Communist flag:


I'm just curious as to what everyone thinks about the great Russian communist leader. He certainly was the key reason for an Allie victory in World War II. If not for his orders to fight Germany after Germany invaded Russia, we may have not been here today. He certainly helped the poor and tried to rebuild czarist Russia. We must also remember that Stalin killed over 20 million people in his concentration camps. -Pat

No he wasn't. US plus UK would have defeated the Axis Powers. UK and Russia would not have. Germany could have sealed the western front if not for America and apply their entire military to the east and win. Germany was already kicking Russia's ass in combat, as about 12 Russians were killed for every German. The Russians won by much larger numbers, and with the assistance of some American technology. The Allied Western front led by America would have taken a full attack from Germany and still won even if the Germans weren't fighting in the east. Russia helped but didn't change the outcome, only America did. Not to mention America was almost single-handedly fighting the Japanese in the Pacific, while Stalin didn't even pay attention to them. So, yes, we would be here today. You're totally wrong about WWII.

Oh, really? :rolleyes:

I guess you mean by killing he helped them. Helped the poor... Stalin's Russia was insanely poor and he killed over 20 million civilians.... real admirable system there, huh Pat.

Stalin was a useless evil bum.

I have to disagree, Pat. He was part of the reason, not the reason. The industrial power of the US would have prevailed in the long run.

He was a brutal dictator that murdered at a magnitude that challenges even Hitler. He is virtually indefensable for any type of human rights or even human decency, so calling him a "great communist leader" is a bit misguided, in my opinion. Unless brutality, oppression, and fear are a measure of greatness, Stalin falls far short of great.

Hey, I think that you've answered your own question my friend!

Don Cardi

I think the Soviet Union did contribute greatly to the Allied victory in WWII. Hitler put a great deal of his power into invading the Soviet Union, and, although the Russians suffered outragously high loses, the did utterly devestate the German army in two major consequetive battles, Stalingrad and Kursk, not to mention tying up a ton of men and equipment in the 900 day siege on Leningrad.

Would the allies have defeated the Nazis without the help of the Russians, probably, but the war would have been much longer, and much more costly to both the UK and the US, especially if Hitler and Stalin had maintained their earlier alliance.

This is not to say Stalin wasn't a tyrant and a monster, he was. Your figure of 20 million people killed in the Gulag system is actually a pretty conservative one. However I do feel the Russians made a vast contribution to the Allied victory of WWII.

I certainly didn't put it there for my health.

Stalin made Russia into one big industrial farm. Stalin also let the serfs keep their farms and freed the serfs from their owners. He didn't kill the poor. He killed those who he felt were threats to him. Christ, you're acting like I'm idolizing the guy. I respect what he tried to do and how he experimented with communism, not the fact that he killed 20 million people.

Just wondering, but do you think Lenin would've been able to make socialism OR communism work in Russia? I am pretty sure that I heard that Lenin and Stalin didn't even get along.

I disagree. I don't think that the US and UK could've beaten Germany without Russia. It was pretty much the US and UK alone, since France fell to Germany and Vichy France backed the Nazi's. I believe Canada helped us and some other European nations as well, but the US and UK were the 2 main forces on the Allies. Japan probably would've made the war last much longer too, but we decided to drop the 2 a-bombs to prevent further Allie casualties. I honestly can't see the Allies winning without Russia. Russia's military and technology was just so dominant at the time and every time that the US felt they gained a step in the arms race, we found Russia right there with us. -Pat

Pat, do you know who he thought were threats to him?

Pat, do you know who he thought were threats to him? [/quote]Military captains, communist party leaders, anyone who talked against him, etc, I'm sure there were some poor, but the majority were not. -Pat

Pat, do you know who he thought were threats to him? [/quote]Military captains, communist party leaders, anyone who talked against him, etc, I'm sure there were some poor, but the majority were not. -Pat [/b][/quote]I'm not debating the poor part.

Those were not the only threats to him though, people who served in his palace or whatever you want to call it were also routinely killed off. After a certain amount of time serving him he felt they knew too much and had them killed.

He killed more innocent people (you can even throw the people who spoke against him as guilty) than guilty people.

Patrick, not to sound like a know-it-all or anything, but Stalin did not free the serfs. Russian serfs were officially freed in 1861 while Russia was still under control of the Tsarist Empire under Alexander II. And Stalin certainly went after the poor in his purges. Almost every soldier who served overseas in WWII ended up in the Gulag camps, simply because they had seen the West. These are simple soldiers, not powerful military officers or anything like that. He also went after the kulaks who were Russian poor land owning peasants and pretty much wiped their class of the face of Russia. Perhaps this is what you're talking about when you said he free the serfs, but in reality all he did was demonize a slightly more afluant class of peasant and set them against each other. Pretty smart I'd say, but, once again, the guy was a monster.

"Russia's military and technology was just so dominant at the time and every time that the US felt they gained a step in the arms race, we found Russia right there with us."

This is true, but not until after WWII. During the war Russia was painfully behind the rest of the world with a couple notable exceptions (like the T-34). During the war the Allies pumped a lot of technology into the Soviet Union to help them out, which is where a lot of Soviet arms researchers got their start.

He let the serfs "keep their farms"? Isn't communism about state ownership of the land? Private lands were confiscated for the use of the state Pat, so no personal property. What about the thousands of workers that died during the 5 year plans? Or the thousands of peasants who were sent to gulags for being unwilling to give up their land to create collective farms? Why do you respect someone for "experimenting" with communism if it led to the deaths of millions?

Russia's military during WWII wasn't "dominant" at all. They had poor leadership and poor training, and won through sheer numbers and determination. They certainly played a major role in winning the war, but I think the rest of the allies would have won without them.

to expand on what Mr. Baggins said......watch "Enemy at the Gate" the beginning of the movie is VERY accurate. When the soviets would get off the train to go into the battle of Stalingrad some were given guns and some were given bullets. When someone with a gun was killed the person with bullets would pick it up etc... That's why the Soviets lost 26 million soldiers *combat related* They just had numbers.


But there is no way to say "if if if" it happened and it's over. If the russians weren't with us would we have won? maybe. Would we have lost? maybe.


Also if you "Respect what Stalin did" read a book called "Under a Cruel Star" it is a real story about what a woman went through under a Stalin inspired government.

Actually Pat's partially right on this one. Stalin did allow, eventually, a small number of peasant kolektivs keep their farms. They were not individual ownerships, but the never were even prior to the Bolsheviks. They were originally run by the Mir, which is kind of a communal farming co-op. Stalin allowed a few of these to exist because they worked better than the sovkhozs farms and he didn't want violent uprisings during the war.

You tell em Cancerkitty!

Actually to add to what you have said, Russia was getting their asses kicked in against Germany! The mistake that the Russians made was that they tried to fight the war on TWO fronts and they were, as you have said, behind the rest of the world and not well enough equipt to fight on two fronts. They learned from that mistake and again as you have said, made it a priority after WWII to catch up and bulid up their arms to compete with the rest of the world.


Don Cardi

Private lands that rich people owned and used serfs were taken by the state.

Alright...Like I said, I don't like the guy for people being killed.

Thousands of peasants. My point exactly. Over 20 million people were killed. Very few poor people were killed. Stalin took a lot of the rich's money and gave it to the poor.

I respect his courage to try something while the most powerful country (US) begged them not to turn communist. I also think Lenin could've worked the USSR. What did the US expect after Bloody Sunday? Honestly. Nicholas the II killed protesters and the Bolshevik Revolution was less than a year later. If hundreds of farmers went to the White House and asked Bush for more benefits and Bush ordered them to be shot, would you no rebel?

Actually Pat's partially right on this one. Stalin did allow, eventually, a small number of peasant kolektivs keep their farms. They were not individual ownerships, but the never were even prior to the Bolsheviks. They were originally run by the Mir, which is kind of a communal farming co-op. Stalin allowed a few of these to exist because they worked better than the sovkhozs farms and he didn't want violent uprisings during the war. [/quote]Yes--Stalin made 2 state owned farms. The farmers in the one were paid based on sales and production and the farmers in the other one were paid with wages.

Stalin gave the "rich's money" to the people he wanted to. Most everyone was poor in the Soviet Union. If you weren't a high ranking member of the Party you didn't get much.

And wages were absolute garbage, most times it wasn't even enough to pay rent etc..

I respect his courage to try something while the most powerful country (US) begged them not to turn communist. [/quote]:rolleyes:


Don Cardi

I don't really think it's fair to compare Lenin and Stalin here. Lenin was willing to comprimise a bit and include at least a modicum of capitalism into the Soviet Union, i.e. the New Economic Program. During NEP the USSR was at it's most productive point.

Stalin took over and forced collectivization, sold 80% of foodstuffs (including the parts of the grain that were necessary for the following season's planting) which caused artificial famines. Why? To prove that the Soviet Union could produce as much as the US. If that's what you call courage to try something new, well I don't know what to tell you.

By the way, Lenin was no angel himself.

CK--What did Lenin do?

Well, for starters he ordered the execution of the royal family after Nicholas II peacefully abdicated the throne and allowed himself and his family to be arrested. He also outlawed other political parties. He used Leon Trotsky as a sort of one man goon squad, sending him around the countryside prior to collectivization to bully around the peasants to see how much resistance they might put up. He formed the Cheka, which were the forerunners of the KGB, and used them to root out potential political competitors and have them gotten rid of.

If you're interested I can recommend a few pretty good books on Russian history.

Oh yeh? How about one that covers the Bolshevik Revolution to the beginning or end of the Cold War?

Well, probably the best one to read is Nicholas Riasanovski's A History of Russia. It's not just about the revolution, it's a complete history dating from the pre-Kievan era all the way to just before Putin took office.

For revolution stuff you might try The History of Soviet Russia: The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1922 by Edward Carr, or the Russian Revolution by Richard Pipes.

There's also an interesting one about Lenin and the Cheka called The Cheka: Lenin's Secret Police by George Leggett.

Most of these will talk about not just the Bolshevik (i.e. Novemeber Revolution) but also about the earlier March Revolution that was basically a popular uprising in responce to Russia's handling of WWI. The earlier revolution was kind of a precursor to the latter, and you'll find that the two actually run together.

Do you know of any books on Ho Chi Minh or communist North Vietnam?

No, unfortunatly not. My specialty is pretty much Russian. I know a little about the Chinese popular revolutions because they tie in a lot with Russia, but Vietnam is pretty removed from my (very limited )sphere of knowledge.

he was a jackass but nothing. i recommend y'all to see the movie "Stalin" (who Robert Duvall plays). it very well expresses how he got rid of Lenin and Trochki. and another movie "The Red Dictator" that tells about his achievements(!) if you dont like reading.

Pat - I have to admit that your choices of people that you admire puzzles me.

Pat!
I rarely feel the respect I felt reading your starting post! For your knowlege of other country's history and interest in it.
My applause! Hold on.

Until now I'd never heard anything positive about Stalin. I still think he was more evil than good though but I'll read up on it now.

I wouldn't say that I 'admire' him, but lives of dictators just fascinate me. When one man or one small group of people can force an entire revolution or take control of a single country all by themselves, I tip my hats to them.

And Ho Chi Minh? Come on now. The guy spoke 7 or 8 languages fluently! He is the only man who was ever able to defeat the US military! -Pat