Pat's Thoughts Volume 46: Joseph Stalin

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

You tell em Cancerkitty!

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


Don Cardi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Don Cardi

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

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

By the way, Lenin was no angel himself.

CK--What did Lenin do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who were the 20 million he killed? Rich people? No, considering Stalin's people were about the only rich people in the Russia at the time. Give me a break, they were almost totally por civilians... and if you know anything about Stalin you'd know he was a very paranoid person and he could see some poor guy on the street and feel threatened.

No, you're wrong about this. If I know anything it's WWII; the US and UK would have defeated Germany and Japan without Russia. The US was off the scale in industrial power compared to everyone else. There would have been a larger battle in the west obiously with the Germans all there instead of the east. How would the Germans beat the US mostly and the UK in the West? The US alone would have ended up man-handling them, the supreme air power of the US and the RAF helping, and the foot soldiers better armed, and eventually better tanks. It would be mass killing for a while but Germany could never have beaten the Allies as long as the US was fightint. Not to even mention the US could have used the atomic bomb in Europe, too, if they wanted a quicker end. Now, if it was the UK and Russia, then yes, the Axis powers could and probably would have won. Germany would eventually have beaten down Britain and won the west, the Brits just couldn't keep fighting forever with the Luftwaffe bombing the hell out of lower England... a ground invasion would have been successful. Russia was already getting their asses handed to them like I said, like a 1 to 12 kill ratio in favor of the Germans, and the US technology gave the Russians the ability to move and launch rockets. Only their size let Russia beat the Germans, and with the western front caving in, and the Germans applying full attention to Moscow, the Reich would have sliced throgh the Soviets military, especially if they waited for a major offensive until Spring. So, bottom line, US + UK = victory. That's a fact. If you disagree, please don't blow me away with specifics again :rolleyes: and explain how the Axis could possibly have defeated the US and UK?

Also, what do you mean about Japan? The US pulverized Japan in the Pacific, and by the time the atom bombs were dropped, all Japan had left was Japan. We just didn't want to invade the Japanese mainland and loose a lot of guys on the beach; but as for the war going on longer.... it was over for all technical purposes.. Japan had nothing left, it was just a matter of getting them to officially cave in.

And Russia's technology and military was not dominant at all! The only reason they beat the Germans in the East (even with the US and UK hammering on the West and South) was because of their huge numbers.

The Russian soldier was probably the worst-armed and armored of the entire war, between the five or six major nations. The thing was, there were 20 of them for the better armed better trained German soldier. Also, Russia's technology wasn't great, and only got better after the war... after getting some huge injection's from Germany's technology. Russia during the war had poor tanks, poor guns, a poor air force that could not hold a dime next to the Luftwaffe, and relied on American-made trucks to transport their weaponry and rockets.. in fact, without the American trucks, who knows how long it would have taken them to seal of the Germans in the east. Russia had C- technology and A+ numbers. And they still would have lost if not for the American drive on the western front.

Then let's talk about Hitler. There was one man who took control of an entire nation and changed the face of the world. Tip you hat to him?

Defeat the US military? Let's take a look.
US casualties in Vietnam war: 53,000
North Vietnamese (not on our side) casualties: 1.1 million

Yeah, they really let us have it. :rolleyes: Militarily, the US did bad for the US, but in reality the US kicked the hell out of Ho Chi Minh. The reason people like you look back and say we lost was because we pulled out before there was a conclusion, and after we left the North beat the South. The US military did not lose, has never lost, and will never loose. But, of course, Vietnam was a wrong war and there was no reason to be there. LBJ messed up.

It looks like you're proud of that, even though it's not true....

I've been waiting to reply to this since I saw it at 7 this morning.

Obviously, we both have 2 different views on Russia's impact on the war, so I feel no need to further continue on about that because my opinion simply won't change.

I tip my hat, not because I believe he was good man or did good things, but because he had the power to do the bad things he did.

But, wow, you may know your WW II, but when it comes to Vietnam, that is my territory, and you're way off of it now.

The US lost 56,000 soldiers. BTW, you fail to mention the rest of the Vietnamese we massacred. You're off by about 2 or 3 million. I'm curious, but what do casualties have to do with this? Russia lost more people in WW II than any other country and it was on the winning team.

In 1954, we entered what was known as Indochina to help the French keep their colony. It was divided at the 16th parallel, the north being communist and the south being run by democratically-elected President Ngo Dien Mi, who was no angel himself. I don't look back and say we lost because we pulled out. We lost because we didn't succeed. Our goal was to prevent Vietnam from becoming communist. To this day, Vietnam is still communist. We lost the Vietnam War.

Dwight Eisenhower took office in 1954, who just happens to be a Republican! And Nixon did so much better when he took office too. :rolleyes:

Obviously so. But, with this, there is fact and fiction, and I'm telling you the fact. Nevertheless I'd like to hear how the Axis would have won if Russia didn't help the US and UK. If you decide not to elaborate, I'll just take that as a sign that you accept defeat.

Yeah, he was smart, in fact probably a genius. He got his power and his empire. I still don't know why you tip your hat.

Source? My sources generally say 53,000... but whatever. We'll just say 56,00 for now.

I listed the Vietnamese fighting the US killed in battle, which was about 1.1 million... not civilian casualties. Russia was on the winning team because the US and UK won the war; one on one against Germany they lost, but in WWII's situation they still won so it doesn't matter. Poor analogy.

Yeah yeah blah blah blah. You originally said that Ho Chi Minn and them beat the US military. I said, no they didn't. The US military totally kicked their ass inflicting over a million casualties, and politically we pulled out and missed the goal. The goal wasn't accomplished, but militarily the US won, and you said they didn't.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and took office in 1953. Lyndon B. Johnson turned 16,000 soldiers in Vietnam into 500,000 soldiers in Vietnam, and in so doing transformed it from an assistance operation into a big war. After Nixon took office in 1969, throughout his time as President he pulled out more and more troops, eventually pulling them all out.

Ah, so it's a fact that we would've beaten the Axis Powers WITHOUT Russia? :rolleyes: Why didn't you say so in the first place? :rolleyes: It's your OPINION, Signore.

I guess that means you accepted debeat in the Cobain/Tupac thread.

Ho Chi Minh's NVA and the VC beat the US military. Is that better?

But we won the war, right? :rolleyes: :p

I think it's pretty safe to say that Eisenhower started the Vietnam War. -Pat

I'm not sure if I agree with you when you say "One on one against Germany [Russia] lost." By the end of the war in the eastern front the Soviet Union had just dealt Germany two very major defeats at the Battle of Stalingrad (despite the fact that the entire city was leveled) and at the Battle of Kursk. Hell, Russia completely demoralized Hitler's tank army at the latter. It wasn't just about overwelming the Germans with soldiers either; while Russia didn't really have a pot to piss in for the most part, they had some pretty damn good tanks.

However, would the Germans have defeated the Russians had the US not gotten involved on the Western Front... probably.

The Soviet Union would never have become the industrialised superpower it did during and after World War II without Stalin.

A fascinating man made of pure evil; definitely more psychotic than Hitler ever was. It's interesting to study his rise from total (or thereabouts) darkness regarding fame; the man at the bottom secretly willing to do anything to get to the top. He did.

Mick