Joseph Stalin Encapsulated (Locked Due to Excessive Stupidity)
Offline Let's get this out of the way up front - my opinions about Stalin:
Stalin was one of the the most effective leaders any country has ever had. He was instrumental in turning Russia into the Soviet juggernaut that, for a time, was equaled only by the United States in international power and influence, he was a key figure in removing a power structure from his country that had held terrible sway for centuries and had largely reduced it to squalor, he was able to do the most important thing (re: leave the biggest decisions in the hands of his generals) when it came time for the key initiatives to be played-out on the Eastern Front in WWII and managed his country's war economy so effectively that even after the Germans had made their deepest penetrations into Soviet holdings, the production of T-34s was such that the Soviet tanks outnumbered German Panzer IVs and Panthers by odds of 3 to 1 even in the darkest days of the war.
Stalin's rule was brutal, egotistical and, in many places, outright disgusting. I find it notable, however, how very 'pro-Soviet' and 'pro-Stalin' most of the Soviet public remained, even in the shadow of their dictator. He was VERY GOOD at what he did, and even better at making people see this fact.
So, that being said:
Stalin, almost unquestionably, did not himself buy into superstition - including the notion of an all-powerful Abrahamic God. He did not respect the divine right of Nicholas II (who would be Russia's last tsar), did not believe in (and did much to discredit) the psychic and healing powers of Grigori Rasputin and, while he was in power, mercilessly prosecuted organized religion.
Stalin was a nihilist, and 'collectivism' became his own religion. Even if the word 'God' never touched his lips, Stalin very much saw himself as a divine force amidst so much rabble.
The first benchmark for Stalin's rise to power came following his expulsion from school, where he read the works of Vladimir Lenin - inspiring him to become a revolutionary. Stalin's revolutionary activities, including the organization of strikes and making public speeches, fairly quickly lead him to the acquaintanceship - and then undying loyalty - of Simon Ter-Petrossian (the infamous 'Kamo'), a violent psychopath whom would prove a key piece of Stalin's early network as his personal monster and guard dog.
The first really major (and sadistic) play that Stalin would make involved very careful manipulation of an arson (which he was likely part of) at a Batumi oil refinery. After the fire, workers expected to be compensated with bonus pay for their assistance in putting out the flames. The refinery management refused, suspecting the arson. This allowed Stalin to easily persuade the works into striking, and the strike spiralled into clashes with the Cossacks. After a series of arrests were made, some enterprising workers attempted to break their friends out of jail - and thirteen were killed in the ensuing struggle. This was precisely the result Stalin had wanted:
He lofted photos of the dead, hailing them as matryrs, which ingnited passions.
Stalin was arrested and exiled to Siberia for three years, the secret police finally catching-up with him. This was a fateful mistake - while in Siberia, Stalin learned even more about the revolutionist movement, including the fact that there were two 'parties' involved, and one of those parties was the Leninist 'Bolsheviks'. Stalin immediately became a Bolshevik himself, and having only spent ten days of a 3-year sentence in exile, snuck back into the heart of Russia.
The war between Japan and Russia broke-out, leaving Russia in fiscal ruin and straining it's base of military forces loyal to the tsar. Restlessness swept across the country, and Stalin's exploits in fuelling the fire of the general malcontent finally brought him to the attention of Lenin.
The unrest culminated in the killing of 200 demonstrators by Cossacks at a mass demonstration. This sparked the first Russian Revolition, which created all of the conditions and reforms necessary for the second Russian Revolution (or October Revolution) in which the tsars were overthrown (Stalin spent the interim period with a gang and his personal goon, Kamo, robbing banks in order to aquire the holy trinity of notoriety, talent and money).
Following the revolution and ensuing civil war, and after Lenin's death (which prompted Stalin to make a very religious pledge to his dead former mentor and leader), Stalin used what can only be described as absolute cunning in order to politically defeat his fellow contenders for the leadership of the nation. He put himself on the majority side of every battle, slowly whittling down his opponents one by one, until he stood as the prime mover of Russia.
After the Great Purge, with the secret service being escalated into a position of terrifying reach, Stalin emerged the absolute ruler of the new Soviet Union.
This was a tough one to encapsulate. The Russian revolution and revolutionaries were very complex, and unlike (say) Hitler's rise to power, Stalin's was far less certain. There were many contenders that very realistically 'could have' taken the country's reigns at the end - Stalin just happened to have been the one who wound-up with them (largely because he was not only intelligent, but extremely dangerous and violent). Stalin's Credo is also not the same kind of article that, say, Mein Kampf is, in that it's not an introspective journal. Stalin intended for it to reflect positively on himself (and had a very good grasp of how to do that), and it's riddled with thoughts the man wanted people to think of him - not what his actual thoughts were.
In any case, once again, we don't see Darwinism as the vehicle here. Certainly, Stalin was opposed to organized religion and made no time in his life for superstition - but he was deeply religious regarding his self-image and the power of communism. His actual deeds were fueled by his ambitions, eagerness for bloodshed and his use of violent people as his favored tools.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
And anyway, everyone knows the Crips are the toughest inner-city gang. Don't make me put a cap in yo ass.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Didn't I just say it? Were you not able to recognize the argument in my modest proposal? Here it is in very simple form: Stalin is a very worthwhile topic of conversation, for it is only by studying the despots and the despicable characters of history that we can hope to recognize such characters as they emerge in contemporary society.
You're familiar with the field of Deviant Psychology, right?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Then what you're saying is wrong.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
one thing that really pisses me off about this thread is that I was born in Russia. I am from a small village north of Kyzyl on the Red (Kyzyl) River. I was adopted by an American family when I was too young to remember. But what I do know is this, none of my blood relatives are alive. I am 100% american, I cannot speak Cyrillic, which is what my birth family spoke, and I cannot speak Russian, and I don't even care to. But for someone to come on here and blabber about how effective Stalin was, that is awful. that is like telling someone from Romania how good Nicolae Ceaoucescau (sic) was. I can only imagine that Kevin Brown's worldview is very limited, he speaks like a child, like someone without experience.
Yuh-huh.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
this is the last I say on this subject. I respect your historical knowledge, you really do have an interesting spin on stalin. But there have been a hundred and one books written on the subject. if you can really contribute something new to the stalin mystique, you should. personally, I think the whole subject is best forgotten. i don't think the bible is worth talking about either, it is a joke, I don't think any intelligent person could take it seriously, yet, they do, and they will continue to do so. does that make it "right" or even noteworthy? not to me.
I'm an American by birth, and I'll be happy to tell you how effective many of the Civil War generals were at killing their countrymen, sometimes even their brothers. I'll talk all day about how effective Kissinger was at selling his bloodbath. George Bush has been incredibly effective at using propaganda and economic manipulation to essentially form an indentured servant class that has little choice but to join the military.
I'm sorry you have such strong emotional feelings about Stalin. You're welcome to ignore any further threads about Stalin. The rest of us, who have some objectivity, are going to try to learn from history.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I hate the entire Bush family and especially Kissinger, I don't know about an indentured servant class forced to join the military, I was in the Marines, no one forced me to join. And btw, I am against the Iraq war, I am against sending young kids out in the desert and saying "hey boy, go fetch that quart of oil, that's what you're here for". I was in the Gulf War, it sucked. You don't have to tell me what I am welcome to or not, and you sure as hell don't have the experience that would justify you telling me that I am not objective enough to learn from history. You don't know anything about me, and for that matter, you don't know anything about kevin brown either. And I don't know anything about you.
for referring to him as a child. That's a pretty lowlife thing to say on my part, I know I wouldn't like that at all if it was me being referred to in that way. I just meant that I think he is a very young guy who probably hasn't experienced a whole lot, I am sure he will eventually. I am a bit older than most of the people on this forum as far as I can tell, and I realize I shouldn't say some of the things I have said.
It's cool. You obviously have a lot of emotional things going on with this issue. It happens. By the way, you might be surprised at how many people on this board aren't as young as you might think.
Youth is a state of mind, after all...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Here's my problem:
You're essentially saying a variety of people (Stalin, George Bush, Kessinger, etc) are 'evil'. Unless you're intentionally dramatizing and/or exaggerating, this is a bogus term. I did these two encapsulations (one of Hitler, one of Stalin) to highlight an important point that Hamby has already hit on - these are very ordinary, human stories. When someone says, 'Well, Hitler was just evil,' for example, I think they're constructing a very dangerous barrier between themselves and the person they despise. They're effectively distancing themselves from that person for their own comfort, filtering them into this odd 'other' category in order to convince themselves that they could not possibly fall into the same trap or bear witness to the same kind of beast rising to power.
This is, of course, how we repeat history, and how one poor mistake on a social level can lead to another. Since George Bush is in the special 'evil' category, we (well, 'you', for anyone living in the U.S.) can fool ourselves into thinking anyone will be better than him at leading the United States, and vote for a popular candidate who we liked on first impressions but really haven't done a background check on yet.
We can also fail to detect patterns and trends, because we refuse to attach them to a human element ('Sure the political climate was like X when Y atrocity happened before. But that's just because Z was in power - and Z was evil, remember?'). Stalin, like, Hitler, was not 'evil'. Unlike Hitler, Stalin likely was a clinical sociopath and habitual manipulator, but these are relatively ordinary traits among humans. He was a smart and ambitious man, excellent at finding avenues that netted him the kind of talent he needed (violent, bloodthirsty men). But also just a man.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I don't think I could have said it any better, Kevin. This is part of what I've been pushing on a "campaign trail," of sorts, lately. I think one of the most ubiquitous errors of critical thinking is the twofold separation of humans from the continuum of life and from other members of the species. "I'm not like Stalin because he was evil." "We're better than the animals because we're smart."
Same error, different manifestation.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
That is a very intelligent response but it doesn't take away from the fact that this is a person who should have just been shot by some clear-minded person that was able to. If someone shot our current pres, that would be a good thing, I don't see that much difference between him and Hitler, he is just way more subtle. And I disagree with you that Stalin and Hitler were "just men". they were absolutely incredible. the "aura" that they presented was overwhelming, much like Mike Tyson. Tyson is just a man too, but who, when Tyson was raging about eating someones children, would have dared to go over to him and punch him in the face and tell him what an ignorant piece of crap he was? If people just acted on their gut reactions in situations like this, the world would be a better place, there wouldn't be this garbage around ruining people's lives. I am sure that there was at least a couple of soldiers who thought about shooting Stalin while he was doing an inspection of arms or something, if they had just done it, what a feat?
Cyrillic is an alphabet, not a language?
but I am pretty sure Cyrillic is a language as well as a completely different way of speaking. It is known as Old Russian. Anything you can come up with would be news to me so I look forward to it. honestly, I haven't studied that much about russian history except for reading some Solzhenitzen (sic). my name and all my childrens names and my birth parents names are all Cyrillic names. KAAB=Kyzyl, Agafia, Agafina, and the B, I wont mention or you would know what my last name was. those names used to be very common, I was told that being named Agafia would be the equivelant of being named Bertha or Thelma in the states if you were in Russia. I don't care. Kyzyl, as I said already, is red, Agafia is interpreted as either blue or the good, Agafina is another form of Agafia or Agatha.
Also, I don't think Russians understand very much Cyrillic, kinda like Portugese and Tsongan, there are a lot of words that are similar, but the differerence is so great, it is much more than say Spanish and Portugese, which is very similar. I don't know if that helps any, maybe it makes things more confusing, but I tried.
Would this include the seven million peasants that he had starve to death in the Ukraine during the winter of 32/33? Yes, the confiscated grain that was used for export was effective in generating revenue. After all, if you deprive millions from food then there is just more available to ship out for profit. However it is lunacy when you consider that a decimated population can't effectively resist a foreign invader. But I suppose it is effective when you consider the intent of starving the Ukrainians was to quell dissent that rose from Lenin and Stalin's forced class restructuring.
In hindsight and foresight it's a terrible plan. In hindsight it allowed the Nazis to quickly spread over Ukraine which was one of the most productive regions in the USSR. In foresight using such tactics only breeds a historical distaste of the government and guarantees future resistance once the population reorganizes. As a result increased resources must be used to keep the populace in a persistent police state. A police state is a sign of a failed government, not an effective one.
Yankee commie carpetbagger!
that everyone ignores your post? It's because you posted something intelligent, and more importantly, something that sounds original. These wanna-be intellectuals on here don't like to have their feelings hurt.
This has already been mentioned, what, three times now? It's not even relevent to the OP, if you bother reading it. This was meant to encapsulate Stalin's rise to power and point-out that there was no evidence for 'Neo Darwinism' in Stalin's policies, as well as underline the fact he was just another human being, not some devilish incarnation of evil.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
kaab, just FYI, I've been keeping track. This is your story so far:
- You're from Russia.
- You were sent off as a baby to 'Taxas', which I presume is loosely related to 'Texas', in the states, and adopted by an american family.
- Your family ran into high-adventure criminal hijinks in Alaska at some point.
- You served in the Gulf War at some point.
- Your biological family, who spoke an alphabet for their language, suffered some gruesome demise in your homeland.
- You're homophobic
- You hate 'Commies'
- You can't decide whether you're sorry or not.
Dude, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to put these clues together:
You're full of shit. You're either a sock-puppet or a troll, and I don't think you've typed a single genuine thing all the while you've been on these boards.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Umm... Cyrillic is an alphabet, just an alphabet. It may be used to refer to a particular group of languages that utilize it, however, they are properly called Slavic. A subset of Indo-European languages also use the Cyrillic alphabet and obviously are not Slavic. I've never heard a language itself referred to as Cyrillic because it refers only to an alphabet. In fact Old Russian, Old East Slavic or Old Ruthenian are known by those names and not as Cyrillic and it is a dialect of a Slavic language that was spoken by many Eastern Slavs and used a variant of the Cyrillic alphabet.
In other words, Cyrillic is neither a language nor is it itself a completely different way of speaking. It is an alphabet. Interestingly, there are many variants of Cyrillic and not every language that uses the alphabet uses the entire alphabet or only that alphabet.
Apparently your just confusing a colloquial term for Slavic languages with the languages themselves.
No, it is just an alphabet. You're just wrong. Words in Cyrillic are pronounced differently, so yes, it is a different alphabet than our own. Alphabets are written descriptions of the phonemes (not always all of them) used in a language. Phonemes when compared between languages are the same, accented and the same or don't exist in the other language at all. There are several examples of phonemes represented in Cyrillic that aren't featured in the Latin alphabet, however, the Latin alphabet does not represent all of the phonemes in English where Cyrillic and its variants, with few exceptions, fully represent all of the phonemes used in the languages that employ that alphabet (they have phonemic orthographies). Some phonemes that do appear in languages that use Cyrillic, however, are not part of English at all. I really don't care to list those as it difficult to import both IPA characters as well as Cyrillic characters for comparison.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
What? Why is it so insulting to call people gay? I'm gay. Stop trying to insult people by pointing out sexuality. (Kevin is not gay... are you Kevin?) Ha ha! He was paraphrasing. The demise was gruesome. Good, but you keep going anyhow and there's nothing wrong with dolls, bathtubs or rice crispy treats. What were you in prison in Alaska for? Why were you in Alaska? Yes, Americans prisons and jail are full to the brim and even past it. Good thing Kevin doesn't live in the States, then. You really are full of shit, eh? (Neither do I.)
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Now don't get your panties all bunched up little missy. Maybe you better run down to Hastings and sit at the Starbucks for awhile to calm down, maybe in the corner with your book of Whitman poems.
What kind of ignorant question is that? I missed that when I posted about your panties and all. why are you in whatever horrible place you are in? Alaska is awesome, if it weren't for all the assholes determined on making it exactly like the rest of the lower 48, I would say that it is the best place I have ever been to. I lived there for 12 years in a town with a population of 125 people. I lived on the banks of the Yukon River and I had my own lake behind my house. I still own the property and can't wait to go back. Things beyond my control are keeping me in Texas for the moment.
Fucking asshole. ((Hastings? I'm not British, I don't go to Starbucks (you really are American, aren't you?) and I don't care for Whitman.))
You mean this question: Why were you in Alaska? You read too far into it. I asked: Why were you in Alaska and not Why were you in Alaska, that horrible place?
That's not all you missed.
You don't get to hear from me where I live. It's written on the forums. Go find out. As for why, I like it.
Sounds lovely.
I imagine it's because you're too much of a fucking asshole.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
you're killing me.
And you're still a fucking asshole.
Can we take care of this flamer yet?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
in assuming that Thomathy and Kevin Brown are both homosexuals from Canada? Hastings is a street in Vancouver that is "INFESTED" with gays and dope fiends and coffee houses.
What? Why is it so insulting to call people gay? I'm gay. Stop trying to insult people by pointing out sexuality. (Kevin is not gay... are you Kevin?) Ha ha! He was paraphrasing. The demise was gruesome. Good, but you keep going anyhow and there's nothing wrong with dolls, bathtubs or rice crispy treats. What were you in prison in Alaska for? Why were you in Alaska? Yes, Americans prisons and jail are full to the brim and even past it. Good thing Kevin doesn't live in the States, then. You really are full of shit, eh? (Neither do I.)
Why, exactly, did you become involved in this mayhem? So you are a linguist. Like most college students, you think you are really smart. Believe it or not, I went to college too. I hate to admit it, but I even listened to janes addiction and went to a couple of frat parties, where I witnessed the types of things that I imagine you do everyday. you have an opinion, that is very original of you, it doesn't mean that you are correct, but you are welcome to it, no matter how wrong or distorted it is.
There's no need to assume that I am homosexual. I told you. You are assuming, and incorrectly, that Kevin is homosexual. W both are Canadian, but I don't think you're assuming that either. Thank you for the education in Vancouver.
Amusement?
I assure you I have never attended college. I am smart after a manner.
I have no reason to disbelieve you.
Don't hate. I've also heard janes addiction and attended frat parties, where i witnessed the types of things that I imagine you do everyday. What exactly is it that you think I do everyday?
I have many.
Not at all, actually.
Certainly not.
Thank you for the allowance.
Tell me which opinion you're talking about and we can discuss just how wrong and distorted it is.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
you are certainly putting a lot of effort into this argument. I can only imagine what Kevin is doing right now, he is biding his time and he is going to come up with something that is just incredible. I dread the moment that I read his thread that puts me in my place once and for all. Poor Kevin, he is so confused, he is wondering what on earth is going on, having Thomathy on his side must be like having the KKK in full regalia show up at your wedding.
I went back and checked your response and found it full of historical ignorance. Ignoring the non-sequitur comments in your response to me you might like to know that people in the USSR and people throughout the world did have a problem with Stalin's purging of the people. In America Stalin's genocide of the Ukrainians made headlines. As was the case with Europe's reluctance to deal with Hitler and Stalin's unprovoked invasion of Poland (and Stalin's unprovoked invasion of Finland where your "effective" leader only won through sheer numbers) they were reluctant to enter into another large bloody world war.
The oppression of Stalin's own people reflected itself when Stalin's allies, the Nazis eventually invaded the USSR. A million people preferred the dictatorship of Hitler so they switched sides and put on the Nazi uniform. The Soviet people marched into war to fight the Nazis only because the NKVD had it's own army behind them shooting deserters or those who weren't enthusiastic enough in their eyes. The Soviets killed more of their own people than the Germans did. Not the sign of a great leader as you claim.
I'm trusting the subject is above your head so that's why you chose to ignore. Hence the reason I tend to keep off message boards. Too many fascist pseudo-intellectuals mired in their own ignorance. Oh well, I thought things might be different this time.
This is an argument?! This is not effort. I don't care to speculate on what Kevin is doing. I don't understand your analogy and I'm not on Kevin's side. I really don't see a side to be on in any case.
If we are to understand Kevin's main points here, despite his being incorrect on any number of things, it is that Stalin ever was a deranged man and a largely excellent leader, not evil and that far from his actions being the result of Atheism or of any 'social Darwinism' they were a result of his particular ideologies and insanity. I don't think that any of that is in dispute. Further, it is most certain that at least 8-10 million people died during the Soviet Pograms and otherwise in early Soviet history at the hands of the Soviet leadership leading up to 1950. I have seen figures suggest that the numbers of death in the USSR during that period are as high as 30 million. I don't think Kevin, if he is wrong in any way, is misrepresenting Stalin or the USSR, only that he is trying to dispel the myths that Stalin is anything other than the deranged man that he was. Kevin has done that.
What you seem to have a problem with, D-cubed, that hardly matters, is the claim that Stalin was an excellent leader. Perhaps you define this in a particular way? Perhaps the deaths of millions of people makes someone an automatically poor leader? In any case, there is no doubt that Stalin's Russia experienced an unprecedented growth and transformation from agriculture to industrial in a matter of years and subsequently went on to build a war machine that very really spurred the Cold War. I fail to see how Stalin, when viewed in light of the achievements of Russian during the time could be considered anything other than capable unless the deaths of millions prevents us from saying excellent. In which case, what word would you use to describe Stalin's leadership abilities when considering anything other than the deaths of millions? I would use the words capable, except that he surpasses mere capability.
In any case, Kevin wrote this, 'Stalin was one of the the most effective leaders any country has ever had.' and this, 'Stalin's rule was brutal, egotistical and, in many places, outright disgusting.'
He did not write that Stalin was a great leader and I have never seen Kevin defend any notion of Stalin that wasn't true. He was a tyrannical dictator, but he fashioned industrial Russia in a way no country has ever been industrialized.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Stalin's growth rate isn't terribly different than other countries. Western Europe had a staggering growth rate after the Marshall Plan, China has a strong growth rate through foreign investment, America had a large growth rate since it was the only country with it's infrastructure intact after the second world war but still had a large growth rate on par with England and Germany during the Industrial Revolution. The USSR invested in it's production capabilities through forced collectivism of food from the Ukraine and confiscation of the wealth of the dead who were thrown into death camps (more so after WW2 when Stalin used Nazi death camps and forced relocation of the Baltics).
Stalin showed that you can throw money at an industry and increase production but you can't necessarily increase quality. Yes, a shoe factory can have great production but when it only provides one size of shoe the usefulness of that factory is quite small. The Soviet industry was only interested in maintaining quotas.
Work conditions were awful. There was an influx of people from the farms since Stalin's agricultural policies were abhorrent. People had the choice of facing starvation of moving to the cities and hope they didn't fall victim to Stalin's death quotas. Stalin dealt with the orphan problem by lowering the age people could be dragged off to be shot. In the factories work conditions were bad that there was a constant problem of people leaving their jobs looking for better work. That hampered productivity so the Diet passed laws restricting labor mobility. Trade unions were abolished and served only the interest of the state in pushing propaganda to increase productivity. Since the serfs had the choice between starvation or work they worked.
Stalin also rid his nation of it's intellectual capital. As with any tyrannical regime the intellectuals are a threat. So the best way to get a death sentence is to be educated. As a result the acquisition of new technology was imported. The effective leader Stalin was dismal at implementing new technologies that would improve production.
The Soviet war machine was outdated compared to their German invaders. The Soviets relied largely on horses when the Germans were traveling in tanks. There weren't enough rifles to go around to all soldiers so often if a soldier wanted to be armed he had to take it from a dead comrade. The U.S. supplied a lot of the arms by flying them through Alaska into the Eastern end of the Republic. Later American technology would be incorporated into the Soviet military.
The method of investment into the increased production capabilities couldn't be maintained. Previously investment capital was created by exporting agricultural products. However, thanks to Stalin's policies food production never met the levels it had in the 20s. That was only achieved in the 60s (actually it may have been the 70s, I forget). The industrial materials for export were so shoddy that no Western consumer desired them so they could only be exported to other Communist nations.
As a result we saw when the USSR collapsed that it's industrial sector was far behind the rest of the world. Sure they could still produce a lot of steel and other basic materials but the finished products were worthless.
There are only a few sectors which the Soviet Union excelled in. Space technology, Olympic athletes, raw materials, nuclear weapons (a technology imported), and other products that were designed for defense or national prestige.
With the decline of the USSR we saw how quickly nations wanted to depart from Soviet rule. Previously they had to be held together by murder, deportation and/or terrorism. Without those controls the union would have fallen much earlier. A great leader wouldn't have to rely on such tactics to maintain support from the people.
I didn't need the history lesson, thanks. We really don't disagree about any of this except that I think Stalin was a formidable and more than capable leader. I might even call him a great leader, or an excellent leader. I base this on the whole of his actions and the history of the USSR. You think that as a leader to have had to use the tactics Stalin did makes him not great. If that is the basis of the disagreement, it is not worth arguing about. Why do you care so much if someone thinks Stalin was a great leader based on the reasons submitted? We're all working from the same history, only drawing different conclusions as to whether Stalin fits into the definition of 'great'. Unless you disagree with what is actually important (Stalin being a man and Atheism and social Darwinism not constituting the basis of his actions), I fail to see what point there is to your argument.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
To those who doubt Stalin's ability to lead... ask yourself... who had supreme control over one of the largest and most powerful countries in the world... You or Him?
Tell me he's not an effective leader, go ahead...
(btw i love how with forum went from discussing Stalin to gay-bashing and finger pointy "HE'S ZA COMMY!! GET HIM!!"... honestly >.> use some style when you insult some one for fuck sakes...)
What Would Kharn Do?
...So outdated that the Soviets produced the most tanks of any country involved in the war, and their primary tank - the T-34 - was the wrecking machine of the whole effort? It was outclassed by the heavier tanks later on (The Tigers, Pershings, Panthers, etc), but was far more easily produced and regularly trumped adversaries by sheer weight of numbers alone (many of the T-34's innovations would be what inspired the Germans to create the Panther, which is largely regarded as the most advanced and influential tank to come out of the war - thought still inferior to the Soviet tank because of it's higher production cost).
People who refer to horse use with derision usually have an absolutely terrible grasp of WWII engagements. Yes, nations who had horses made use of them in combat. No, we're not talking about charging formations of cavalry engaging tanks and armored vehicles. Most russian horses were used as artillery tows (which were far moe effective in the winter months than German mechanized alternatives, which were notorious for getting stuck or freezing-up), flanking cavalry against infantry positions and supply transport.
Cavalry was only ever engaged with tanks when they were ambushed, or when caught during retreats. In fact, part of Germany's many failures regarding their inability to properly prepare their armies for a winter campaign in the Soviet Union was their near total lack of horses. Vehicles did not cope as well as beasts of burden in the rough, snow-covered terrain of Russia, and while the Blitzkrieg had already stretched the Nazi supply lines to their limit, the onset of winter absolutely shattered them.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
...I hesitated to say this, but what the Hell:
I'm ignorant, yet you're the one spouting Hollywood-esque urban myths about a topic you clearly have done little research on? Do feel free to point-out the facts in my 'psuedo-intellectual' initial post that are incorrect, then.
Also feel free to back-up your claims with even the smallest bits of evidence. There is absolutely no after action report I'm aware of that details Soviet troops charging the enemy two-by-two, with only a single rifle per pair of men, and likewise no account of men being cut down by a firing squad while retreating (despite how entertaining that particular scene was in Enemy at the Gates). Yes, Commissars were known to make examples of soldiers by executing them on the spot, and this has become known in hindsight as an abysmally bad tactic, but this myth of Soviet near-impotency popularized by American media is really laughable.
Let's be perfectly clear here: The Germans, by the time they had fought the bloodly gauntlet to within a few kilometers of Stalingrad, were stopped dead in their tracks. Winter or no winter, the could not press forward. Their supply lines were stretched to their absolute limit (no surprise, given that the Lightning War tactics employed were so far ahead of their time and did not mesh well with the terrain and infrastructure in the Soviet Union). Barbarossa was a gong show - it's best merit was that it likely beat a Soviet plan to smash Germany in it's own surprise attack in July. Hitler's ill-concieved notion that the Soviet Union would collapse and tear itself apart was in error, and operations were dragged-out far longer than anticipated due to the stiff resistance Nazi forces faced. The Soviet industrial complex was staggeringly underestimated (second only to the United States in the pre-war days) and the Russians simply had far more men, vehicles and raw resources than Germany.
It was obvious as early as the fall, for anyone who bothers to actually research the subject matter, that Germany could not take the Soviet capital. A failed attempt at encircling the city, followed by arrival of fresh reinforcements from Siberia and a series of devastating Soviet counter-attacks, sealed the fate of the Wehrmacht offensive. Winter, and the lack of foresight the Germans had in preparing for it, only sped-up the process of total defeat.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
You harp about the great military prowess of the Soviets but fail to mention that despite outnumbering the Finns in infantry, tanks and aircraft they still got their asses handed to them despite being backed by the Nazis in the first engagement and the UK in the second.
I'm wondering what medium a tank is in determining the effectiveness and competence of a leader. That's like determining the structural integrity of a building based upon a fish tank in the lobby. Besides, the Soviet tank you are so proud of was based upon a design by the Americans. Perhaps the great leader Stalin might have had a Soviet engineer think of one but seeing that he had so many slaughtered.... Kinda like the sort of problems one might have with a military if one has a lot of the commanders thrown into execution cells.
The weapons shortage isn't something I dragged off the movies, but thanks for informing me of your childish nature of debating. It was from accounts of Soviets in the Battle of Moscow as described in Andrew Nagorski's book.
But seeing that you are wholly obsessed with selective reasoning it's clear you either haven't researched the subject or you have very narrow confines of what makes for a competent leader. Better luck next time.
Non-sequitor, using an unrelated engagement in lieu of an actual counter-argument. You also 'forgot' to mention two things:
- The Finnish campaign was launched after Stalin had finished purging his military forces. On a leadership and morale level, the Red Army was at it's weakest point.
- Many historians now argue that the failure of the Finnish campaign was purely intentional on the part of Stalin. A strategy of playing possum for the Germans, so that they would underestimate the Red Army's capabilities, making them vulnerable against the planned surprise attack in July.
If you wonder why tank production is a good measure for determining a country's industrial capability during WWII, you don't understand the war very well.
'Proud of'? It's difficult for me to be proud of something I had no business in creating.
And every tank ever made is 'based on' the initial tanks developed by the British in WWI. What's your point? The Soviets took a concept and improved it tremendously. Apparently that renders the feat to some lesser status?
Oh, because that's so much better - you took it from the biased work of an American reporter writing about the events decades after they happened, having no credentials as a historian and known for adding unrealstic flair to his books.
I don't know how to tell you this, but just because it's a book doesn't mean it represents history any more accurately than a film.
And I see you still haven't managed to point-out where my facts are incorrect (even though I've extended you this courtesy myself a number of times already).
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Never mind the fact that "possum" Stalin was still supplying the Nazi war machine and sent their ambassador to Berlin with further war effort plans. The failure of the Finland invasion was a result of your great effective leader highly competent leadership. The Soviets continued to aid Germany in their invasion of Sweden. If it's was Stalin's purpose to look weak by having his ass handed to him in Finland at the cost of a lot of infantry and heavy weapons it was effective since his military was weakened by the failure.
Reading comprehension is a good skill to have. You are arguing the overall effectiveness of Stalin as a leader of a country. That isn't solely determined by how many tanks a country can manufacture. Try again.
It's your argument about the leadership of Stalin. If he has to beg, borrow and steal everything to achieve this greatness and not rely on his own merits then he isn't that great of a leader. If it wasn't your intent to base your argument upon the tank you continue to brag about then it's best not to implement it in your argument.
That's it, that's your only rebuttal? I take it you aren't familiar with what I was referencing since the author was interviewing veterans from the campaign. But I guess soldiers serving in the Moscow invasion are a biased, uninformed source and you are a much better source because you have the high score on Medal of Honor.
Again, try reading. You've proven yourself unable to further discuss the subject and I don't care to waste time with pseudo-intellectuals with a wikieducation. Come back when you write something worth responding to.
The traditional image of arrest is also what happens afterward, when the poor victim has been taken away. It is an alien, brutal, and crushing force totally dominating the apartment for hours on end, a breaking, ripping open, pulling from the walls, emptying things from wardrobes and desks onto the floor, shaking, dumping out, and ripping apart -- piling up mountains of litter on the floor-and the crunch of things being trampled beneath jackboots. And nothing is sacred in a search! During the arrest of the locomotive engineer Inoshin, a tiny coffin stood in his room containing the body of his newly dead child. The "jurists" dumped the child's body out of the coffin and searched it. They shake sick people out of their sickbeds, and they unwind bandages to search beneath them.
For those left behind after the arrest there is the long tail end of a wrecked and devastated life. And the attempts to go and deliver food parcels. But from all the windows the answer comes in barking voices: "Nobody here by that name!" "Never heard of him!" Yes, and in the worst days in Leningrad it took five days of standing in crowded lines just to get to that window, And it may be only after half a year or a year that the arrested person responds at all. Or else the answer is tossed out: "Deprived of the right to correspond." And that means once and for all. "No right to correspondence" -- and that almost for certain means: "Has been shot."
That's how we picture arrest to ourselves.
Well, now that the thread has been totally derailed...
I don't suppose I could ask a mod to lock this at this point? No doubt I'll be labelled a 'poor sport' alongside a 'psuedo-intellectual with a wikieducation', but I don't give a shit. The OP has been largely ignored, and frankly this is now slewing into grounds I have no interest in debating. This was meant as an illustration regarding the absence of atheism's influence from Stalin's policies, not an invitation for everyone to unzip and start comparing lengths.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Yeah Kevin. Thing is, saying anything that remotely sounds positive of Stalin is going to bring on the hate for that fucker. Thanks for all your great posting, and the rest of you "good" guys.
So how can we never let another Stalin, Hitler, Bush, Juggernaut happen ????? Go science and education .....
Guitar GOD, Frank Marino has a ripping song called "Juggernaut" on his cool Cd of the same name. Google the lyrics. I can't find a good youtube of that angry tune. But here's Frank doing "All Along The WatchTower". It starts 2 mins in ..... seems to relate to all this "confusion, some among us think life is but a joke"" ..... All the "real" rockers love Frank ! and Jimi Hendrix ! Bob Dylan wrote this tune ....
frank marino& mahogany rush broment 1979 part 5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACfhhXT1tvU
Atheism Books.
my ears are still ringing.
Yeah Kaab , as it must be at this present time of learning what we are .... LOUDER ! Fuck Bush and all MASTERS .....
Slayer - Cult http://youtube.com/watch?v=KdLmm-s2hCE
Lyrics
Opression is the holy law,
In God I distrust,
Italic monuments will fall,
Like ashes to dust,
It's war and creed the master plan,
The battle's where it all began,
It's propaganda shouts despair,
And sends this virus everywhere,
Religion is hate,
Religion is fear,
Religion is war.
Religion is rape,
Religion's obscene,
Religion's a whore.
The pestilence of Jesus Christ,
There never was a sacrifice,
No man who hung the crucifix,
Beware the call for purity,
Infections their facility,
I've made my choice,
666!
Carussa Green's a paedophile,
No praying for the priest,
Confession finds a lonely child,
Now preys on the weak,
You think your soul can still be saved,
I think you're fucking miles away
Scream out loud, heres where you begin,
Forgive me Father for I have sinned!
Religion is hate,
Religion is fear,
Religion is war.
Religion is rape,
Religion's obscene,
Religion's a whore.
The target's fucking Jesus Christ,
The one I'd love to sacrifice,
I'd nail him to the crucifix,
Beware the call for purity,
Infections their facility,
I've made my choice,
666!
Jesus is pain,
Jesus is gore,
Jesus is the blood that's spilled in war,
He's everything,
He's all things dead,
He's pulling down the trigger pointed at your head!
Through fear you're sold into the fraud,
Revelation, Revolution, I see through your cracked illusion!
The war on terror just drags along,
My holy god it's growing strong,
It's propaganda shouts despair,
And sends this virus everywhere,
Religion is hate,
Religion is fear,
Religion is war.
Religion is rape,
Religion's obscene,
Religion's a whore.
There is no fucking Jesus Christ,
There never was a sacrifice,
No man upon the crucifix,
Beware the call for purity,
Infections their facility,
I've made my choice,
666!
Atheism Books.
maybe you should too. you have me kinda weirded out, and I have been on this thread trying to mess with peoples heads. I am beginning to think you really are a psycho. did you listen to a lot of gg allin as a kid?