Joseph Stalin

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I'm a little behind on my history for this character. Everybody talks bad about him, but what comes to me for me is the Russia that during World War 2 that took more casuallties than ANY other nation in the world (an unfathable amount) but kept on comming. They pushed the Nazis all the way back to Berlin and they were the big force that really defeated Hitler. They had Berlin surrounded when he commited suicide. The Russians as an ally were one of the biggest reasons the Allied Powers were able to defeat the Nazis. And Joseph Stalin was the Leader and Commander of the Russians during that time.

That's what I think about. But I know very little on Stalin the man. So what was so bad about Stalin?

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Not a GD discussion, moved to World History.

Stalin did kill more of his own people than any other leader....

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm a little behind on my history for this character. Everybody talks bad about him, but what comes to me for me is the Russia that during World War 2 that took more casuallties than ANY other nation in the world (an unfathable amount) but kept on comming. They pushed the Nazis all the way back to Berlin and they were the big force that really defeated Hitler. They had Berlin surrounded when he commited suicide. The Russians as an ally were one of the biggest reasons the Allied Powers were able to defeat the Nazis. And Joseph Stalin was the Leader and Commander of the Russians during that time.

That's what I think about. But I know very little on Stalin the man. So what was so bad about Stalin?

World War II killed, let's see, about 10,000,000 - 20,000,000 Soviet citizens IIRC.

But under Stalin's rule, up to 50,000,000 of his own people were murdered, executed, worked to death or delibrately starved. Millions of others were forcibly deported, jailed, beaten or exiled.

He also (directly or indirectly) imposed dictatorial rule on Eastern Europe, Mongolia, Tannu Tuva and North Korea (not China though, he initially sided with Chiang Kai Shek), bring misery to millions more. He in part helped began the Cold War, 40 years of arms race, wars, conflicts and tension. He was paranoid, trusted no body else and extremely brutal in his methods.

So what was so bad about Stalin.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

He might have killed his own people, but it decreased corruption so swiftly in the USSR, and if the Tsars were in charge during WW2, they would never defeat Hitler, and Tvorsky (Srry if I misspell) would never have made USSR so powerful as much as Stalin did, sure Stalin might have killed alot of people, but he brought USSR to its....Golden Age =]

 

[sydhe]

I usually hear about 30,000,000 deaths, most of them having nothing to do with corruption.

 

[Tee Kay]

He might have killed his own people, but it decreased corruption so swiftly in the USSR, and if the Tsars were in charge during WW2, they would never defeat Hitler, and Tvorsky (Srry if I misspell) would never have made USSR so powerful as much as Stalin did, sure Stalin might have killed alot of people, but he brought USSR to its....Golden Age =]

Starving people, brainwashed civilians, war. Ah, golden age!

Reduce corruption, it might have initially, but Stalin's action ultimately concentrated power in his own hands, that is he had absolute power. Power, of course, corrupts...

btw Stalin wasn't personally responsible for the defeat of the Nazis. It was largely due to his commanders. When the invasion started he disappeared from view for a week leaving a vacuum in the command and allowing large amounts of land to be taken. In fact by killing his officers in the Red Army he might have made things worse.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Starving people, brainwashed civilians, war. Ah, golden age!

Reduce corruption, it might have initially, but Stalin's action ultimately concentrated power in his own hands, that is he had absolute power. Power, of course, corrupts...

btw Stalin wasn't personally responsible for the defeat of the Nazis. It was largely due to his commanders. When the invasion started he disappeared from view for a week leaving a vacuum in the command and allowing large amounts of land to be taken. In fact by killing his officers in the Red Army he might have made things worse.

Stalin... The Bastard.

When Hitler betrayed him I would love to see Stalin's face. Priceless.

 

[thenooblet22]

I'm a little behind on my history for this character. Everybody talks bad about him, but what comes to me for me is the Russia that during World War 2 that took more casuallties than ANY other nation in the world (an unfathable amount) but kept on comming. They pushed the Nazis all the way back to Berlin and they were the big force that really defeated Hitler. They had Berlin surrounded when he commited suicide. The Russians as an ally were one of the biggest reasons the Allied Powers were able to defeat the Nazis. And Joseph Stalin was the Leader and Commander of the Russians during that time.

That's what I think about. But I know very little on Stalin the man. So what was so bad about Stalin?

How is sacraficing thousands of lives on a war the sign of a good leader? You don't see Bush recieving any medals. What about the thousands that died of famine because of his failed policy of collectivism. How about the many he executed that opposed him or criticized him in anyway. Even the later Soviet leaders attacked his views. Just because we had a common enemy, doesn't mean he was our ally and he damn well doesn't need to be praised.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Oh yeah, he also tried to kill the Jews, luckily the Bastard had the decency to die.

 

[Adler17]

That bastard is at the worst level oof politicians on one step with Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and perhaps Genghis Khan. I hope they all burn in hell now.

Adler

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

That bastard is at the worst level oof politicians on one step with Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and perhaps Genghis Khan. I hope they all burn in hell now.

Adler

Ah, Genghis wasn't so bad... I dont recall him really doing anything too terrible.

Hell, you could call Peter The Great terrible for torturing the Streltsky ( I beleive thats the correct spelling) even torturing them himself, thats a rumor but I believe its true. But I support what Peter did to those traitors.

 

[silver 2039]

Genghis Khan was a great leader for his time, Stalin was incompotent, it was his fault that the USSR suffered so badly perhaps the only useful thing he did was industrializing the USSR but even that came at the cost of millions.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Genghis Khan was a great leader for his time, Stalin was incompotent, it was his fault that the USSR suffered so badly perhaps the only useful thing he did was industrializing the USSR but even that came at the cost of millions.

Russia as a long history of exploiting its vast manpower for its industrialization... But god damnit Stalin you went to far!!!

I think its wrong to morally judge anceint rulers like Genghis Khan to today's standards. We're in diffrent times, what we call horrible these days may have equalled magnificant back then.

 

[scy12]

How is sacraficing thousands of lives on a war the sign of a good leader? You don't see Bush recieving any medals. What about the milions that died of famine because of his failed policy of collectivism. How about the many he executed that opposed him or criticized him in anyway. Even the later Soviet leaders attacked his views. Just because we had a common enemy, doesn't mean he was our ally and he damn well doesn't need to be praised.

Search for Ukrainian Famine to see the extent of this crime. http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/famine.html ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

The death toll from the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine has been estimated between six million and seven million.

Nevertheless even if his propositions where catastrophic and Brutal it was the only way that would lead to the industrialization of Soviet Union. A Criminal and one of the most despicable human being he remains though.

 

[silver 2039]

Exactly. Take Alexander or Caser for insantace. They killed hundreds of thousands, wiped out entire nations of people's, and enslaved thousands, but they are looked upon as great leaders and conquerors because thats what everyone did back then and it was no diffrent in Genghis Khan's time. It is only with the advent of humanist ideals that things have changed.

 

[Tee Kay]

Exactly. Take Alexander or Caser for insantace. They killed hundreds of thousands, wiped out entire nations of people's, and enslaved thousands, but they are looked upon as great leaders and conquerors because thats what everyone did back then and it was no diffrent in Genghis Khan's time. It is only with the advent of humanist ideals that things have changed.

I see it this way. People like Genghis Khan, Timur, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, etc the great conquerers of history, they kill thousands or millions of people during their careers. But they're honoured because they did it in wartime and against people of other countries. War legitimised their actions. People like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc however are branded as monsters because they did it to their own people, although its really murder all the same whether in wartime or peacetime. It's one of the great irony of history. This sort of thing still happens even after humanist ideals became prevelent and will probably always happen in the future.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

When Hitler betrayed him I would love to see Stalin's face. Priceless.

Stalin's Folly by Constantine Pleshakov might interest you, then. It tries to go into Stalin's motivations and reactions to the Barbarossa invasion in the first few days.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But under Stalin's rule, up to 50,000,000 of his own people were murdered, executed, worked to death or delibrately starved. Millions of others were forcibly deported, jailed, beaten or exiled.

Now, I'm as die-hard opponent of Bolshevism and Stalin as you can get, but the 50 million number is completely unreasonable. It only entered the mainstream because during Soviet rule it was completely impossible to give anything more then conjecture.
But now it seems completely unfeesable. The Population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, meaning to combine 50 million of his own people, with 30 million in the war, we are looking at one half of the Soviet Union killed off. This would be a number completely unparalleled in history. Now, at the end of the Second World war, the Soviet Union was still able to field 20 million soldiers. China compartively fielded 5 million soldiers at this time. So out of a population reduced by half, to 80 million people, we now add on twenty million people who are not involved in raising crops, running factories, or basically being part of the nation in any functional way. This would mean basically the end of anything that could be described as Russian society. We'd still have excess cities in Russia to this day from this. The real number is much closer to 20 million.

 

[romanista]

Stalin... The Bastard.

When Hitler betrayed him I would love to see Stalin's face. Priceless.

i know right

 

[REDY]

Soviet Union should win battle againist nazist much easier without Stalin.
it was the only way that would lead to the industrialization of Soviet Union.
We cant know what autocracy should bring. Its 30 years, in 30 years should make be many things. They should take German reparations, have Finland, Poland and other countries which were rich by Russian conditions

if the Tsars were in charge during WW2, they would never defeat Hitler
Why, because tsars werent murdering their best generals?