Who won the war?
- Thread starter Jenisch
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I read Harvest of Sorrow several years ago and another on basically the same period but I can't remember the title, on of the sadest periods of Soviet history. With all the death visited on the countries of the USSR, I wonder what kind of population and power if someone other than Stalin had come to power after Lenin's death, what world history would be today.
That's a good question for you alternate history fans, what if Stalin didn't take power after Lenin? What if a just halfway human being took power in the USSR, no famines no purges of the armed forces. Would Hitler have dared tangle with Russia then?
michaelmaltby
Colonel
".... I wonder what kind of population and power if someone other than Stalin had come to power after Lenin's death, what world history would be today."
Wonder you may, tyrodtom, but I certainly don't. Too many other examples from communist regimes come to mind -- Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim Family .... If you think Trotsky would have been kinder and gentler than Stalin .... you're naive.
Communism -- the end justifies the means -- with no accountability at the ballot box or the stock market.
MM
Wonder you may, tyrodtom, but I certainly don't. Too many other examples from communist regimes come to mind -- Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim Family .... If you think Trotsky would have been kinder and gentler than Stalin .... you're naive.
Communism -- the end justifies the means -- with no accountability at the ballot box or the stock market.
MM
The end justifies the means, seems to be everbodies mantra, not just communism's.
There was Khrushchev or Gorbaschev, men of different times, commited communists, but with more concern for their country, and it's people, than their own power.
There are several in Stalin's own timeline that probably could have done a better job, with a lot fewer deaths. But, Stalin had them murdered of course. And i'm not refering to Trotsky,, I know his history.
There was Khrushchev or Gorbaschev, men of different times, commited communists, but with more concern for their country, and it's people, than their own power.
There are several in Stalin's own timeline that probably could have done a better job, with a lot fewer deaths. But, Stalin had them murdered of course. And i'm not refering to Trotsky,, I know his history.
- Thread starter
- #45
In Russia Today, when there's reportings about Stalin and WWII, there's always a mention that only with Stalin's ruthless actions the Soviet Union won WWII. Putin and his marionette Medvedev are behind this in my opinion.
Britain suffered a lot from the bombing raids. Proportinally to it's population, the people suffered considerably. Even so, it was not necessary cruelty with them for cooperation. Churchill's secret Army to resist the Nazi invasion is a clear example of this. Another example is that during WWII, there was much more patriotic propaganda than Communist in the USSR.
Britain suffered a lot from the bombing raids. Proportinally to it's population, the people suffered considerably. Even so, it was not necessary cruelty with them for cooperation. Churchill's secret Army to resist the Nazi invasion is a clear example of this. Another example is that during WWII, there was much more patriotic propaganda than Communist in the USSR.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
".... The end justifies the means, seems to be everbodies mantra ...."
Hardly. Most balanced 'regimes' try to avoid "mantras" .... there was no "mantra" in the fight between GB and Nazi Germany, there was no "mantra" in Finland when the Soviets invaded. There was no "mantra" in Pearl Harbor when the fight started December 7, 41..
Only "international communism" is interested in fermenting the universal revolution of the working peoples ..... now THAT requires a "mantra" and the stomach for endless killing for the state .... woops ... I mean the people.
Communist Russia would have failed under weaker leadership than Stalin.
MM
Hardly. Most balanced 'regimes' try to avoid "mantras" .... there was no "mantra" in the fight between GB and Nazi Germany, there was no "mantra" in Finland when the Soviets invaded. There was no "mantra" in Pearl Harbor when the fight started December 7, 41..
Only "international communism" is interested in fermenting the universal revolution of the working peoples ..... now THAT requires a "mantra" and the stomach for endless killing for the state .... woops ... I mean the people.
Communist Russia would have failed under weaker leadership than Stalin.
MM
Last edited:
If Stalin's hadn't been so paranoid that he felt justified in eliminating everyone whose popularity approached his, maybe Hitler wouldn't have seen the USSR as a easy conquest.
Murder of his rivals is one thing, mass murder of whole classes of the population is another.
But i'll have to agree after all with you about communism, since I can't can't think of a single communist regime that didn't use murder to get and keep power. I've got a pretty weak argument when the softest, almost human form of communism I can think of is Fidel Castro's variation.
Murder of his rivals is one thing, mass murder of whole classes of the population is another.
But i'll have to agree after all with you about communism, since I can't can't think of a single communist regime that didn't use murder to get and keep power. I've got a pretty weak argument when the softest, almost human form of communism I can think of is Fidel Castro's variation.
- Thread starter
- #49
I can't argue with people that have radical political views, and the majority of the Communists have them. I don't know how people can blind themselfs for the crimes the Communist regimes commited (and commit), trying to justify or deny them by any means. This is sick, and comparable to the Holocaust revisionists IMHO.
The Russian government is furious because some of the ex-Soviet republics considerate what the USSR did to them was an occupation. Yes, the Nazis were worse, but what the Soviets did was also nice? You beat and rape a women every day is extremely cruel, isn't? (what Hitler did), but take away her freedom and still mistreat her with some frequency is justifiable only because you are "better"? (what Stalin did), I don't think so.
The Russian government is furious because some of the ex-Soviet republics considerate what the USSR did to them was an occupation. Yes, the Nazis were worse, but what the Soviets did was also nice? You beat and rape a women every day is extremely cruel, isn't? (what Hitler did), but take away her freedom and still mistreat her with some frequency is justifiable only because you are "better"? (what Stalin did), I don't think so.
Last edited:
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
michaelmaltby
Colonel
".... some of the ex-Soviet republics considerate what the USSR did to them was an occupation. Yes, the Nazis were worse, but what the Soviets did was also nice?"
By no definition were the Nazi "worse" ...... it's a NO-WIN TO DISCUSS ... but don't make blanket claims like this unless you are prepared to define and support.
BLOODLANDS - the latest tomb on the topic certainly doesn't claim that Nazis were "worse" than Reds. It does say the the places worse off were countries that Stalin had over run - that were then occupied by the Nazis - and then re-taken by the Reds. That, is a whole other kettle of watered-down forced-labor-camp soup.
Bloodlands - the most depressing book I've ever read.
MM
By no definition were the Nazi "worse" ...... it's a NO-WIN TO DISCUSS ... but don't make blanket claims like this unless you are prepared to define and support.
BLOODLANDS - the latest tomb on the topic certainly doesn't claim that Nazis were "worse" than Reds. It does say the the places worse off were countries that Stalin had over run - that were then occupied by the Nazis - and then re-taken by the Reds. That, is a whole other kettle of watered-down forced-labor-camp soup.
Bloodlands - the most depressing book I've ever read.
MM
Last edited:
I heard it's a very good book on the subject but I didn't read it, because it's so depressing.
The sad thing is that my grandparents generation had to experience it in their own lives, and I have a choice not to read about it. Well I'm a lucky guy...
- Thread starter
- #54
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2xW6veHY9U
This video is exactly from what I was talking, including the subject being discussed here.
"Stalin was an idealist, an utopian, and he belived it was necessary to use violence to achive it's utopian"
"Yes, the Soviet Union did not ultimately need its allies to win the war, but its alliance with particularly the United States and Great Britain helped it to win the war a lot quicker than it would have otherwise been the case,"
"Not Stalin or the Soviet Union wanted a Cold War"
Facebook analogy mode: Kremlin likes this.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #56
Hitler was also an utopian, he belived that some groups needed to be largely or totally eliminated in order to achive it's utopia for the German people.
You're giving utopia a baaad reputation.
Nobody knows for sure what another person believes. I've tried to read Mien Kampf more than once, but it's so full of hate and bs I couldn't force myself to keep reading it. Maybe that's why Hitler took everybody by surprize. A lot of his plans for the future for Germany were in the book, i've been told. A lot of people bought the book, world wide. It was a best seller in more than just Germany. Maybe the book was so terrible, most people were like me, couldn't finish it, and never really knew what his written thoughts were.
Nobody knows for sure what another person believes. I've tried to read Mien Kampf more than once, but it's so full of hate and bs I couldn't force myself to keep reading it. Maybe that's why Hitler took everybody by surprize. A lot of his plans for the future for Germany were in the book, i've been told. A lot of people bought the book, world wide. It was a best seller in more than just Germany. Maybe the book was so terrible, most people were like me, couldn't finish it, and never really knew what his written thoughts were.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #58
Not necessarily. For Hitler's eyes, it was as good as it was for the Stalin, the difference is that Hitler lost and Stalin won.
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... the difference is that Hitler lost and Stalin won"
OK, Jenisch, I'll bite. Why? (did Hitler lose and Stalin win), IYHO.
MM
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9ScChTcCag!
OK, Jenisch, I'll bite
. Why? (did Hitler lose and Stalin win), IYHO. MM
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9ScChTcCag!
Last edited:
