Trying to understand Stalin

kowalskil · Oct 2, 2011

How did Stalin manage to outmaneuver so many

After reading an interesting, and rather unique, book about Stalin, I just posted a very short review of it, at the Amazon?s website. Here it is, for those who might be interested:

I agree with those who wrote that Montefiore's voluminous "Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar" is not always easy reading. But it is certainly worthwhile for the light it sheds on relations between Stalin and his close subordinates, those whom he liquidated and those who survived him. Stalin's methods of domination--both brutal and ideological--are skillfully described. The same applies to personal relations between communist leaders. The Soviet Union was the first country in which the idea of proletarian dictatorship, formulated by Marx, was implemented. That is why all aspects of Soviet history are worth studying. Be aware that the number of characters is unusually large. Fortunately, Stalin's family tree and the introductory section entitled "List of Characters" should help readers to deal with this problem.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

CatholicCrusader · Nov 25, 2011

Stalin and Hitler are two sides of the same coin, one Fascist/Socialist and the other Communist/Socialist. They both killed millions of Jews, millions of political enemies, and they both were evil tyranical war mongers. I don't know why Hitler always gets a worse rap than Stalin does: Hitler was no worse than Stalin.

myp · Nov 25, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
I don't know why Hitler always gets a worse rap than Stalin does: Hitler was no worse than Stalin.

Probably because Stalin was more of an "equal opportunity killer", whereas Hitler targeted specific groups, which strengthens his position as a racist in history books.

CatholicCrusader · Nov 25, 2011

Stalin targetted Jews too, believe you me.

And that calls into question our role in WWII, that we would demonize the Nazis and yet ally ourselves with someone who is just a bad as the Nazis. We should have never supported Stalin. We should have liberated Western Europe but let Adolf and Uncle Joe duke it out by themselves.

myp · Nov 25, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
Stalin targetted Jews too, believe you me.

Stalin's rhetoric and actions towards the Jews relative to everyone else was no were near as bad as Hitler's.

CatholicCrusader · Nov 25, 2011

myp said:
Stalin's rhetoric and actions towards the Jews relative to everyone else was no were near as bad as Hitler's.

Rhetoric, perhaps.

But actual deaths? I don't think you are correct. He killed a comparable amount of Jews as Hitler did. He certainly had more time to do it in too.

dabdab · Nov 25, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
Stalin and Hitler are two sides of the same coin, one Fascist/Socialist and the other Communist/Socialist. They both killed millions of Jews, millions of political enemies, and they both were evil tyranical war mongers. I don't know why Hitler always gets a worse rap than Stalin does: Hitler was no worse than Stalin.

If you took to killing and mayhem the British in Asia and Africa killed a lot of people . and the amerians killed the natives . and in Vietnam they done a lot of senseless killing . so please .....

CatholicCrusader · Nov 25, 2011

dabdab said:
If you took to killing and mayhem the British in Asia and Africa killed a lot of people . and the amerians killed the natives . and in Vietnam they done a lot of senseless killing . so please .....

Listen up you pinhead, I don't go for that anti-American bullsh*t, so miss me with that crap. America does not have death camps, gulags, dictators, and we do not engage in wars of conquest.

Why don't you go spread that BS at an OWS camp

dabdab · Nov 25, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
Listen up you pinhead, I don't go for that anti-American bullsh*t, so miss me with that crap. America does not have death camps, gulags, dictators, and we do not engage in wars of conquest.

Why don't you go spread that BS at an OWS camp

You are enough enemy to America . shooting of your hep doesn't help . yes America had camps for it's Japanese citizens at the same time with Hitler . as for the natives no time for camps massacred them all .

skeptic-f · Jan 13, 2012

Difference of thought and method

dabdab said:
If you took to killing and mayhem the British in Asia and Africa killed a lot of people . and the amerians killed the natives . and in Vietnam they done a lot of senseless killing . so please .....

The difference between usual historical atrocities and those of the totalitarians is the near madness of the totalitarian approach. Complete control and complete belief in the ruler and the message were the goals of Nazism and Stalinism and if millions had to die to try and achieve those goals that was a good and necessary thing in the eyes of the totalitarians. For a more literary approach to this topic, Orwell's "1984" sums up the sheer evil of the totalitarian mindset.

Fascist Canuck · Jan 13, 2012

CatholicCrusader said:
Stalin and Hitler are two sides of the same coin, one Fascist/Socialist and the other Communist/Socialist. They both killed millions of Jews, millions of political enemies, and they both were evil tyranical war mongers. I don't know why Hitler always gets a worse rap than Stalin does: Hitler was no worse than Stalin.

Hitler was not a socialist. He didn't believe in socialism, especially since he virulently despised communists. You DO understand that socialism and communism are one and the same, yes?

Hitler did not kill millions of JEWS, nor did Stalin. All lies. JEW propaganda.

"The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew."

The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism.

myp · Jan 13, 2012

Fascist Canuck said:
You DO understand that socialism and communism are one and the same, yes?

Uh, no they aren't. Marx himself differentiated between the two- socialism being the transitional stage to communism. Nowadays socialism also can mean other things depending on context as other theorists have used and even redefined it differently.

kowalskil · Jan 16, 2012

myp said:
... Nowadays socialism also can mean other things depending on context as other theorists have used and even redefined it differently.

Redefining words is highly undesirable. But politicians (and advertisers) do this deliberately.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

myp · Jan 16, 2012

kowalskil said:
Redefining words is highly undesirable. But politicians (and advertisers) do this deliberately.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

Language evolves. It isn't all politicians- in the case of socialism it has happened a lot in academia over the years too.

Tibbs · Jan 17, 2012

CatholicCrusader said:
I don't know why Hitler always gets a worse rap than Stalin does: Hitler was no worse than Stalin.

Because we had to ally ourselves with Stalin to fight Hitler. Hitler was a more direct threat to Europe at the time, and there is NO WAY we could have fought both Hitler and Stalin at the same time. Even after WW II was over, there is NO WAY we could have fought the Soviets and won conventionally.

Therefore, there was no surge of anti-Stalin propaganda.

((Given some time to recuperate after the war, and to let the economic systems of the respective unions run their course . . . we absolutely could've taken them. Mostly because the commies were relying on the bomb to protect them and didn't develop their conventional forces to near the same extent we did. But that's another matter.))

Fascist Canuck · Jan 29, 2012

myp said:
Uh, no they aren't. Marx himself differentiated between the two- socialism being the transitional stage to communism. Nowadays socialism also can mean other things depending on context as other theorists have used and even redefined it differently.

That's precisely my point. They both have the same goal, therefore they are one and the same.

Fascist Canuck · Jan 29, 2012

Tibbs said:
Because we had to ally ourselves with Stalin to fight Hitler. Hitler was a more direct threat to Europe at the time, and there is NO WAY we could have fought both Hitler and Stalin at the same time. Even after WW II was over, there is NO WAY we could have fought the Soviets and won conventionally.

Therefore, there was no surge of anti-Stalin propaganda.

((Given some time to recuperate after the war, and to let the economic systems of the respective unions run their course . . . we absolutely could've taken them. Mostly because the commies were relying on the bomb to protect them and didn't develop their conventional forces to near the same extent we did. But that's another matter.))

You are clued out. The USA wanted to attack the Soviets right after taking Berlin (see Patton's words), but Ike said 'we wouldn't stand a chance in hell against them, and we know it'. The ONLY REASON Stalin didn't have his Red Army sweep across Europe was thanks to the US ownership of the world's only atomic bomb. The commies have ALWAYS had conventional superiority. You have it backwards. It was NATO who was relying on the US nukes to protect THEM. You DO realise the Soviet conventional forces alone were greater than those of the rest of the world COMBINED, yes? They were not in an arms race with the US, they were in an arms race with the WORLD. The ONLY REASON the Soviet Union existed was world communism.

Sarevus · Feb 12, 2012

Coward. Dictator. The typical spill.

williamsimon46 · Feb 13, 2012

there a good strategist

Fascist Canuck · Feb 14, 2012

Sarevus said:
Coward. Dictator. The typical spill.

Stalin was a dictator and a coward. Hitler was a hero, a great man. Everything he said would happen has happened. The JEWS DO virtually rule the world. Non-whites ARE taking over White homelands.

Trying to understand Stalin

Similar threads