Stalin's Contributions to History

[LightSpectra]

1) How has Stalin contributed to the course of history?

2) How do you view Stalin's contribution to the Soviet Union?

3) Who was worse overall, Hitler or Stalin?

4) What's your name/preferred alias and your occupation/preferred description? (Part of the assignment is to get the names & identifiers of people I interview. If real-life details don't work for you, just come up with a made-up name and identity)

1) Causing the Red Army's defeat in the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-20, slowing the industrialization of the Soviet Union through horrid economic policies, genocide against several peoples of the Soviet Union, gulags, slave labor camps, intellectual repression and Orwellian totalitarianism, purging the Red Army of several effective officers, the disastrous Finnish-Soviet Winter War, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact proceeding the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, managing the Eastern Front of World War II (poorly at first, with increasing rightness as time progressed), deportation of the Crimean Tatars (Sürgün), decossackization, initiating the Cold War, enslaving Eastern Europe through the occupying Red Army, the NKVD, plundering East German industry, establishing the Soviet nuclear program by 1949, spreading the ideology of Marxism, not being able to tame post-war Yugoslavia, and providing critical support to the communists in the Chinese Civil War which arguably lead to their victory.

2) About as high as any genocidal madman can get. From the perspective of an imperialist, he was a great man. From the perspective of a human being, Stalin is unarguably one of the most evil men to ever live and the blood of somewhere between 25 and 60 million people are on his hands.

3) About the same.

4) LightSpectra, student majoring in ethics and history.

 

[BuckyRea]

One constructive thing Stalin did do was see to it that Trotsky got whacked. I don't think that Trotsky represented any real threat to the social order at the time of his death, but his murder did at least give a few intellectuals a martyr they could rant about.

1) How has Stalin contributed to the course of history?

One thing to note about Stalin was that he was more vulture than jackal. That is, he never picked a fight with a kid his own size. He may have bullied weak, lesser, and dying neighbors ready for the plucking, but he never instituted an aggressive war per se. To the extent that his successors as Soviet dictator followed suit, he can be commended for the nonaggressive posture he struck in world politics. As long as Uncle Joe lived, there was no threat of WW3 breaking out. In the 8 first years of the Cold War, that's certainly a commendable precedent he set.


3) Who was worse overall, Hitler or Stalin?

Stalin is #3, Hitler is #2, but most evil is...

4) What's your name/preferred alias and your occupation/preferred description? (Part of the assignment is to get the names & identifiers of people I interview. If real-life details don't work for you, just come up with a made-up name and identity)

My name is Bert. I know this Hitler guy personally. I say he's worse than Stalin with some authority on the matter. I live in New York City, on Sesame Street where I take care of my deeply neurotic roommate, Ernie, a Tourette's sufferer.

and no, we're not gay. Stop saying that.

 

[LightSpectra]

One constructive thing Stalin did do was see to it that Trotsky got whacked. I don't think that Trotsky represented any real threat to the social order at the time of his death, but his murder did at least give a few intellectuals a martyr they could rant about.

Uh, alright. Given that Trotsky was significantly less sociopathic than Stalin was, I would think that this is a bad thing. Though I suppose this is an arguable point since Trotsky was more of an internationalist than Stalin.

One thing to note about Stalin was that he was more vulture than jackal. That is, he never picked a fight with a kid his own size. He may have bullied weak, lesser, and dying neighbors ready for the plucking, but he never instituted an aggressive war per se. To the extent that his successors as Soviet dictator followed suit, he can be commended for the nonaggressive posture he struck in world politics.

The Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 and Winter War beg to differ.

 

[Karalysia]

1) How has Stalin contributed to the course of history?

Saved the USSR from the fascist capitalist hordes of Nazi Germany, liberated the countries of Eastern Europe from Nazi oppression and capitalism. Stood as a bulwark of anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism. Industrialized the USSR and made it stronger. Destroyed reactionary and internal enemies of the USSR who would have otherwise damaged it. Helping liberate China from capitalism and the dictatorship and oppression of Chaing Kai Shek. Helping North Korea liberate South Korea and establishing North Korea as a major industrial power, surpassing the South.

2) How do you view Stalin's contribution to the Soviet Union?

Positive. He made it stronger, won World War II, industrialized and modernized it, removed much of its internal enemies (like the terrorist kulaks who were purposely causing famine in the Ukraine) and established it as a world superpower and an example that the colonized people's of the world would turn to to free them from imperialist and capitalist oppression.

3) Who was worse overall, Hitler or Stalin?

Hitler of course. Not even a competition.

4) What's your name/preferred alias and your occupation/preferred description? (Part of the assignment is to get the names & identifiers of people I interview. If real-life details don't work for you, just come up with a made-up name and identity)

Karalysia: Major in history/economics/middle eastern studies

 

[GoodGame]

Wait, when did USSR join NATO?

Ok, when did First world really become such a great distinction if it only meant "Extra Special PLUS CAPITALISTS"?

 

[say1988]

Some time after 1952 when teh term first came into use.

First World meant US aligned states, but not necessarily NATO members.
Second World was the communist states (USSR, Eastern Europe, China, etc).
Third World (actually the previous two are derived from this term) were the non aligned states (namely Latin America, Africa, and the remains of Asia).

The economic view of it only arose recently (primarily after the fall of the Soviet Union, I believe).

I also doubt that the USSR would have been considered First World based on the more modern interpretation.

 

[BuckyRea]

The Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 and Winter War beg to differ.

The invasion of Poland speaks directly to my point. Poland's goose was already cooked when Stalin rolled in. He didn't initiate anything there, just picked up the pieces. He was an opportunist, a vulture.

The Winter War may be an exception to my generalization about Stalin, but even there, it's not like, by invading Finland, he was punching within his own weight class. There's a difference between grabbing someone else's dinner table and picking up the bread crumbs.

 

[LightSpectra]

fascist capitalist

(like the terrorist kulaks who were purposely causing famine in the Ukraine)

Nice grasp of history, there.

The invasion of Poland speaks directly to my point. Poland's goose was already cooked when Stalin rolled in. He didn't initiate anything there, just picked up the pieces. He was an opportunist, a vulture.

Just because the Western Allies had their hands too full to do anything about Soviet aggression doesn't mean it's not. The Soviets invaded a country they were not at war with, knowing that they would win and not be substantially requited for it, with no justifiable casus belli.

The Winter War may be an exception to my generalization about Stalin, but even there, it's not like, by invading Finland, he was punching within his own weight class. There's a difference between grabbing someone else's dinner table and picking up the bread crumbs.

What the hell does that even mean?

 

[vogtmurr]

The economic view of it only arose recently (primarily after the fall of the Soviet Union, I believe).
.

that kind of makes sense, since if you weren't a member of nato or the warsaw pact you were generally one of many nations with a lower standard of living and limited industrial / technological capacity, especially at the height of the cold war. (countries like sweden, switzerland, finland, austria, spain etc. were an obvious exception) I note that in the broad sense 3rd world also included NATO-aligned nations like brazil, taiwan, S. Korea and turkey as late as the 70s, and also Israel and India but not china, since it was a leading power and had considerable industrial potential of its own, even if it was mostly to copy soviet designs. But i would suggest that the general perception that third world countries were backwards and economically disadvantaged dates back at least to the 70s as well.

 

[Lord Baal]

Nice grasp of history, there.



Just because the Western Allies had their hands too full to do anything about Soviet aggression doesn't mean it's not. The Soviets invaded a country they were not at war with, knowing that they would win and not be substantially requited for it, with no justifiable casus belli.



What the hell does that even mean?

Bucky's just saying that Stalin was an opportunist, a scavenger rather than a hunter, LS. Stalin was obviously aggressive, but he didn't pick fair fights, unlike Hitler.

And Kara's just being Kara. You know, they see him trollin', they hatin,. He's just ridin' Commie.

 

[LightSpectra]

Bucky's just saying that Stalin was an opportunist, a scavenger rather than a hunter, LS. Stalin was obviously aggressive, but he didn't pick fair fights, unlike Hitler.

Yeah, but the notion that doing so is somehow better for the international order is absurd.

 

[Lord Baal]

Yeah, but the notion that doing so is somehow better for the international order is absurd.

Well, one can easily argue that a scavenger causes fewer problems because they don't upset the balance-of-power, though of course said balance would have to be real for that to be true.

 

[Dachs]

balance-of-power theory creates scavengers out of all states who follow it

 

[Lord Baal]

balance-of-power theory creates scavengers out of all states who follow it

In my experience not many states actually follow it though, even if they believe it exists. Britain being the obvious example.

 

[Dachs]

In my experience not many states actually follow it though, even if they believe it exists. Britain being the obvious example.

Sure they did, especially in the 18th century, or at least thought they did, which is the important thing

 

[LightSpectra]

Your stance on what the balance of power consists in is irrelevant. I personally don't think much of it, but that's immaterial to the fact that it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a belligerent power slowly absorbing weaker powers isn't healthy for world peace.

 

[Agent327]

Very good, except

purging the Red Army of several effective officers

should read: decimating the Red Army´s officer corps. Thousands of officers were executed, banned or imprisoned and the corps as such became practically non-existant on the eve of Wordlwar II (also partially explains the disastrous Winterwar against Finland).

1) How has Stalin contributed to the course of history?

Saved the USSR from the fascist capitalist hordes of Nazi Germany, liberated the countries of Eastern Europe from Nazi oppression and capitalism. Stood as a bulwark of anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism. Industrialized the USSR and made it stronger. Destroyed reactionary and internal enemies of the USSR who would have otherwise damaged it. Helping liberate China from capitalism and the dictatorship and oppression of Chaing Kai Shek. Helping North Korea liberate South Korea and establishing North Korea as a major industrial power, surpassing the South.

2) How do you view Stalin's contribution to the Soviet Union?

Positive. He made it stronger, won World War II, industrialized and modernized it, removed much of its internal enemies (like the terrorist kulaks who were purposely causing famine in the Ukraine) and established it as a world superpower and an example that the colonized people's of the world would turn to to free them from imperialist and capitalist oppression.

Never seen such a splendid example of Stalinist propaganda. Cheers!

 

[Karalysia]

Never seen such a splendid example of Stalinist propaganda. Cheers!

I'll let you in on a secret......

Spoiler :

I am Stalin.

 

[Dachs]

Your stance on what the balance of power consists in is irrelevant. I personally don't think much of it, but that's immaterial to the fact that it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a belligerent power slowly absorbing weaker powers isn't healthy for world peace.

Except, of course, when it "is"

 

[LightSpectra]

Except, of course, when it "is"

That wasn't one belligerent power expanding, that was three working in concert, and then using their mutual need for political repression as the basis for co-operation. You could arguably say that nevertheless this was still unhealthy for world peace, given that it distracted the eastern Great Powers from French expansionism.

You could probably come up with a couple more counter-examples if you wanted to. The U.S. in the 19th century is one, because they were too far away and too largely populated for the European powers to want to do anything.