Thread: Pro or Anti Stalin

Originally Posted by mike

And which do you think is the reason nobody is talking? Because you are right and the vast majority of the world are wrong...or something else that I will be polite and not say? [...] You are apparently nothing but an empty-headed apologist for every crime ever committed by this man.

If you're going to continue in this way, we better stop right now.

How you can even come to the conclusion that a country is to blame for defending its interests against someone who wants to annex part of their land is beyond me.

Did I ever blame it?

I tell you what: Let Washington make a nice offer to Moscow for a piece of Russia with half a million inhabitants living on it and we'll see if you defend our President for wanting to do things the peaceful way while your country was too stubborn to acquiesce. When we lose a great deal of soldiers but Russia is weak and gives in, you can write all you want in here defending our country to all the naysayers poisoned by propaganda from other "democratic nations" and use the unbiased, impartial resources by the neocon patriots like Wall Street Journal and Fox News.

That's a totally different topic. Remember that you wanted to compare the performance of Trotsky and Stalin in military affairs. As for the political background, have a look at Liddell Hart's account on that. I hope you're not going to blame him for apologia.

[quote:2mmdp0wk]But we were comparing with Trotsky. Poland was a real failure, both in political and military terms. It was what stopped the "world revolution" once and for all. And I'm afraid the losses were heavier, because the army was beat.

We were...but you never replied to my last argument pertaining to him. You began talking only about the Winter War. I am still waiting for this response.
[/quote:2mmdp0wk]

I will. I hope we're finished on the winter now.

And the world revolution never existed to begin with. It was all in the Communist Party's imagination because the foreign representatives were too gutless to tell the Bolsheviks that the masses in the Western world were not going to come and save them from the blockades.

Fully agree. Problem is, it was in Trotsky's imagination as well, while Stalin appears more sensible in this regard.

With the exception of Germany it was total @@@@.

I wouldn't bet on Germany. I simply cannot imagine their marriage with the Russian, they'd been too hostile. I think it would've been a failure.

Originally Posted by mike

Again, it is just completely insane how you two will refuse to believe anything critical of the position you already have while naively accepting anything that supports such position as the God's truth (which is an ironic choice of words on my part since you remind me of a certain other group that acts like this).

Ironical indeed. Do you think that your usage of the words like "you naively accepting" will persuade anybody that your position is God's truth? Do you think that your referring to the "common knowledge" that "Stalin is bad regardless of how many he killed" and "the Soviets lost the war anyway" means anything in particular? It only means that you once genuinely believed that Stalin indeed killed 110 million, and that the Soviets lost 35 to 1. Since you cannot prove anything of the kind, you refer to the "common knowledge".

The whole discussion did center around the lies about Stalin, but all of the people defending this point (you, N, Tupolev) have turned everyone off. All that is left is me because I got here late, and I couldn't care less about this topic.

So why waste your time here? Carry on with your vital activities.

Stalin killed a million people, Stalin killed 200,000 people...Who cares? Arguing about what degree of being an stupid asshole Stalin was is like arguing over which animal is responsible for the mess that you stepped in. Either way you're still talking about a piece of @@@@.

Yup. First you define Stalin as an "asshole", "piece of shit", etc, and then there is no point in arguing. It is funny how all your arguments boil down to that in the end. “You just know.” And you're not the first here to have done it.

You're right. It's not a failure. Any time 330,000 die needlessly for the sake of imperialism and paranoia it is a glorious victory for the misunderstood Дядя.

I just like how casually you distort the truth. A keystroke, and the number of deaths has almost tripled. One more iteration, and it's one million. Say hi to comrade Хрущёв.

Oh, I know, I know. Now you're going to say "who cares, 120, 330". If you don't, then don't talk about the numbers. Just say: "Stalin is a piece of shit. Period. Fuck the numbers." That is so convincing.

The Winter War was the equivalent of the US involvement in Korea or Vietnam, only they lost a lot more soldiers than the US did in a fraction of the time.

What you say about Vietnam is a joke. The Americans failed there. Completely. That alone is sufficient. They did manage to kill a lot of people there, and many of those were civilian. Is that what you're so proud of? An interesting dualism, that. When A "kills a lot of people", A is great. When B "kills a lot of people", B is shit. But that's surely because B is shit by definition.

Secondly, the American casualties were 360 thousand. http://www.vietnamwar.com/. And they lost that war. That's what you should call psychotic, and I'll fully agree.

Once again you are the most gullible person in the world. It "wanted" just a small piece of Lithuania too. What happened there? This is how Stalin annexed countries. It was standard practice for him.

I don't care. Annexing other countries was honorable business back then. Everybody who could did so.

I am still waiting for this response.

1. Trotsky was saying about his "unwillingliness to go into Poland" in the aftermath. If there is any evidence that he actually did so, then I do not know about it. I'm not saying it does not exist, I just do not know. Somehow, I think he had enough authority to refuse had he actually wanted to.

2. Economy might have been thriving at NEP. That itself is not sufficient for making high explosives, tanks and aircraft. Russia simply did not have any serious facilities for that, at WWI she depended on the allies.

3. Germany could be weak, but what makes you think that the USSR was a lot better off at that time? There is an interesting dualism in your attitude here. You said that Finland was weak and ran low on armaments and ammunition; yet you said she was a formidable enemy and the USSR failed there. Now Germany is weak and poor just like Finland, yet in this case the USSR should prevail. In early thirties the Red Army was a lot weaker than in 1940, yet it should prevail just the same. I don't buy this communist crap, patriotism/nationalism would have been stronger a feeling, and those communists would have become Nazi in no time, just like they actually did even without an external threat.

4. Napoleon was ultimately defeated because he was a brilliant tactician but a poor strategist. In Europe he did not have to be a strategist because the space was small and tactics alone would suffice. Not so in Russia. He could win one battle, but the Russians would just go somewhere else. Then the question of supplies, reinforcements and holding the ground had to be addressed, but it was never done. I recall that he was shocked when the Russians burned villages and crops; he actually expected them to leave them intact. It was mostly patience on the Russian part that finished him. That and the winter.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by mike

Again, it is just completely insane how you two will refuse to believe anything critical of the position you already have while naively accepting anything that supports such position as the God's truth (which is an ironic choice of words on my part since you remind me of a certain other group that acts like this).

Ironical indeed. Do you think that your usage of the words like "you naively accepting" will persuade anybody that your position is God's truth? Do you think that your referring to the "common knowledge" that "Stalin is bad regardless of how many he killed" and "the Soviets lost the war anyway" means anything in particular? It only means that you once genuinely believed that Stalin indeed killed 110 million, and that the Soviets lost 35 to 1. Since you cannot prove anything of the kind, you refer to the "common knowledge".

No, I don't think it will persuade anyone of anything, but then I don't have to. I'm not the one here who has the burden of proof upon them to prove it's all true. Historical acceptance is already on my side. The onus is on those people proving the positive assertion. So when I refer to "common knowledge" there is a certain degree of credibility, for the same reason that someone believing in gravity or lightning can assert faith in "common knowledge." It is not up to them to prove to people who deny gravity exists that it does. It is up to those who deny it exists to prove that it doesn't. Since there's roughly 6.5bn people in the world and maybe you and 20,000 of them don't think Stalin was a douchebag, I'd say it's pretty close to being conventional wisdom.

BTW I told you already that the "35 to 1" number was hyperbole. And I don't think Stalin killed 110 million people. I don't really care what number you want to whittle it down to. The fact that the purges existed at all makes him deserving of a nice bullet in the brain as far as I'm concerned.

[quote:5re8qq0f]The whole discussion did center around the lies about Stalin, but all of the people defending this point (you, N, Tupolev) have turned everyone off. All that is left is me because I got here late, and I couldn't care less about this topic.

So why waste your time here? Carry on with your vital activities.[/quote:5re8qq0f]

I am a masochist, I suppose.

[quote:5re8qq0f]Stalin killed a million people, Stalin killed 200,000 people...Who cares? Arguing about what degree of being an stupid asshole Stalin was is like arguing over which animal is responsible for the mess that you stepped in. Either way you're still talking about a piece of @@@@.

Yup. First you define Stalin as an "asshole", "piece of @@@@", etc, and then there is no point in arguing. It is funny how all your arguments boil down to that in the end. “You just know.” And you're not the first here to have done it.[/quote:5re8qq0f]

Actually we were arguing about something completely unrelated to Stalin's historical role. I suppose you've forgotten already. Our argument was pertaining specifically to his necessity in eliminating Hitler from Europe. If you want to go back and pretend that "first I defined Stalin as blah blah blah" then go ahead. Everyone can go back to the page my original post was on and see that it in fact wasn't my argument at all. But he was an asshole now that you mention it. And I'm fairly sure he was lacking as much downstairs as up- if you get my meaning. You can whine about this not being relevant to political argument if you want. I don't really care. I'm not writing a college thesis here. I'm arguing with some guy on the internet. I don't believe professionalism or maturity factors into the equation anywhere. If they did I would never bother.

[quote:5re8qq0f]
You're right. It's not a failure. Any time 330,000 die needlessly for the sake of imperialism and paranoia it is a glorious victory for the misunderstood Дядя.

I just like how casually you distort the truth. A keystroke, and the number of deaths has almost tripled. One more iteration, and it's one million. Say hi to comrade Хрущёв.

Oh, I know, I know. Now you're going to say "who cares, 120, 330". If you don't, then don't talk about the numbers. Just say: "Stalin is a piece of @@@@. Period. @@@@ the numbers." That is so convincing.[/quote:5re8qq0f]

Actually I just wanted to lure you into whining about this so I could point out that you misquoted the numbers yourself. Go back and check out where you first talk about the numbers. You say, and I quote:

This 35:1 is BS. I'll fetch Liddel Hart's WWII and quote what he thinks on the Winter War later on. For the time being, please be aware that the total casualties of the Red Army were ~120 thousand. The Finnish casualties, according to the Finns, were ~50 thousand (and I bet they were higher). That's less than 3:1. Given the character of the environment (winter, hardly passable terrain, bad transport infrastructure on the Soviet side) and the nature of the fortifications the Soviets had to deal with, that is not bad at all.

Oh! The total casualties of the Red Army were ~120,000. But wait...later on you say:

I told you I'd fetch the book and give you a quotation; I just do not have it at hand now. Thanks to N, you have the sources now.

120 KIA versus 50 KIA
330 total versus 100 total

I don't understand, bad manners. How did we go from saying there were 120,000 casualties to saying there were 120,000 deaths? Did you think nobody would notice?

[quote:5re8qq0f]
The Winter War was the equivalent of the US involvement in Korea or Vietnam, only they lost a lot more soldiers than the US did in a fraction of the time.

What you say about Vietnam is a joke. The Americans failed there. Completely. That alone is sufficient. They did manage to kill a lot of people there, and many of those were civilian. Is that what you're so proud of? An interesting dualism, that. When A "kills a lot of people", A is great. When B "kills a lot of people", B is @@@@. But that's surely because B is @@@@ by definition.[/quote:5re8qq0f]

Actually, my point was that it was a highly expensive war in which a lot of people died for no clearly valuable reason. I never made any implication that the Vietnam war was something I'm proud of.

Secondly, the American casualties were 360 thousand. http://www.vietnamwar.com/. And they lost that war. That's what you should call psychotic, and I'll fully agree.

Hm, 360,000 over about 10 years for nothing compared to 330,000 in half of one year for 40,000 km2 (or 200kmx200km).

[quote:5re8qq0f]Once again you are the most gullible person in the world. It "wanted" just a small piece of Lithuania too. What happened there? This is how Stalin annexed countries. It was standard practice for him.

I don't care. Annexing other countries was honorable business back then. Everybody who could did so.[/quote:5re8qq0f]

...

[quote:5re8qq0f]I am still waiting for this response.

1. Trotsky was saying about his "unwillingliness to go into Poland" in the aftermath. If there is any evidence that he actually did so, then I do not know about it. I'm not saying it does not exist, I just do not know. Somehow, I think he had enough authority to refuse had he actually wanted to.[/quote:5re8qq0f]

No one in power had the authority to refuse to do what Lenin told them. Every time Lenin split with the Party they still caved in.

2. Economy might have been thriving at NEP. That itself is not sufficient for making high explosives, tanks and aircraft. Russia simply did not have any serious facilities for that, at WWI she depended on the allies.

You're right, and being as obsessive as he was with the military I'm sure Trotsky would've proceeded down a similar path.

3. Germany could be weak, but what makes you think that the USSR was a lot better off at that time? There is an interesting dualism in your attitude here. You said that Finland was weak and ran low on armaments and ammunition; yet you said she was a formidable enemy and the USSR failed there. Now Germany is weak and poor just like Finland, yet in this case the USSR should prevail. In early thirties the Red Army was a lot weaker than in 1940, yet it should prevail just the same. I don't buy this communist cr@p, patriotism/nationalism would have been stronger a feeling, and those communists would have become Nazi in no time, just like they actually did even without an external threat.

Germany in 1930 is a comparatively easier target than Finland in 1939. You've said yourself that Finland's extremely cold climate led primarily to the loss. And we're talking about how the Red Army would've been under Trotsky, not Stalin. So it is pointless to discuss how strong it was in 1930 or 1940, because this is how it was under his lead, not the former's. You can't know how anyone else would've done it differently.

4. Napoleon was ultimately defeated because he was a brilliant tactician but a poor strategist. In Europe he did not have to be a strategist because the space was small and tactics alone would suffice. Not so in Russia. He could win one battle, but the Russians would just go somewhere else. Then the question of supplies, reinforcements and holding the ground had to be addressed, but it was never done. I recall that he was shocked when the Russians burned villages and crops; he actually expected them to leave them intact. It was mostly patience on the Russian part that finished him. That and the winter.

Hitler was neither a brilliant tactician nor strategist, and there are many times when he would do something against all of the sane advisement of his commanders simply because he thought it a good idea. He stopped the air raids on England at a time when he came close to nearly crushing London completely--which a lot of people who write big books about history like Sir John H Hapablap-Smythe or whoever you quoted considering to a stroke of pure incompetence. He also ignored his navy so much that there were still Jewish officers onboard a lot of the warships (although why they would want to serve in it still is beyond me). So you tell me how much of a serious threat he posed to the world. I don't buy this about the Nazis taking over the earth if it weren't for the Soviet Union and Stalin. The USSR is responsible for ending the war when it did. It probably would've gone on for a lot longer if Hitler had never invaded Russia. But then guess what? The atomic bomb still would've been developed, it would've been dropped on Berlin, and that's the end of the glorious Third Reich. Stalin or not the Allies would've won World War 2. All he accomplished was winning it in a much quicker amount of time, and for that the people of the USSR should be thanked and remembered. Not him. One must wonder how much quicker it would've been over had he not executed most of his experienced officers in order to replace them with fresh graduates who would be more loyal to him.

Originally Posted by mike

No, I don't think it will persuade anyone of anything, but then I don't have to. I'm not the one here who has the burden of proof upon them to prove it's all true. Historical acceptance is already on my side. The onus is on those people proving the positive assertion.

Well, if it all boils down to "acceptance", then I don't give a shit about that acceptance. Two billion lemmings and so on. The onus is always on those proving the negative assertion. So far it has been proven mostly with lies alone. When the lies are debunked, the scale of Stalin's bad deeds is reduced well below the normal Russian level.

It is not up to them to prove to people who deny gravity exists that it does. It is up to those who deny it exists to prove that it doesn't.

Even here your analogy is flawed. Gravity does not exist. Ask any physicist.

BTW I told you already that the "35 to 1" number was hyperbole. And I don't think Stalin killed 110 million people. I don't really care what number you want to whittle it down to.

See above. With his real (not imaginary) "accomplishments" he would not even rank third among the Tsars.

The fact that the purges existed at all makes him deserving of a nice bullet in the brain as far as I'm concerned.

Ouch. And I remember your saying something about certain ideological difference between you and me.

Actually we were arguing about something completely unrelated to Stalin's historical role. I suppose you've forgotten already. Our argument was pertaining specifically to his necessity in eliminating Hitler from Europe. If you want to go back and pretend that "first I defined Stalin as blah blah blah" then go ahead. Everyone can go back to the page my original post was on and see that it in fact wasn't my argument at all.

In a thread named "pro or anti-Stalin" I'm arguing about that. Only that. You can choose a different thread if this one does not suit your expectations.

But he was an asshole now that you mention it. And I'm fairly sure he was lacking as much downstairs as up- if you get my meaning. You can whine about this not being relevant to political argument if you want.

I'm not whining. You're mixing your arguments with shit without any coercion whatsoever.

[quote:11gij4zf]
I just like how casually you distort the truth. A keystroke, and the number of deaths has almost tripled. One more iteration, and it's one million. Say hi to comrade Хрущёв.

Oh, I know, I know. Now you're going to say "who cares, 120, 330". If you don't, then don't talk about the numbers. Just say: "Stalin is a piece of @@@@. Period. @@@@ the numbers." That is so convincing.

Actually I just wanted to lure you into whining about this so I could point out that you misquoted the numbers yourself. Go back and check out where you first talk about the numbers. You say, and I quote:

This 35:1 is BS. I'll fetch Liddel Hart's WWII and quote what he thinks on the Winter War later on. For the time being, please be aware that the total casualties of the Red Army were ~120 thousand. The Finnish casualties, according to the Finns, were ~50 thousand (and I bet they were higher). That's less than 3:1. Given the character of the environment (winter, hardly passable terrain, bad transport infrastructure on the Soviet side) and the nature of the fortifications the Soviets had to deal with, that is not bad at all.

Oh! The total casualties of the Red Army were ~120,000. But wait...later on you say:

I told you I'd fetch the book and give you a quotation; I just do not have it at hand now. Thanks to N, you have the sources now.

120 KIA versus 50 KIA
330 total versus 100 total

I don't understand, bad manners. How did we go from saying there were 120,000 casualties to saying there were 120,000 deaths? Did you think nobody would notice?
[/quote:11gij4zf]

I apologize, I was quoting from memory. But that was not relevant to my assertion, because the ratio is the same, and we were talking about the ratio, of killed if I remember correctly.

That's quite different from your misquotation.

Actually, my point was that it was a highly expensive war in which a lot of people died for no clearly valuable reason. I never made any implication that the Vietnam war was something I'm proud of.

[quote:11gij4zf]Secondly, the American casualties were 360 thousand. http://www.vietnamwar.com/. And they lost that war. That's what you should call psychotic, and I'll fully agree.

Hm, 360,000 over about 10 years for nothing compared to 330,000 in half of one year for 40,000 km2 (or 200kmx200km).
[/quote:11gij4zf]

Oh, arithmetic. I'm fascinated by arithmetic, you know. So: 330,000 / 0.5 / 40,000 = 16,5 men per year per sq. km. On the other hand: 360,000 / 10 / 0 = infinity. The Americans in Vietnam fared infinitely worse than the Soviets in Finland. Even ignoring the climatic and "enemy toughness" factors. You should really try harder when you select models to compare.

[quote:11gij4zf]
1. Trotsky was saying about his "unwillingliness to go into Poland" in the aftermath. If there is any evidence that he actually did so, then I do not know about it. I'm not saying it does not exist, I just do not know. Somehow, I think he had enough authority to refuse had he actually wanted to.

No one in power had the authority to refuse to do what Lenin told them. Every time Lenin split with the Party they still caved in.
[/quote:11gij4zf]

Whatever. He failed. So much for his military aptitude.

Germany in 1930 is a comparatively easier target than Finland in 1939. You've said yourself that Finland's extremely cold climate led primarily to the loss.

Not the climate alone. The terrain and the fortifications. The Russians can handle cold weather without much problem. They spend half a year below freezing.

And we're talking about how the Red Army would've been under Trotsky, not Stalin. So it is pointless to discuss how strong it was in 1930 or 1940, because this is how it was under his lead, not the former's. You can't know how anyone else would've done it differently.

I might throw in a few other arguments, but I have a feeling you'll object with this same argument. So I'll agree. That leaves the question open.

Hitler was neither a brilliant tactician nor strategist, and there are many times when he would do something against all of the sane advisement of his commanders simply because he thought it a good idea.

His commanders were good tacticians. Some of them were able strategists. I don't think he ever made any tactical decisions, he was mostly concerned with strategic issues. He did have a few good ideas, but then he performed badly in other cases.

He stopped the air raids on England at a time when he came close to nearly crushing London completely--which a lot of people who write big books about history like Sir John H Hapablap-Smythe or whoever you quoted considering to a stroke of pure incompetence.

Then you need to read them again. Because they say he was obsessed with the idea of attacking the USSR and when he saw that the air offensive was not going on perfectly, it was all the better for him so he could concentrate his efforts on the USSR. If not for the USSR, he would have pulverized the UK in a couple of months.

He also ignored his navy so much that there were still Jewish officers onboard a lot of the warships (although why they would want to serve in it still is beyond me). So you tell me how much of a serious threat he posed to the world.

He wanted to get rid of the USSR first and then get rid of or come to terms with the UK; either way the Navy could wait.

I don't buy this about the Nazis taking over the earth if it weren't for the Soviet Union and Stalin. The USSR is responsible for ending the war when it did. It probably would've gone on for a lot longer if Hitler had never invaded Russia. But then guess what? The atomic bomb still would've been developed, it would've been dropped on Berlin, and that's the end of the glorious Third Reich.

Had he finished with the USSR, he would have finished with the UK pretty soon. That means no atomic bomb would have ever been dropped on Berlin, because the US did not have a bomber which could reach Berlin from the US or even Africa. It would have never been dropped even if the US had had such a bomber, because it would have been met by a Luftwaffe way stronger than it really was in 1945. It would not have been dropped in 1945 because the implosion design critically depended on the explosive lenses that were researched in England. And finally even if it had been dropped, that would not have caused much damage to Berlin, let alone Hitler's bunker. The success of the atomic bomb in Japan depended on the material the Japanese used for their buildings, wood. Most of the city burned down, while the shock wave did not cause much damage past 1km off the epicenter. And the US could not have used more than just a few atomic bombs, because it took months to make just one. Actually, it was mostly the considerations above that prevented the US from using the atomic bomb on the USSR before 1949, it would not have been effective.

Stalin or not the Allies would've won World War 2.

BS. No USSR means no UK in no time, and then there is at least parity with the US; not to mention that until 1943 the US could hardly cope with Japan; imagine what would have happened had Hitler actively helped the Japanese.

One must wonder how much quicker it would've been over had he not executed most of his experienced officers in order to replace them with fresh graduates who would be more loyal to him.

More loyal? Those executed (the high ranked) were charged with plotting a conspiracy, and as they were hardcore Trotskyists I suspect it was not very untrue. They were no good in purely military affairs, either, as Poland demonstrated. It was not fresh graduates alone anyway. The most famous Soviet generals and marshals were old-timers.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by mike

No, I don't think it will persuade anyone of anything, but then I don't have to. I'm not the one here who has the burden of proof upon them to prove it's all true. Historical acceptance is already on my side. The onus is on those people proving the positive assertion.

Well, if it all boils down to "acceptance", then I don't give a @@@@ about that acceptance. Two billion lemmings and so on. The onus is always on those proving the negative assertion. So far it has been proven mostly with lies alone. When the lies are debunked, the scale of Stalin's bad deeds is reduced well below the normal Russian level.

Yes, everyone is wrong except you. And you can prove it with your 3 books by completely unbiased Russian historians with no possible motive to clear Stalin's name. This is about as believable as Ann Coulter's treatment of Joseph McCarthy. It's called selling books and being famous because you know there are dupes out there willing to believe whatever you want them to. I'm sure gaining political power doesn't hurt either.

[quote:41nt4fma]It is not up to them to prove to people who deny gravity exists that it does. It is up to those who deny it exists to prove that it doesn't.

Even here your analogy is flawed. Gravity does not exist. Ask any physicist.[/quote:41nt4fma]

Anything else you want to deny while we're at it? The earth is not round? The number of Jews exterminated in Germany? Dinosaurs perhaps?

[quote:41nt4fma]BTW I told you already that the "35 to 1" number was hyperbole. And I don't think Stalin killed 110 million people. I don't really care what number you want to whittle it down to.

See above. With his real (not imaginary) "accomplishments" he would not even rank third among the Tsars.[/quote:41nt4fma]

I don't deny the Tsars were as abominable if not worse than the Premiers of the USSR. Anyone who disagrees is romanticizing history to the point of voluntary ignorance and nostalgia. But this is not an excuse in my book. "Well things are awful but they used to be worse." This is too complacent an outlook on life.

[quote:41nt4fma]The fact that the purges existed at all makes him deserving of a nice bullet in the brain as far as I'm concerned.

Ouch. And I remember your saying something about certain ideological difference between you and me.[/quote:41nt4fma]

The difference being one is capital punishment for crimes (in the case of the military officers we are not even talking murder, we're talking about being executed for lesser crimes) committed by citizens and the other tyranny and despotism by those who allegedly are looking out for the citizens they are killing/torturing. I do not believe the end always justifies the means (for example I opposed the war in Iraq, but I am not going to lose any sleep when Saddam Hussein is killed), but I do not feel any compassion for dead tyrants.

[quote:41nt4fma]Actually we were arguing about something completely unrelated to Stalin's historical role. I suppose you've forgotten already. Our argument was pertaining specifically to his necessity in eliminating Hitler from Europe. If you want to go back and pretend that "first I defined Stalin as blah blah blah" then go ahead. Everyone can go back to the page my original post was on and see that it in fact wasn't my argument at all.

In a thread named "pro or anti-Stalin" I'm arguing about that. Only that. You can choose a different thread if this one does not suit your expectations.[/quote:41nt4fma]

And nobody made you respond to me.

[quote:41nt4fma]But he was an asshole now that you mention it. And I'm fairly sure he was lacking as much downstairs as up- if you get my meaning. You can whine about this not being relevant to political argument if you want.

I'm not whining. You're mixing your arguments with @@@@ without any coercion whatsoever.[/quote:41nt4fma]

I don't know what you're referring to precisely. My ad hominems of Stalin or of you? The latter are a case of being easily annoyed and angry that I am not going to apologize to anyone for, the former are a lack of sympathy for a member of government. Especially the authoritarian ones.

[quote:41nt4fma][quote:41nt4fma]
I just like how casually you distort the truth. A keystroke, and the number of deaths has almost tripled. One more iteration, and it's one million. Say hi to comrade Хрущёв.

Oh, I know, I know. Now you're going to say "who cares, 120, 330". If you don't, then don't talk about the numbers. Just say: "Stalin is a piece of @@@@. Period. @@@@ the numbers." That is so convincing.

Actually I just wanted to lure you into whining about this so I could point out that you misquoted the numbers yourself. Go back and check out where you first talk about the numbers. You say, and I quote:

This 35:1 is BS. I'll fetch Liddel Hart's WWII and quote what he thinks on the Winter War later on. For the time being, please be aware that the total casualties of the Red Army were ~120 thousand. The Finnish casualties, according to the Finns, were ~50 thousand (and I bet they were higher). That's less than 3:1. Given the character of the environment (winter, hardly passable terrain, bad transport infrastructure on the Soviet side) and the nature of the fortifications the Soviets had to deal with, that is not bad at all.

Oh! The total casualties of the Red Army were ~120,000. But wait...later on you say:

I told you I'd fetch the book and give you a quotation; I just do not have it at hand now. Thanks to N, you have the sources now.

120 KIA versus 50 KIA
330 total versus 100 total

I don't understand, bad manners. How did we go from saying there were 120,000 casualties to saying there were 120,000 deaths? Did you think nobody would notice?
[/quote:41nt4fma]

I apologize, I was quoting from memory. But that was not relevant to my assertion, because the ratio is the same, and we were talking about the ratio, of killed if I remember correctly.

That's quite different from your misquotation.[/quote:41nt4fma]

Only if we assume that these numbers are correct...which you've offered no evidence of except that "Krivosheev is respectable." Somehow he is able to pinpoint the exact number of casualties when no one else to this day is certain, so he must be right. Sure.

[quote:41nt4fma]
Actually, my point was that it was a highly expensive war in which a lot of people died for no clearly valuable reason. I never made any implication that the Vietnam war was something I'm proud of.

[quote:41nt4fma]Secondly, the American casualties were 360 thousand. http://www.vietnamwar.com/. And they lost that war. That's what you should call psychotic, and I'll fully agree.

Hm, 360,000 over about 10 years for nothing compared to 330,000 in half of one year for 40,000 km2 (or 200kmx200km).
[/quote:41nt4fma]

Oh, arithmetic. I'm fascinated by arithmetic, you know. So: 330,000 / 0.5 / 40,000 = 16,5 men per year per sq. km. On the other hand: 360,000 / 10 / 0 = infinity. The Americans in Vietnam fared infinitely worse than the Soviets in Finland. Even ignoring the climatic and "enemy toughness" factors. You should really try harder when you select models to compare.[/quote:41nt4fma]

The models are meant as a basic analogy, not a precise one. If we were being precise then you would've already pointed out that Vietnam was not a territory the Americans planned to own. We were helping the French retain a remnant of its dying colonialism and preventing communism from spreading. Had I known you were going to focus on the differences between the two analogies rather than the overall similarity I would have given it a second thought. I thought, on some crazy instinct, you might be able to see the forest for the trees. I apologize for being wrong.

[quote:41nt4fma][quote:41nt4fma]
1. Trotsky was saying about his "unwillingliness to go into Poland" in the aftermath. If there is any evidence that he actually did so, then I do not know about it. I'm not saying it does not exist, I just do not know. Somehow, I think he had enough authority to refuse had he actually wanted to.

No one in power had the authority to refuse to do what Lenin told them. Every time Lenin split with the Party they still caved in.
[/quote:41nt4fma]

Whatever. He failed. So much for his military aptitude.[/quote:41nt4fma]

Based on one invasion that it is doubtful anyone in his place would've won you come to the conclusion that he was a worse military leader than Stalin . I wish I could enjoy such a simplicity in logic.

[quote:41nt4fma]Germany in 1930 is a comparatively easier target than Finland in 1939. You've said yourself that Finland's extremely cold climate led primarily to the loss.

Not the climate alone. The terrain and the fortifications. The Russians can handle cold weather without much problem. They spend half a year below freezing.[/quote:41nt4fma]

Right, right. So I guess you're not disagreeing with me then that Germany would've been a much easier country to invade in 1930 than Finland was in 1939.

[quote:41nt4fma]And we're talking about how the Red Army would've been under Trotsky, not Stalin. So it is pointless to discuss how strong it was in 1930 or 1940, because this is how it was under his lead, not the former's. You can't know how anyone else would've done it differently.

I might throw in a few other arguments, but I have a feeling you'll object with this same argument. So I'll agree. That leaves the question open.

Hitler was neither a brilliant tactician nor strategist, and there are many times when he would do something against all of the sane advisement of his commanders simply because he thought it a good idea.

His commanders were good tacticians. Some of them were able strategists. I don't think he ever made any tactical decisions, he was mostly concerned with strategic issues. He did have a few good ideas, but then he performed badly in other cases.[/quote:41nt4fma]

Well, I am no expert on Hitler so I cannot even begin to argue about it. But I have read accounts from his former "able strategists" that he would demand to be involved in the planning of every major operation and give his own directives as to what should be done regardless of what they thought of these plans. The seriousness of his mistakes or how much responsibility for the losses he is accountable for I could not say.

[quote:41nt4fma]He stopped the air raids on England at a time when he came close to nearly crushing London completely--which a lot of people who write big books about history like Sir John H Hapablap-Smythe or whoever you quoted considering to a stroke of pure incompetence.

Then you need to read them again. Because they say he was obsessed with the idea of attacking the USSR and when he saw that the air offensive was not going on perfectly, it was all the better for him so he could concentrate his efforts on the USSR. If not for the USSR, he would have pulverized the UK in a couple of months.[/quote:41nt4fma]

Well, I consider that to be pretty incompetent on his part, don't you? Perhaps it is just me, I don't know. I am not a military strategist. But if I were fighting two men I would not beat one to the point of submission and then stop, and focus on the much stronger second man (who was making no attack on me this whole time) while allowing the first to recuperate. This doesn't seem like something a competent man would do.

[quote:41nt4fma]He also ignored his navy so much that there were still Jewish officers onboard a lot of the warships (although why they would want to serve in it still is beyond me). So you tell me how much of a serious threat he posed to the world.

He wanted to get rid of the USSR first and then get rid of or come to terms with the UK; either way the Navy could wait.

I don't buy this about the Nazis taking over the earth if it weren't for the Soviet Union and Stalin. The USSR is responsible for ending the war when it did. It probably would've gone on for a lot longer if Hitler had never invaded Russia. But then guess what? The atomic bomb still would've been developed, it would've been dropped on Berlin, and that's the end of the glorious Third Reich.

Had he finished with the USSR, he would have finished with the UK pretty soon. That means no atomic bomb would have ever been dropped on Berlin, because the US did not have a bomber which could reach Berlin from the US or even Africa. It would have never been dropped even if the US had had such a bomber, because it would have been met by a Luftwaffe way stronger than it really was in 1945. It would not have been dropped in 1945 because the implosion design critically depended on the explosive lenses that were researched in England.[/quote:41nt4fma]

Yes, I did not think of this. Had he not invaded the USSR this would probably come true. The point I set out to make was that Stalin alone was not responsible for Russia's self-defense. I have no idea what point I thought I was making by mentioning this about Hitler never invading the Soviet Union.

And finally even if it had been dropped, that would not have caused much damage to Berlin, let alone Hitler's bunker. The success of the atomic bomb in Japan depended on the material the Japanese used for their buildings, wood. Most of the city burned down, while the shock wave did not cause much damage past 1km off the epicenter. And the US could not have used more than just a few atomic bombs, because it took months to make just one. Actually, it was mostly the considerations above that prevented the US from using the atomic bomb on the USSR before 1949, it would not have been effective.

Well, you're assuming somehow the Germans would know the real effectiveness of the weapon and how long it would take to be built. They could not have possibly known either of these things (just as the Japanese couldn't know how many the US had left or how easy it would be to deliver them). And the bombing of Berlin need not necessarily kill Hitler or his officers to get the point across.

[quote:41nt4fma]Stalin or not the Allies would've won World War 2.

BS. No USSR means no UK in no time, and then there is at least parity with the US; not to mention that until 1943 the US could hardly cope with Japan; imagine what would have happened had Hitler actively helped the Japanese.[/quote:41nt4fma]

Who said the USSR wouldn't exist? I said without Stalin. Maybe it is to you, but the words "Stalin" and "USSR" are not synonymous in my opinion.

[quote:41nt4fma]One must wonder how much quicker it would've been over had he not executed most of his experienced officers in order to replace them with fresh graduates who would be more loyal to him.

More loyal? Those executed (the high ranked) were charged with plotting a conspiracy, and as they were hardcore Trotskyists I suspect it was not very untrue. They were no good in purely military affairs, either, as Poland demonstrated. It was not fresh graduates alone anyway. The most famous Soviet generals and marshals were old-timers.[/quote:41nt4fma]

Yes, and I'm sure the evidence against them was real and the trials fair as was customary in the Soviet Union, particulary under Stalin.

Originally Posted by mike

Yes, everyone is wrong except you. And you can prove it with your 3 books by completely unbiased Russian historians with no possible motive to clear Stalin's name. This is about as believable as Ann Coulter's treatment of Joseph McCarthy. It's called selling books and being famous because you know there are dupes out there willing to believe whatever you want them to. I'm sure gaining political power doesn't hurt either.

Funnily enough, the same argument applies to the anti-Stalin arguments. Think about it, mike.

[quote:3a7xlq34]Even here your analogy is flawed. Gravity does not exist. Ask any physicist.

Anything else you want to deny while we're at it? The earth is not round? The number of Jews exterminated in Germany? Dinosaurs perhaps?
[/quote:3a7xlq34]

I do not mean to insult, but you are clueless about gravity, mike. I'll not even try quoting textbooks on field theory, general relativity and cosmology, I suspect you will not understand what they say.

Oh, and the Earth is not round. It is three-dimensional so it cannot be. It is not spherical either, it is a geoid. I don't care about the Jews and dinosaurs.

I don't deny the Tsars were as abominable if not worse than the Premiers of the USSR. Anyone who disagrees is romanticizing history to the point of voluntary ignorance and nostalgia. But this is not an excuse in my book. "Well things are awful but they used to be worse." This is too complacent an outlook on life.

But it is a fair one. Back then, it was the standard practice in Russia, and it was not as terrible as it looks now. Why do you refer to today's standards when judging the past? If we go further back, a lot more cruelties were being done, outside Russia, too, which would seem unthinkable today.

[quote:3a7xlq34]Ouch. And I remember your saying something about certain ideological difference between you and me.

The difference being one is capital punishment for crimes (in the case of the military officers we are not even talking murder, we're talking about being executed for lesser crimes) committed by citizens and the other tyranny and despotism by those who allegedly are looking out for the citizens they are killing/torturing. I do not believe the end always justifies the means (for example I opposed the war in Iraq, but I am not going to lose any sleep when Saddam Hussein is killed), but I do not feel any compassion for dead tyrants.[/quote:3a7xlq34]

Strangely enough, by then current law conspiracies were punishable with the capital punishment.

And nobody made you respond to me.

You're free to ignore my messages, too.

[quote:3a7xlq34][quote:3a7xlq34]But he was an asshole now that you mention it. And I'm fairly sure he was lacking as much downstairs as up- if you get my meaning. You can whine about this not being relevant to political argument if you want.

I'm not whining. You're mixing your arguments with @@@@ without any coercion whatsoever.[/quote:3a7xlq34]

I don't know what you're referring to precisely. My ad hominems of Stalin or of you? The latter are a case of being easily annoyed and angry that I am not going to apologize to anyone for, the former are a lack of sympathy for a member of government. Especially the authoritarian ones.
[/quote:3a7xlq34]

Shitty arguments are just that, they smell. They make you smell, too.

Only if we assume that these numbers are correct...which you've offered no evidence of except that "Krivosheev is respectable." Somehow he is able to pinpoint the exact number of casualties when no one else to this day is certain, so he must be right. Sure.

I gave you another argument why 35 to 1 was laughable. You're still welcome to proving Krivosheev wrong, though.

[quote:3a7xlq34]
Oh, arithmetic. I'm fascinated by arithmetic, you know. So: 330,000 / 0.5 / 40,000 = 16,5 men per year per sq. km. On the other hand: 360,000 / 10 / 0 = infinity. The Americans in Vietnam fared infinitely worse than the Soviets in Finland. Even ignoring the climatic and "enemy toughness" factors. You should really try harder when you select models to compare.

The models are meant as a basic analogy, not a precise one. If we were being precise then you would've already pointed out that Vietnam was not a territory the Americans planned to own.[/quote:3a7xlq34]

Just like Finland was not a territory the Soviets planned to own, except a tiny plot of it.

Had I known you were going to focus on the differences between the two analogies rather than the overall similarity I would have given it a second thought. I thought, on some crazy instinct, you might be able to see the forest for the trees. I apologize for being wrong.

What bloody similarities? The Americans were waging a war for no reason save an imaginary one, they were doing it thousands miles from home, they were sweating in T-shirts sitting in helos rather than wading waist-deep in snow, they never came across any fortifications, they were doing it against an enemy whose principal weapon was AK-47 (on the ground), they were massacring civilians by a village. Forest? I can see the forest, but can you?

[quote:3a7xlq34]Whatever. He failed. So much for his military aptitude.

Based on one invasion that it is doubtful anyone in his place would've won you come to the conclusion that he was a worse military leader than Stalin . I wish I could enjoy such a simplicity in logic.
[/quote:3a7xlq34]

I wish that too. Only a jerk like Trotsky could entrust that to a fool like Тухачевский, who failed in a country that is ideal for highly mobile warfare, with numerical superiority in all troops and cavalry in particular. The latter is a reference to highly mobile warfare, proto-Blitzkrieg, FYI; but as you've demonstrated your ignorance in military matters (I’m referring to your perception of the finnish war, the atomic bomb, etc), I doubt you will understand.

And finally, had he been such a brilliant militarist, who had allegedly felt a coming disaster in Poland, he should have done everything and persuaded the Party to cancel the invasion. He was not the smallest member of the party, you know, and he could have done so. His alleged inability to do so is again an indication of his impotence in military matters. His stupid "world revolution" obsession is an indication of his impotence in political affairs.

[quote:3a7xlq34]Not the climate alone. The terrain and the fortifications. The Russians can handle cold weather without much problem. They spend half a year below freezing.

Right, right. So I guess you're not disagreeing with me then that Germany would've been a much easier country to invade in 1930 than Finland was in 1939.
[/quote:3a7xlq34]

With then current Red Army, I doubt it would have been easier.

[quote:3a7xlq34]His commanders were good tacticians. Some of them were able strategists. I don't think he ever made any tactical decisions, he was mostly concerned with strategic issues. He did have a few good ideas, but then he performed badly in other cases.

Well, I am no expert on Hitler so I cannot even begin to argue about it. But I have read accounts from his former "able strategists" that he would demand to be involved in the planning of every major operation and give his own directives as to what should be done regardless of what they thought of these plans. The seriousness of his mistakes or how much responsibility for the losses he is accountable for I could not say.
[/quote:3a7xlq34]

Major operation. That's strategic. Like I said, he did have a few good ideas, and quite a few bad ones.

[quote:3a7xlq34]Then you need to read them again. Because they say he was obsessed with the idea of attacking the USSR and when he saw that the air offensive was not going on perfectly, it was all the better for him so he could concentrate his efforts on the USSR. If not for the USSR, he would have pulverized the UK in a couple of months.

Well, I consider that to be pretty incompetent on his part, don't you? Perhaps it is just me, I don't know. I am not a military strategist. But if I were fighting two men I would not beat one to the point of submission and then stop, and focus on the much stronger second man (who was making no attack on me this whole time) while allowing the first to recuperate. This doesn't seem like something a competent man would do.
[/quote:3a7xlq34]

I agree that was stupid. I do not want to discuss why he did so, that's completely irrelevant. Except for one thing: he genuinely believed in weakness of the Russian "colossus"; few doubt that it was due to his WWI perception of Russia, which was indeed weak. But suddenly she was not that weak anymore in 1941. Would you explain what exactly had happened in Russia between 1918 and 1941 that provided for such a bad surprise for him?

Yes, I did not think of this. Had he not invaded the USSR this would probably come true. The point I set out to make was that Stalin alone was not responsible for Russia's self-defense. I have no idea what point I thought I was making by mentioning this about Hitler never invading the Soviet Union.

Probably not alone. But if you, on one hand, charge him for all the bad that happened in Russia, then it would be fair to attribute him all the good, on the other.

Well, you're assuming somehow the Germans would know the real effectiveness of the weapon and how long it would take to be built. They could not have possibly known either of these things (just as the Japanese couldn't know how many the US had left or how easy it would be to deliver them).

The atomic bomb was not what put Japan on her knees. The Japanese government had been seeking peace before that happened. If you need quotations on that, I'll provide.

Your arguments on alleged German ignorance about the weapon is laughable. Please do not be offended, but that shows your absolute cluelessness in science, just like with gravity. The Germans were trying to make one themselves, it is only thanks to repeated destructions of the key plants that they never made it. One does not even need to have such plants to estimate how long it takes to manufacture ~50 kg of highly enriched U-235 or make an equal amount of Pu-239. Such estimates can be off by a factor of two or three, but either two or six 20 kiloton bombs are nothing.

And it would have been impossible anyway, for the reasons that you seem to have agreed with.

And the bombing of Berlin need not necessarily kill Hitler or his officers to get the point across.

The Germans were suffering a lot more from the conventional bombing, entire cities were being wiped out, yet they continued their resistance.

Who said the USSR wouldn't exist? I said without Stalin. Maybe it is to you, but the words "Stalin" and "USSR" are not synonymous in my opinion.

My point is that without Stalin the USSR would indeed have fallen in two or three months just like Hitler reckoned. Continue my argument from here.

Yes, and I'm sure the evidence against them was real and the trials fair as was customary in the Soviet Union, particulary under Stalin.

Prove them wrong. Especially the particular case of Тухачевский et al.

Wow! This is getting more and more heated. And none of you is convincing the other side. None of you ever will.

*Fuck off, Jasper! This is a serious discussion, and if you've got nothing to add, then sod off, you bastard!*

Okay, okay, I'm leaving. Jeez. Relax.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by mike

Yes, everyone is wrong except you. And you can prove it with your 3 books by completely unbiased Russian historians with no possible motive to clear Stalin's name. This is about as believable as Ann Coulter's treatment of Joseph McCarthy. It's called selling books and being famous because you know there are dupes out there willing to believe whatever you want them to. I'm sure gaining political power doesn't hurt either.

Funnily enough, the same argument applies to the anti-Stalin arguments. Think about it, mike.

Well, I don't recall being on that side of this topic so I don't really care one way or the other.

[quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]Even here your analogy is flawed. Gravity does not exist. Ask any physicist.

Anything else you want to deny while we're at it? The earth is not round? The number of Jews exterminated in Germany? Dinosaurs perhaps?
[/quote:cx6b4otl]

I do not mean to insult, but you are clueless about gravity, mike. I'll not even try quoting textbooks on field theory, general relativity and cosmology, I suspect you will not understand what they say.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

Yes, I am clueless. Thank you for not burdening me with such things as evidence and wordy explanations. I went to my friend, Matthew Flores, who has almost completed his degree in astrophysics and asked him if gravity does not exist. At first he thought I was joking, and then when he realized I wasn't and I explained to him what you had said he proposed the following experiment to determine what (if any) are the gravitational effects of the earth:

1. Find an object in the room where you are sitting.
2. Hold it out in front of you.
3. Let it go.

As I understand it (I will confess I spent most of physics class in high school drawing and reading the books on the shelf rather than listen to the teacher), Newtonian gravity has been disproven and gravitational attraction is only a bend in space-time, however it exists nonetheless so it is totally thoughtless to say it doesn't. I guess we could ask woolliamser to explain it better.

Oh, and the Earth is not round. It is three-dimensional so it cannot be. It is not spherical either, it is a geoid. I don't care about the Jews and dinosaurs.

Huh? Three-dimensional objects can't be round? WTF kind of nonsense is that? A snowball is round. A golf ball is round. An egg is round. A banana is round. A fat man is round. None of these objects have less than three dimensions. They aren't spherically or cylindrically perfect, but nothing is. The earth is round, so are all the stars and planets and moons. Even children know this simple fact of the universe yet it has somehow eluded you.

[quote:cx6b4otl]I don't deny the Tsars were as abominable if not worse than the Premiers of the USSR. Anyone who disagrees is romanticizing history to the point of voluntary ignorance and nostalgia. But this is not an excuse in my book. "Well things are awful but they used to be worse." This is too complacent an outlook on life.

But it is a fair one. Back then, it was the standard practice in Russia, and it was not as terrible as it looks now. Why do you refer to today's standards when judging the past? If we go further back, a lot more cruelties were being done, outside Russia, too, which would seem unthinkable today.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

The standards of today and 60 years ago are not as different as today and 100 years (or more). And if we are talking about racial prejudices or cultural differences then sure, it is stupid to judge people like Wagner or Edison for having opinions that were considered "common knowledge" in those times. But having a disregard for human life is not retroactively forgivable. Since the invention of the written word and probably long before it people have understood this. Killing somebody has always been looked down upon by at least some of the people as far back as human civilization can remember.

[quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]Ouch. And I remember your saying something about certain ideological difference between you and me.

The difference being one is capital punishment for crimes (in the case of the military officers we are not even talking murder, we're talking about being executed for lesser crimes) committed by citizens and the other tyranny and despotism by those who allegedly are looking out for the citizens they are killing/torturing. I do not believe the end always justifies the means (for example I opposed the war in Iraq, but I am not going to lose any sleep when Saddam Hussein is killed), but I do not feel any compassion for dead tyrants.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

Strangely enough, by then current law conspiracies were punishable with the capital punishment.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

Which is funny, since part of the Bolshevik platform was "the end of capital punishment."

[quote:cx6b4otl]And nobody made you respond to me.

You're free to ignore my messages, too.
[/quote:cx6b4otl]

Well that wouldn't be very polite.

[quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]But he was an asshole now that you mention it. And I'm fairly sure he was lacking as much downstairs as up- if you get my meaning. You can whine about this not being relevant to political argument if you want.

I'm not whining. You're mixing your arguments with @@@@ without any coercion whatsoever.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

I don't know what you're referring to precisely. My ad hominems of Stalin or of you? The latter are a case of being easily annoyed and angry that I am not going to apologize to anyone for, the former are a lack of sympathy for a member of government. Especially the authoritarian ones.
[/quote:cx6b4otl]

@@@@ arguments are just that, they smell. They make you smell, too.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

Well, I guess I could just take the easy, cowardly way out every time and say, "Not to insult you bad manners, but I don't want to bring up a lot of things from large textbooks on the subject that would be too hard for you to comprehend. Do not ask me the nature of such books or in what fantasy land they exist and prove you wrong, but just know that while any professional in this field could tell you that what I say is true, it is so complex a topic that I simply will not waste my time trying to tell someone who is such much lower than I am on an intellectual level. Excuse me, I have to go now. My computer is flying away because of the nonexistence of gravity."

[quote:cx6b4otl]
Only if we assume that these numbers are correct...which you've offered no evidence of except that "Krivosheev is respectable." Somehow he is able to pinpoint the exact number of casualties when no one else to this day is certain, so he must be right. Sure.

I gave you another argument why 35 to 1 was laughable. You're still welcome to proving Krivosheev wrong, though.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

I'd have to know where his evidence comes from first. Considering his sources for the official Finnish numbers he claims to have come from two obscure Russian magazines that are over 10 years old I am going to have a little trouble doing this. If you are so interested in proving to the world that he is beyond reproach maybe you would do me a favor and find these two magazines and discover what Finnish "officials" he is using?

[quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]
Oh, arithmetic. I'm fascinated by arithmetic, you know. So: 330,000 / 0.5 / 40,000 = 16,5 men per year per sq. km. On the other hand: 360,000 / 10 / 0 = infinity. The Americans in Vietnam fared infinitely worse than the Soviets in Finland. Even ignoring the climatic and "enemy toughness" factors. You should really try harder when you select models to compare.

The models are meant as a basic analogy, not a precise one. If we were being precise then you would've already pointed out that Vietnam was not a territory the Americans planned to own.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

Just like Finland was not a territory the Soviets planned to own, except a tiny plot of it.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

Oh, give me a break! Every nation that was within breathing room of the Soviet Union became a member, whether they liked it or not. To believe Finland was not on the same list as the Baltic States is insane.

[quote:cx6b4otl]Had I known you were going to focus on the differences between the two analogies rather than the overall similarity I would have given it a second thought. I thought, on some crazy instinct, you might be able to see the forest for the trees. I apologize for being wrong.

What bloody similarities? The Americans were waging a war for no reason save an imaginary one, they were doing it thousands miles from home, they were sweating in T-shirts sitting in helos rather than wading waist-deep in snow, they never came across any fortifications, they were doing it against an enemy whose principal weapon was AK-47 (on the ground), they were massacring civilians by a village. Forest? I can see the forest, but can you?[/quote:cx6b4otl]

The excuse given for the Winter War is that Finland had vital areas near Leningrad and Kronstadt that Stalin wanted to use to protect himself against Germany's navy. This is true. The joint occupation of Porkkala and Naissaar would've all but quashed any attempt by the Nazis to attack Leningrad or Kronstadt. But these areas are not the ones that the Soviets requested. The original locations, like Hango, that Stalin requested in 1939 were of very little value against an invading German navy. However, these locations would be of great use to the Soviets if they were to begin an invasion into the Finnish mainland from them.

Likewise in Karelia the locations of the new border would've made the Mannerheim line worthless as a defense against Russia (which is in actuality what Stalin probably would've liked), they overran two or three main Finnish artillery fortresses that would be of no practical use to the Nazis in an invasion but would definitely be crucial to the Finns protecting themselves against a future Soviet war.

Similarly America claimed the country of Vietnam was vital to protecting itself from invasion and would be a very important military location for cooperation with the local people against its "enemy." In reality, the Americans were only interested in preventing the spread of the domino effect and controlling the area.

The "justification" you and most Stalin-sympathizers give is that Finland was to blame for the invasion because it would not go along with the peaceful, paltry requests of the USSR--even though such requests would in effect destroy Finland's attempt to ever defend itself against a Soviet aggressor and they had every right to refuse to cooperate. So I'm still waiting for you to respond to my original proposition. Let's say that the White House puts a deal on the table that requests only a few pieces of Russian territory that we say are vital to protecting our country. This territory is populated by Russians but they would be given a generous number of weeks to pack up their things and move somewhere else. We would be allowed to install military bases on this territory and use it for trafficking any equipment and cargo we see fit. Although it would be physically impossible for Russia to estimate how many soldiers are passing through, we would establish a limit on paper of how many can enter. These territories, though crucial to Russia's defense against an attack from the United States (oh, heaven forbid), are more important to the interests of the White House. What I want you to tell me, bad manners, is whether or not you would get upset when we declared war on the Russian federation for not agreeing to the terms.

[quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]Whatever. He failed. So much for his military aptitude.

Based on one invasion that it is doubtful anyone in his place would've won you come to the conclusion that he was a worse military leader than Stalin . I wish I could enjoy such a simplicity in logic.
[/quote:cx6b4otl]

I wish that too. Only a jerk like Trotsky could entrust that to a fool like Тухачевский, who failed in a country that is ideal for highly mobile warfare, with numerical superiority in all troops and cavalry in particular. The latter is a reference to highly mobile warfare, proto-Blitzkrieg, FYI; but as you've demonstrated your ignorance in military matters (I’m referring to your perception of the finnish war, the atomic bomb, etc), I doubt you will understand.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

This is such a great defense, but it is getting kind of old. It is as if you believe anyone's opinion of a war is discounted because they did not study every battle and troop placement, and because of the failure of one invasion by one guy (Warsaw) he is a military idiot, while the failure of another invasion by the other (Finland) can be blamed on his subordinates. But I forget this kind of logic is coming from the guy who thinks:

1. That gravity does not exist
2. That anything bad done under Stalin he either had no knowledge of or was completely helpless to stop
3. Things that are round are not round
4. The annexation of countries was done all the time and was therefore not a bad thing
5. The losses of 430,000 men on two sides of a war that lasted a few months are valid because one side gained 40,000km^2 that it didn't truly need and the other side made the mistake of believing it had the right to disagree with a diplomatic proposal that was grossly one-sided and suicidal to accept.
6. Any book used to quote information on Stalin must come from an author who has sympathies for him

And finally, had he been such a brilliant militarist, who had allegedly felt a coming disaster in Poland, he should have done everything and persuaded the Party to cancel the invasion. He was not the smallest member of the party, you know, and he could have done so. His alleged inability to do so is again an indication of his impotence in military matters. His stupid "world revolution" obsession is an indication of his impotence in political affairs.

Like I have said, what Lenin said was what got done. Even during the last years when most of the Party were against Lenin and the NEP and considered it a betrayal of Communism they still did everything that he wanted because he was the boss. Also, during the Civil War Lenin was not partial to listen to Trotsky. It wasn't until Stalin began to split with the Leninists during the 20s in order to make a name for himself and disrespected Lenin's wife that he and Trotsky began to work closer. Prior to this Lenin did not care much for Trotsky and considered him rigid and aloof (this is evidenced in Krupskaja's memoirs, "Reminiscences of Lenin"). I do not believe Trotsky was impotent in political affairs. Political socializing perhaps. He was certainly not as charismatic or effective with the people as Stalin was. However, I was afraid from the start that this would turn into an argument of me defending Trotsky against Stalin as a better leader. My argument was supposed to be a question of whether or not Stalin as an individual was necessary, as you claim, to defeating Hitler.

[quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]Not the climate alone. The terrain and the fortifications. The Russians can handle cold weather without much problem. They spend half a year below freezing.

Right, right. So I guess you're not disagreeing with me then that Germany would've been a much easier country to invade in 1930 than Finland was in 1939.
[/quote:cx6b4otl]

With then current Red Army, I doubt it would have been easier.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

Based on..? The Red Army itself were not to be the head of the invasion. I think in a sense Trotsky and Lenin's vision of the Red Army in regards to internationalism was a mirror of the Bolshevik vanguardism itself. Merely the guidance of the masses in armed support, not a fully-functional invasion force. Whether or not they would've succeeded in revolutionizing Germany, I have no doubt they would have eliminated Hitler and his heads or at least sent them into hiding. So much for becoming Fuhrer of the Third Reich.

[quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]Then you need to read them again. Because they say he was obsessed with the idea of attacking the USSR and when he saw that the air offensive was not going on perfectly, it was all the better for him so he could concentrate his efforts on the USSR. If not for the USSR, he would have pulverized the UK in a couple of months.

Well, I consider that to be pretty incompetent on his part, don't you? Perhaps it is just me, I don't know. I am not a military strategist. But if I were fighting two men I would not beat one to the point of submission and then stop, and focus on the much stronger second man (who was making no attack on me this whole time) while allowing the first to recuperate. This doesn't seem like something a competent man would do.
[/quote:cx6b4otl]

I agree that was stupid. I do not want to discuss why he did so, that's completely irrelevant. Except for one thing: he genuinely believed in weakness of the Russian "colossus"; few doubt that it was due to his WWI perception of Russia, which was indeed weak. But suddenly she was not that weak anymore in 1941. Would you explain what exactly had happened in Russia between 1918 and 1941 that provided for such a bad surprise for him?[/quote:cx6b4otl]

Military buildup that I'm sure any leader in Stalin's place would've likewise created. It is of course also a matter of self-defense of the homeland in WW2 versus a war for imperialism and private wealth that was exhausting the country of its ability to survive in WW1. It is not hard to see why there would be more public support for the former than the latter.

[quote:cx6b4otl]Yes, I did not think of this. Had he not invaded the USSR this would probably come true. The point I set out to make was that Stalin alone was not responsible for Russia's self-defense. I have no idea what point I thought I was making by mentioning this about Hitler never invading the Soviet Union.

Probably not alone. But if you, on one hand, charge him for all the bad that happened in Russia, then it would be fair to attribute him all the good, on the other.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

I don't charge him for all the bad that happened in Russia. I have attempted to distance myself from these arguments throughout ours. I've read Martens' "Another View of Stalin" and I don't doubt a lot of it is true. There is always a second side to every story. What I blame him for is not doing a whole lot to remedy any of the crimes committed against the public when he was in a position of power to fix all of them. If he did not know about them then he was not a very good leader. If he did know about them but never bothered to fix them then he is not a very good leader. Either way he seemed generally uninterested in giving people any of the things promised to them by the constitution (religious freedom, speech, protest, assembly, etc.).

[quote:cx6b4otl]
Well, you're assuming somehow the Germans would know the real effectiveness of the weapon and how long it would take to be built. They could not have possibly known either of these things (just as the Japanese couldn't know how many the US had left or how easy it would be to deliver them).

The atomic bomb was not what put Japan on her knees. The Japanese government had been seeking peace before that happened. If you need quotations on that, I'll provide.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

No, but it was what made the Japanese agree to unconditional surrender (they refused to agree to these terms before).

Your arguments on alleged German ignorance about the weapon is laughable. Please do not be offended, but that shows your absolute cluelessness in science, just like with gravity. The Germans were trying to make one themselves, it is only thanks to repeated destructions of the key plants that they never made it. One does not even need to have such plants to estimate how long it takes to manufacture ~50 kg of highly enriched U-235 or make an equal amount of Pu-239. Such estimates can be off by a factor of two or three, but either two or six 20 kiloton bombs are nothing.

And it would have been impossible anyway, for the reasons that you seem to have agreed with.

Right! They were working on one at the same time! However, even the American scientists in the Manhattan project had no exact ideas of the capabilities of the atomic weapons on a city (Oppenheimer and Fermi were so horrified by what they had created that they later opposed all nuclear arms production). It is doubtful the enemy could know this either, only make scientific guesses.

[quote:cx6b4otl]And the bombing of Berlin need not necessarily kill Hitler or his officers to get the point across.

The Germans were suffering a lot more from the conventional bombing, entire cities were being wiped out, yet they continued their resistance.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

Because Hitler made them. It was not a popular war among the Nazi administration in Germany in the end. Why else would his officers try to have him assassinated? Why else would they attempt to negotiate a surrender to the Allies behind Hitler's back?

[quote:cx6b4otl]Who said the USSR wouldn't exist? I said without Stalin. Maybe it is to you, but the words "Stalin" and "USSR" are not synonymous in my opinion.

My point is that without Stalin the USSR would indeed have fallen in two or three months just like Hitler reckoned. Continue my argument from here.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

Only if we conclude that the events in Europe would've still led to World War 2.

[quote:cx6b4otl]Yes, and I'm sure the evidence against them was real and the trials fair as was customary in the Soviet Union, particulary under Stalin.

Prove them wrong. Especially the particular case of Тухачевский et al.[/quote:cx6b4otl]

Which? All or just the ones against the military? And do you mean under Stalin specifically or in general? How about the fact that every member of the first Politburo except Molotov were convicted? Also over 75% of Central Comm and roughly 50% of the congress? Do you really believe every single one of these people were part of a massive conspiracy to overthrow Stalin, and that they received a fair and impartial examination of the evidence? If so, you might have a future in writing scripts for the X-Files. Their executions were about as legitimate as those of the peasants by the Cheka for being "bourgeois speculators"--i.e. trading bowls of soup, yarn, and tricks in return for money from foreign visitors because they were starving to death. That is the Soviet justice system of the early 20th century. I am not saying it was worse or more flawed in the 1930s than the 1920s, but certainly no less of a tragic joke.

Originally Posted by mike

I'd have to know where his evidence comes from first. Considering his sources for the official Finnish numbers he claims to have come from two obscure Russian magazines that are over 10 years old I am going to have a little trouble doing this. If you are so interested in proving to the world that he is beyond reproach maybe you would do me a favor and find these two magazines and discover what Finnish "officials" he is using?

His book is about Russian/Soviet casualties and he wrote abt Finns "by the way". I'd quoted him to show minimal Finns casualties - 45,000 KIA. That's all. You said yorself that you had seen estimates ~65,000 or so. You don't agree with 45,000 or we have a doubt that these "obscure" Russian magazines do exist? They exist and he refers to them becouse his book is in Russian and for Russian. You may find English version - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 1?v=glance

I'm sure in this version he refers to foreign sources (I mean abt Finns loses)

Originally Posted by N

Originally Posted by mike

I'd have to know where his evidence comes from first. Considering his sources for the official Finnish numbers he claims to have come from two obscure Russian magazines that are over 10 years old I am going to have a little trouble doing this. If you are so interested in proving to the world that he is beyond reproach maybe you would do me a favor and find these two magazines and discover what Finnish "officials" he is using?

His book is about Russian/Soviet casualties and he wrote abt Finns "by the way". I'd quoted him to show minimal Finns casualties - 45,000 KIA. That's all. You said yorself that you had seen estimates ~65,000 or so. You don't agree with 45,000 or we have a doubt that these "obscure" Russian magazines do exist? They exist and he refers to them becouse his book is in Russian and for Russian. You may find English version - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 1?v=glance

I'm sure in this version he refers to foreign sources (I mean abt Finns loses)

I said 65,000 (actually I think I said 69,000 but I am too lazy to go back and find where we talked about it) casualties. Not deaths. A casualty is any soldier killed, captured, or otherwise taken out of action during a battle. The place where I saw 65,000 casualties only attributed about 19,000 to deaths. Krivosheev claims there were almost 50,000 killed and another 43,000 wounded. This is a very major difference of opinion, which is why I would like to know where he gets his information. I have no doubt the magazines exist, what I doubt is the "officiality" with which he cites them for his statistics. One would think a book about casualty statistics would be interested in using more than two magazines from Soviet publishers for foreign statistics, especially about a war in which no definite estimates have ever been decided upon by either side. So I have a major problem with just relying on what your guy says are the official numbers just because you want me to believe they are right, especially when it is a mystery what these articles he cites actually say about them. It is easy to understand why I cannot verify the information in them, but I'm sure these magazines would be in the archives at a library near you or bad manners. For what it's worth I'll look at iconn.org for the book.

Originally Posted by mike

Yes, I am clueless. Thank you for not burdening me with such things as evidence and wordy explanations. I went to my friend, Matthew Flores, who has almost completed his degree in astrophysics

Almost completed! What an authority!

he proposed the following experiment to determine what (if any) are the gravitational effects of the earth:

1. Find an object in the room where you are sitting.
2. Hold it out in front of you.
3. Let it go.

Sure sure. Here's another experiment for you:

1. Wait for a night with clear skies.
2. Observe the circular motion of stars.

Congratulations! You've just obtained an experimental proof that the stars rotate about the Earth. Furthermore, the Earth is the center of the Universe, which was apparently created by somebody in seven days.

Newtonian gravity has been disproven and gravitational attraction is only a bend in space-time, however it exists nonetheless

Sure sure. The aether exists too, and light propagation is elastic perturbations thereof. Or therein.

Huh? Three-dimensional objects can't be round? WTF kind of nonsense is that? A snowball is round. A golf ball is round. An egg is round. A banana is round. A fat man is round. None of these objects have less than three dimensions. They aren't spherically or cylindrically perfect, but nothing is. The earth is round, so are all the stars and planets and moons. Even children know this simple fact of the universe yet it has somehow eluded you.

Whatever. I know that you have a tendency to use vague ideas instead of the precise facts.

The standards of today and 60 years ago are not as different as today and 100 years (or more). And if we are talking about racial prejudices or cultural differences then sure

Yes we are. The events took place in Russia, not in Luxembourg (which itself has not-so-nice a record if you look closely).

Killing somebody has always been looked down upon by at least some of the people as far back as human civilization can remember.

Stop that BS. The entire history of human civilization is killing lots of people. It is just that some are more equal than the others, when a political argument is needed.

Which is funny, since part of the Bolshevik platform was "the end of capital punishment."

So? The whole of Stalin's policy is one saying good bye and fuck off to the Bolshevik platform. And the law is the law is the law whatever the platform anyway.

[quote:1faz2dvp][quote:1faz2dvp]And nobody made you respond to me.

You're free to ignore my messages, too.
[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Well that wouldn't be very polite.
[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Then either ignore what you don't want to discuss or discuss it for fuck's sake.

Well, I guess I could just take the easy, cowardly way out every time and say, "Not to insult you bad manners, but I don't want to bring up a lot of things from large textbooks on the subject that would be too hard for you to comprehend. Do not ask me the nature of such books or in what fantasy land they exist and prove you wrong, but just know that while any professional in this field could tell you that what I say is true, it is so complex a topic that I simply will not waste my time trying to tell someone who is such much lower than I am on an intellectual level. Excuse me, I have to go now. My computer is flying away because of the nonexistence of gravity."

Exactly. When there is anything that you cannot communicate to me due to ignorance on my part, you can use that verbatim.

[quote:1faz2dvp]
I gave you another argument why 35 to 1 was laughable. You're still welcome to proving Krivosheev wrong, though.

I'd have to know where his evidence comes from first. Considering his sources for the official Finnish numbers he claims to have come from two obscure Russian magazines that are over 10 years old I am going to have a little trouble doing this. If you are so interested in proving to the world that he is beyond reproach maybe you would do me a favor and find these two magazines and discover what Finnish "officials" he is using?
[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Oh. So you want more arithmetic. Let's do it, then. Have a look here:

http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd/casualti.htm

They say: "The most recent list of the number of Finnish soldiers killed, relating to the Winter War, between 30 November 1939 and 31 December 1940": 26 662. They are talking about those killed. Only ~27 thousand, right? BTW notice how cleverly in the table just above they give 19 576 killed, so the total 66 406 of that table should be adjusted to ~73 thousand. Which is already pretty close to Krivosheev's total. But then look further at that same page: "After the war, in a meeting of the high council, Minister Molotov represented an estimate of 200 000 dead, wounded and missing Soviet soldiers. These figures contradicted even the lowest Finnish estimates. The numbers usually referred to, gives a Soviet death toll of at least 150 000 - 200 000, which would bring the total casualty near 400 000 - 600 000." First off, I doubt it very much that they would know what Molotov discussed at the Supreme Council. Given that they don't even know the correct term for that council, that looks very unlikely. Secondly, we know that the total Soviet losses were about ~330 thousand, not 400-500 thousand, so the "lie" factor of that page averages to 1.4. Thus: 73 * 1.5 = ~100. Pretty damn close to Krivosheevs's data.

[quote:1faz2dvp]Just like Finland was not a territory the Soviets planned to own, except a tiny plot of it.

Oh, give me a break! Every nation that was within breathing room of the Soviet Union became a member, whether they liked it or not.[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Yup. Poland did, too.

To believe Finland was not on the same list as the Baltic States is insane.

mike, I really want to avoid calling you an idiot. But you're provoking me. Badly. Look: Finland effectively CAPITULATED. Every single sensible man in the world understood that. Look at Liddell Hart's quotation I gave: "eventual collapse was certain", "In the radically changed circumstances, particularly after the disastrous collapse in the Summa sector of the Mannerheim Line on February 12, the new Soviet terms were remarkably moderate". Had Stalin wanted to have Finland in entirety, he would, nothing could have stopped him.

The excuse given for the Winter War is that Finland had vital areas near Leningrad and Kronstadt that Stalin wanted to use to protect himself against Germany's navy. This is true. The joint occupation of Porkkala and Naissaar would've all but quashed any attempt by the Nazis to attack Leningrad or Kronstadt. But these areas are not the ones that the Soviets requested. The original locations, like Hango, that Stalin requested in 1939 were of very little value against an invading German navy.

You are some military expert, mike. One real military expert, whom I quoted earlier, holds a view totally opposite of yours. Namely: An objective examination of these terms suggests that they were framed on a rational basis, to provide a greater security to Russian territory without serious detriment to the security of Finland. They would, clearly, have hindered the use of Finland as a jumping-off point for any German attack on Russia. But they would not have given Russia any appreciable advantage for an attack on Finland.

And in the end Hanko was successfully used to check Germans' invasion into the Baltic. In St. Petersburg, there is улица Пестеля, if I remember correctly, that is perpendicular to Фонтанка, and just at that intersection there is a building, whose facade says: "in memory of the heroic defenders of Hanko".

However, these locations would be of great use to the Soviets if they were to begin an invasion into the Finnish mainland from them.

Likewise in Karelia the locations of the new border would've made the Mannerheim line worthless as a defense against Russia (which is in actuality what Stalin probably would've liked), they overran two or three main Finnish artillery fortresses that would be of no practical use to the Nazis in an invasion but would definitely be crucial to the Finns protecting themselves against a future Soviet war.

Refer to Liddell Hart. He says clearly that "The re-adjustments of the frontier would still leave intact the main defences on the Mannerheim Line."

The "justification" you and most Stalin-sympathizers give is that Finland was to blame for the invasion because it would not go along with the peaceful, paltry requests of the USSR--even though such requests would in effect destroy Finland's attempt to ever defend itself against a Soviet aggressor and they had every right to refuse to cooperate.

So Liddell Hart is a Stalin sympathizer now. Stop smoking that stuff, mike.

So I'm still waiting for you to respond to my original proposition. Let's say that the White House puts a deal on the table that requests only a few pieces of Russian territory that we say are vital to protecting our country. This territory is populated by Russians but they would be given a generous number of weeks to pack up their things and move somewhere else.

The Finns were not asked to take their stuff and leave. It was entirely their choice. Not to mention that if they had accepted the original proposals, there would've been lots fewer of those in the occupied territories.

We would be allowed to install military bases on this territory and use it for trafficking any equipment and cargo we see fit. Although it would be physically impossible for Russia to estimate how many soldiers are passing through, we would establish a limit on paper of how many can enter. These territories, though crucial to Russia's defense against an attack from the United States (oh, heaven forbid), are more important to the interests of the White House.

Isn't it what you are doing in Western Europe and in Central Asia now?

What I want you to tell me, bad manners, is whether or not you would get upset when we declared war on the Russian federation for not agreeing to the terms.

Go ahead and try )))) (Even though you could probably get most of that by just bribing the Russian authorities.) In this world, mike, it is the guys with big guns who decide what is good and what is not, what is fair and what is not. Save that humanitarian BS for the laymen.

1. That gravity does not exist

Correct. You’re getting it. Slowly but surely.

2. That anything bad done under Stalin he either had no knowledge of or was completely helpless to stop

Incorrect. I’m not going to repeat that all again.

3. Things that are round are not round

Given your phenomenological definition of “round”, it might even be “square”, so that depends.

4. The annexation of countries was done all the time and was therefore not a bad thing

Bad, but traditional. I hope you’re not a virgin female who faints when somebody kills a mosquito. Blaming only Stalin for that is ridiculous. You might have a look at the nice and pleasant Brits, who almost occupied Norway at just about the same time, yet you’re ignoring it, apparently because they were doing it in the nice and good English way.

5. The losses of 430,000 men on two sides of a war that lasted a few months are valid because one side gained 40,000km^2 that it didn't truly need

Incorrect. Losses were below 200 000. The land proved to be necessary, since it’s only thanks to that buffer zone that Leningrad was not occupied on June 22, 1941.

and the other side made the mistake of believing it had the right to disagree with a diplomatic proposal that was grossly one-sided and suicidal to accept.

Correct. The original requirements were benign, so only idiots would risk so much for so little. Actually, I think I know why there were so stubborn. Apparently the British and the French had given them a guarantee, just like they did to Poland. In that case the idiocy of the Finish government is gross, because Poland was more accessible to the British and the French than Finland was, yet they were unable to do a thing. Most likely it was sheer arrogance on the Finnish part, which is actually very consistent with their idea of “Great Finland”. Yet somehow you ignore the fact that the Finns had openly declared their intentions to occupy a part of Russia. Their cruelty during the early years of the civil war is well known, but you of course ignore all that.

6. Any book used to quote information on Stalin must come from an author who has sympathies for him

I know that is what you think, mike. I, on the other hand, so far have only quoted two sources, none of which can be called sympathetic of Stalin.

Like I have said, what Lenin said was what got done.

Whatever. A military commander who knows he cannot perform the task should resign. That’s standard practice in all armies. That happened even under Stalin, e.g., Zhukov threatened with his resignation a few times. And either got what he wanted or was relieved of his task. A military commander who cannot do so is impotent.

My argument was supposed to be a question of whether or not Stalin as an individual was necessary, as you claim, to defeating Hitler.

Then find somebody better than Trotsky. Even if we assume that Trotsky is a military genius, I doubt it very much that the USSR would have been a candy-mountain kind of country under him. That makes the whole discussion pointless.

Based on..? The Red Army itself were not to be the head of the invasion. I think in a sense Trotsky and Lenin's vision of the Red Army in regards to internationalism was a mirror of the Bolshevik vanguardism itself. Merely the guidance of the masses in armed support, not a fully-functional invasion force. Whether or not they would've succeeded in revolutionizing Germany, I have no doubt they would have eliminated Hitler and his heads or at least sent them into hiding. So much for becoming Fuhrer of the Third Reich.

That needs to be proven, mike. The Germans had been very nationalistic, they could declare themselves communists but had the Russians whom they almost organically hated appeared on the horizon, they would have put the brown shirts on. Which they actually did.

[quote:1faz2dvp] I agree that was stupid. I do not want to discuss why he did so, that's completely irrelevant. Except for one thing: he genuinely believed in weakness of the Russian "colossus"; few doubt that it was due to his WWI perception of Russia, which was indeed weak. But suddenly she was not that weak anymore in 1941. Would you explain what exactly had happened in Russia between 1918 and 1941 that provided for such a bad surprise for him?

Military buildup that I'm sure any leader in Stalin's place would've likewise created.[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Funny, funny. You agreed last time that Trotsky would not have done that. Nor Lenin.

It is of course also a matter of self-defense of the homeland in WW2 versus a war for imperialism and private wealth that was exhausting the country of its ability to survive in WW1. It is not hard to see why there would be more public support for the former than the latter.

That too. But you suggest that they should have invaded Germany. Non sequitur, mike.

I don't charge him for all the bad that happened in Russia. I have attempted to distance myself from these arguments throughout ours.

You are, mike. Each time you say “Stalin the asshole” and so on, you’re doing it, mike.

I've read Martens' "Another View of Stalin" and I don't doubt a lot of it is true. There is always a second side to every story. What I blame him for is not doing a whole lot to remedy any of the crimes committed against the public when he was in a position of power to fix all of them. If he did not know about them then he was not a very good leader. If he did know about them but never bothered to fix them then he is not a very good leader.

You still don’t get it, mike. The number of those “repressed” was not exactly as high as to agitate somebody who had seen much worse. I’ve reiterated that a few times, so I’m not going to repeat. I believe he’s solely responsible for the high-ranking guys, though, but that’s their personal business.

No, but it was what made the Japanese agree to unconditional surrender (they refused to agree to these terms before).

Incorrect. I can provide quotations if you want. Not to mention that it was not unconditional. They had one condition, and it was granted. It was the sovereignty of the Emperor.

Right! They were working on one at the same time! However, even the American scientists in the Manhattan project had no exact ideas of the capabilities of the atomic weapons on a city

Non sequitur, mike. First you said “they would have dropped the bomb on the Germans”. After that the Germans would have known the effects very well.

[quote:1faz2dvp]
The Germans were suffering a lot more from the conventional bombing, entire cities were being wiped out, yet they continued their resistance.

Because Hitler made them. It was not a popular war among the Nazi administration in Germany in the end. Why else would his officers try to have him assassinated? Why else would they attempt to negotiate a surrender to the Allies behind Hitler's back?
[/quote:1faz2dvp]

It is irrelevant, mike. They were suffering a lot from “conventional bombardment” (actually even the Japanese were suffering a lot more from the conventional bombardment than they did from two A-bombs). That did not end the war. Ditto for a couple of A-bombs.

[quote:1faz2dvp]My point is that without Stalin the USSR would indeed have fallen in two or three months just like Hitler reckoned. Continue my argument from here.

Only if we conclude that the events in Europe would've still led to World War 2.
[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Most likely. It was the German revanchism and arrogance of the winners, not Stalin, what started that. Even if you prove that no Stalin would have meant no Hitler (which I’m not going to agree with unless you come up with a totally new argument), you will have to prove that “the other Germany” would have been a peaceful country, which will be very difficult to believe in.

[quote:1faz2dvp]Prove them wrong. Especially the particular case of Тухачевский et al.

Which? All or just the ones against the military? And do you mean under Stalin specifically or in general? How about the fact that every member of the first Politburo except Molotov were convicted? Also over 75% of Central Comm and roughly 50% of the congress? Do you really believe every single one of these people were part of a massive conspiracy to overthrow Stalin, and that they received a fair and impartial examination of the evidence?[/quote:1faz2dvp]

Blah blah blah. I said very specifically: “prove that the case of Тухачевский et al was fabricated.” Prove it if you think you can, mike.

Concerning the Hitler vs Stalin thing, I think old Djugashvilij was so much trouble alone, that it's not neccessary to pin Adolf on him as well. Not much good to be said about the man, as far as I can see.
Just read Arkhipelag GULag by Solsjenitsyn, and see what I mean. Of course, as Solsjenitsyn points out: One man can't do it alone, it takes an army of beurocrats and a rotten system as well.

If you're going to read it, beware though that Solsjenitsyn perhaps idealizes the tzar-age to some little extent, when it comes to torture, prison and such (though I don't doubt things got worse when Stalin took over).

Oh, and to the individual who talked about "Bolsjevik scum" and how it was a good thing Stalin got rid of them... He/she should do us all a favour and think twice before advocating the murder of your political opponents. Even though they were an undemocratic an centralist bunch, whose leaders got an awful lot of blood on their hands, there was no call for the killing sprees of the stalins-system - not among commoners, not in the Party.

In Stalin's defense, though, he did stop Hitler from fleeing to Argentina, as this documentary comic shows: http://www.comics.aha.ru/rus/stalin/

Originally Posted by Mihkkal

Concerning the Hitler vs Stalin thing, I think old Djugashvilij was so much trouble alone, that it's not neccessary to pin Adolf on him as well. Not much good to be said about the man, as far as I can see.
Just read Arkhipelag GULag by Solsjenitsyn, and see what I mean.

Mihkkal, I've spent a lot of energy in this thread to stress this point: you should take all "critique" of Stalin with a huge grain of salt. Most of this critique consists of highly negative statements that are not supported by any evidence different than anecdotal evidence (which is the case with Солженицын). However, these negative claims have been consistently evangelized in the West, because it was an ideological instrument for their anti-Soviet doctrines, and also in Russia, because it also was an ideological instrument for internal "reforms" ("coups de etat" would be a better term).

There is actually much good that can be said about the man. Education, healthcare, industry, agriculture. Yes, agriculture, because the "famine" in the Ukraine for which Stalin is always blamed was the last one to happen in Russia, while they had happened routinely before that.

Of course, as Solsjenitsyn points out: One man can't do it alone, it takes an army of beurocrats and a rotten system as well.

That too.

If you're going to read it, beware though that Solsjenitsyn perhaps idealizes the tzar-age to some little extent, when it comes to torture, prison and such (though I don't doubt things got worse when Stalin took over).

This is just a perfect example of this evangelized double-think: why precisely do you think it became worse under Stalin?

Oh, and to the individual who talked about "Bolsjevik scum" and how it was a good thing Stalin got rid of them... He/she should do us all a favour and think twice before advocating the murder of your political opponents. Even though they were an undemocratic an centralist bunch, whose leaders got an awful lot of blood on their hands, there was no call for the killing sprees of the stalins-system - not among commoners, not in the Party.

I don't care about "undemocratic and centralist". Irrelevant. The point that you seem to be missing is that those guys would have never said goodbye to their power voluntarily; they would have attempted a putsch if left alone. Which they actually did. You need to realize that they were the guys who always used force to get what they wanted, they did not accept compromises.

Strange as it may seem... Sometimes we eagerly discuss things of the past, as if they were of the present day. We care about Stalin more than of terrorism, nuclear waste, poor economy, etc. Stalin is history; the history once learned how to deal with Stalin, so it will deal with all wouldbe Stalins. Nowadays Stalin or Hitler are nothing. A smart man with charisma is nothing cos' every image-maker can do the one out of you.
Stalin is a typical career man. Aren't you tired with jokes and rumour about Bill Gates? Stalin is the same. He is no symbol. He's not worth talking.

Originally Posted by Sharikoff

Strange as it may seem... Sometimes we eagerly discuss things of the past, as if they were of the present day. We care about Stalin more than of terrorism, nuclear waste, poor economy, etc. Stalin is history; the history once learned how to deal with Stalin, so it will deal with all wouldbe Stalins. Nowadays Stalin or Hitler are nothing. A smart man with charisma is nothing cos' every image-maker can do the one out of you.
Stalin is a typical career man. Aren't you tired with jokes and rumour about Bill Gates? Stalin is the same. He is no symbol. He's not worth talking.

Полиграф Полиграфович, я прекрасно понимаю, что для такого Интеллектуала как Вы, Сталин прост как две копейки, да и вообще является историческим ничтожеством. Действительно, кто такой Сталин? Так, недоучка из духовной семинарии. То ли дело Набоков! Создатель нетленных произведений. На русско-английском пиджине.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Полиграф Полиграфович, я прекрасно понимаю, что для такого Интеллектуала как Вы, Сталин прост как две копейки, да и вообще является историческим ничтожеством. Действительно, кто такой Сталин? Так, недоучка из духовной семинарии. То ли дело Набоков! Создатель нетленных произведений. На русско-английском пиджине.

Дело вовсе не в интеллектуальности, коей я не могу похвастаться. И некоторых недоучек я очень уважаю; а вот карьеристов не люблю.
Хотя, вынужден признать, мне очень симпатичен Никита Сергеевич Хрущев. Того тоже можно обвинить и недостатке образования, и в карьеризме - дескать, сделал себе имя на разоблачении сталинского культа личности. Но... вы слышали о концепции "лысый-кудрявый"? Суть в том, что в истории СССР "лысый" что-то строит, а "кудрявый" (т.е. с волосами) - снова разрушает. Посмотрите: Ленин (л) - Сталин (к) - Хрущев (л) - Брежнев (к) - Андропов (л) - Черненко (к) - Горбачев (л) - Ельцин (к). В этом смысле, мне гораздо больше импонируют лысые (не поймите превратно).

Originally Posted by Sharikoff

Originally Posted by bad manners

Полиграф Полиграфович, я прекрасно понимаю, что для такого Интеллектуала как Вы, Сталин прост как две копейки, да и вообще является историческим ничтожеством. Действительно, кто такой Сталин? Так, недоучка из духовной семинарии. То ли дело Набоков! Создатель нетленных произведений. На русско-английском пиджине.

Дело вовсе не в интеллектуальности, коей я не могу похвастаться. И некоторых недоучек я очень уважаю; а вот карьеристов не люблю.
Хотя, вынужден признать, мне очень симпатичен Никита Сергеевич Хрущев. Того тоже можно обвинить и недостатке образования, и в карьеризме - дескать, сделал себе имя на разоблачении сталинского культа личности. Но... вы слышали о концепции "лысый-кудрявый"? Суть в том, что в истории СССР "лысый" что-то строит, а "кудрявый" (т.е. с волосами) - снова разрушает. Посмотрите: Ленин (л) - Сталин (к) - Хрущев (л) - Брежнев (к) - Андропов (л) - Черненко (к) - Горбачев (л) - Ельцин (к). В этом смысле, мне гораздо больше импонируют лысые (не поймите превратно).

Смешно. Правда. Но я говорил не о любви или нелюбви. Я говорил о пренебрежении масштабами личности. Вернее, об отказе данной конкретной личности в масштабах.

The curator of a museum that one of my models use to be in personally met and talked with Stalin. Even despite the Curator being a communist, he found Stalin to be a psychotic and sick minded person.
Stalin had no value for human life, as he even admitted in his own words.
To him, human beings were nothing more then disposable resources and proved it in WW II.
Yes,he succeeded in defeating the German army, at the expense of over a million Russians IN A SINGLE BATTLE!
His industrial advancment also wasn't all it is sometimes cut out to be and with what little good it MAY have ever been, it still never justified the murder of millions upon millions of Russians.
The Soviet Unions Holocaust was just as bad as the German, and Stalin himself was no better then Hitler. The only reason the Soviet Union was our allie in WW II, was because he was passive with other countries ( to a reasonable extent ) and shared the same enemy as the allied forces.
How a Russian can like him is beyond me. The Russians were his first victims. He murdered millions of Russians, but didn't even scratch me, so the concern of Stalin belongs to the Russians, and the decision of weather or not they want to go through what he put them through all over again.
I prefer to not get in to a political debate about Stalin though. The man was a mass murderer and that is capitol crime against humanity. Their is nothing you can do to make up for that sort of behavior. That it's self is enough to say that he was a very bad leader, and the world is a better place without him and his empire. It doesn't NEED to go any further then that.

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

The curator of a museum that one of my models use to be in personally met and talked with Stalin.

Yeah, and AlGore invented Internet.

Even despite the Curator being a communist, he found Stalin to be a psychotic and sick minded person.

Even despite not being a communist, I find your curator a psychotic and sick minded person. And because I say so, it is true.

Stalin had no value for human life, as he even admitted in his own words.

Source, please.

To him, human beings were nothing more then disposable resources and proved it in WW II.

Source, please.

Yes,he succeeded in defeating the German army, at the expense of over a million Russians IN A SINGLE BATTLE!

Source, please.

His industrial advancment also wasn't all it is sometimes cut out to be

Why is that?

and with what little good it MAY have ever been, it still never justified the murder of millions upon millions of Russians.

Source, please.

The Soviet Unions Holocaust

Define "Soviet Unions Holocaust". And reference your source, please.

was just as bad as the German, and Stalin himself was no better then Hitler.

Why is that?

The only reason the Soviet Union was our allie in WW II, was because he was passive with other countries ( to a reasonable extent ) and shared the same enemy as the allied forces.

I nearly laughed my arse off. "was our allie [sic!]" He might as well not have been your "allie", he would have defeated Germany just the same. And perhaps taken the rest of Europe while he was at that.

How a Russian can like him is beyond me. The Russians were his first victims. He murdered millions of Russians,

Source, please.

I prefer to not get in to a political debate about Stalin though.

For a good reason. You don't know anything about what you're talking about, which is only natural given your problems with grammar.

The man was a mass murderer

Source, please.

This here can provide answers to allot of your source requets.
http://www.neurotoxic.pwp.blueyonder.co ... ience.html


Stalins murder rate has been debated by pro-stalinists but having looked at some of their statistics, much of it is based on things like "well, that's really not murder.
For instance, he killed hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Stalingrad Campeign. The reason is for retreating and things like that. Many pro Stalinists would argue that that isn't murder.
Murder is simply killing someone without a good reason. Simply, the only good reason to kill someone is to protect yourself or someone elses life from them.
Their are thoes who also claim that many of these events never happened, but their are also thoes who claim that WW II never happened.

Even despite not being a communist, I find your curator a psychotic and sick minded person.

I agree entirley.

[/quote]Define "Soviet Unions Holocaust". And reference your source, please.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Stalin was a murderor, plain and simple.
I myself have had my own experiencesin this arina, since the barbaric behavior of the Soviet Union didn't stop with Stalin.
When I lived in Alaska, we had Orthatox christians living near by. They had relijous elders, because their priests were murderd by the Soviets just for being priests, and the people living in the village themselves were marked for exicution before fleeing.