stalin had been cutting dodgy deals with the Germans all along. See the treaty of Rapallo, where the German government (still pre-Nazi) cut a deal to help Stalin train his army.

3. The opposite happened. Socialist state and capitalist states became Allies, and Hitler got a war on two fronts. Before Hitler's attack it was important to know on which side the USA would be and for this purpose it was necessary not to become an aggressor, that is why the policy of preventing the possibility of giving a formal reason for war with Hitler was carried out. Hitler attacked, became the aggressor and the U.S. was forced to act on Truman's June 1941 statement: “If we see Russia winning, we will help Germany and vice versa. And let them fight and kill each other as much as possible.”

Truman wasn't President in 1941. It is also unlikely that he said that at all, at least not in public.

But let's look at this. Why would the West in 1939 be reluctant to side with Russia over Germany?

Well, at that point, Hitler hadn't done anything all that bad. Most Austrians wanted the Anschluss. Austria was floundering, not being part of a bigger empire. True, he backstabbed the West at Munich by breaking most of his promises.

MEANWHILE, Stalin had murdered millions of people (not tens of millions like the idiot birchers say, but millions) either through famine or direct murder. He was funding Communist revolutionary groups worldwide through the "Third International". (which is why the Axis called itself the "Anti-Commintern Pact")

At the height of 1940, Stalin even wanted to join the Axis (obviously not getting what the name meant) and von Ribbontrop was all for it. The only reason he couldn't talk Hitler into it is Hitler saw Bolshevism as a "Jewish" movement. He was engaging in aggressive actions in the Far East, challenging Japan for control of China.
 
JoeB131 said:
Ah, is the translation software not working well today, Ivan? What you are referring to is the period known as the "Phony War", between October 1939 (when Poland surrendered) and Spring 1940, when Hitler moved West in earnest. The problem here was that France had spent their military money on defensive measures like the Maginot Line instead of on tanks and planes to conduct offensive operations.

Your argument makes no sense, really. The west didn't enforce the provisions of the Versailles treaty because by the middle of the 1930s, even they realized that it had pushed Germany into fascism. They had also spent most of the 1920s disarming and redirecting funds into social programs.

The real problem was that when Hitler broke his promises at Munich to only claim the Sudetenland (and ended up dismembering the rest of Czechoslovakia), Chamberlain decided to write a blank check to the Polish Colonels instead of encouraging them to negotiate with Germany in good faith on territories that were in fact, German. He wasn't in any position to cash that check, that was the problem, any more than he was capable of supporting the Czechs.



Actually, Stalin had been cutting dodgy deals with the Germans all along. See the treaty of Rapallo, where the German government (still pre-Nazi) cut a deal to help Stalin train his army.



Truman wasn't President in 1941. It is also unlikely that he said that at all, at least not in public.

But let's look at this. Why would the West in 1939 be reluctant to side with Russia over Germany?

Well, at that point, Hitler hadn't done anything all that bad. Most Austrians wanted the Anschluss. Austria was floundering, not being part of a bigger empire. True, he backstabbed the West at Munich by breaking most of his promises.

MEANWHILE, Stalin had murdered millions of people (not tens of millions like the idiot birchers say, but millions) either through famine or direct murder. He was funding Communist revolutionary groups worldwide through the "Third International". (which is why the Axis called itself the "Anti-Commintern Pact")

At the height of 1940, Stalin even wanted to join the Axis (obviously not getting what the name meant) and von Ribbontrop was all for it. The only reason he couldn't talk Hitler into it is Hitler saw Bolshevism as a "Jewish" movement. He was engaging in aggressive actions in the Far East, challenging Japan for control of China.
I can't believe i agree with this particular one post by JoeB131.
 
1. Ah, is the translation software not working well today, Ivan? What you are referring to is the period known as the "Phony War"
2. The real problem was that when Hitler broke his promises at Munich to only claim the Sudetenland (and ended up dismembering the rest of Czechoslovakia
3. Truman wasn't President in 1941. It is also unlikely that he said that at all, at least not in public.
1. That's what they called this war in the USSR, Jebediah.

2.
The real problem is that Hitler could have been buried when he first used military force, bringing troops into the Rhineland in 1936.
German commanders were given orders to withdraw if French troops offered armed resistance, but it did not. French soldiers did not resist Hitler's troops, although they outnumbered them. Great Britain also remained silent.
But if Hitler had to withdraw his troops, it could have been his end. And his generals would not have to waited until the summer of 1944.

3. I hope the words in the "New York Time"s article of June 24, 1941 are public enough for you?
14426_original.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's kind of like the "Teabagger" problem. I'm sure that wingnuts in 2011 thought they were being really clever calling themselves "Teabaggers", not realizing that it was slang for a sexual act performed mostly by gays.

Except they had the self-awareness to stop using the term when it was explained to them.

Anyway, not sure what any of this has to do with Josef Stalin,

Stalin was a ruthless bastard, whose actions resulted in millions of deaths, but made the Soviet Union strong enough to defeat Nazi Germany. We are all better off for it.


Did you ever spend any time behind the "Iron Curtain" in the 1960s and 1970s?.

There's a reason that the Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators from life under Communism.

"We" (i.e. Americans) were comparatively untouched by WW 2 and, contrary to British propaganda, were never in danger from German invasion.

Even after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, 80% of Americans were opposed to going to war in Europe.

Therefore, Churchill who needed the US to join Britain in expanding its Empire so atrocity and pro war propaganda(1) was widely used to dupe Americans into fighting a war to expand Communism and secure Palestine for the pro Nazi Zionists (2)

Next, Chaim Weizmann did Europe's Jews no favors by declaring:
"And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy's fortress. Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy."

Finally, it is one thing to parrot well worn demonizations of men like Stalin but it seems more constructive to study them, objectively, as products of of a violent and tumultuous era that in many ways mirrors our own time.

By haggling over how many millions were killed, we ignore the parallel demons of our own time who carry out today's genocides at our own peril.

Thanks,


(1). "The conquest of the United States by Britain"
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/mahl.htm
EXCERPT "The principal tactic of British propaganda, Mahl points out, was to excite American fears of a direct German threat to the United States. That involved two basic themes:

- that Germany was poised to take over Latin America and that American non-interventionists were pro-Nazi fifth columnists. (It should be noted here that there was virtually no mention of German persecution of Jews, which today has become the ultimate justification for the "good war.")

The theme that non-interventionists were really Nazi agents had perhaps the greatest long-term impact. That lethal smear destroyed the careers of many non-interventionists, eliminating opposition not only to involvement in World War II but also to postwar American globalism in general." CONTINUED




(2). "War-Treaty of Versailles 1919"

"We are not denying and are not afraid to confess that this war is our war and that it is waged for the liberation of Jewry... Stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry.

We are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based, we are not only providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going.

The guarantee of victory is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying them in their own country, within the resistance.

And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy's fortress. Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy. There, our front is a fact and the most valuable aid for victory."

- Chaim Weizmann,
President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of Israel, in a Speech on December 3, 1942, in New York.
 
Back
Top Bottom