Stalin was as bad as Hitler?

[MilitantAnarchist]

Stalin was as bad as Hitler? Do you agree with this statement, and why?
Just after oppinions here,

[fitz]

Yes i do believe he was
There are rarely such things as a 'good' person at the head of an apparatus for state sanctioned terror and murder
Not to mention the fact that he was ultimately responsible for deaths of anywhere between 3 and 60 million people
if not JUST as bad, in my personal oppinion, not far from it

[RHIZOMES]

Revleft Stalin debate #374892634723879468234

[hugsandmarxism]

Yeah, we REALLY need another one of these. :rolleyes:

[Vincent P.]

Questionable rise to power, retouching photos everytime he get rid of a political opponent, the Great Purge and the laughable Moscow Trials, the sickening cult of personality, how he badly manages the famine of the early 30's, the pact with Nazi Germany, Gulags and much more leave me with a sentiment of absolute hate.

Thanks to him and his friends, each time I say "socialism" people think of state capitalism, cencorship and Gulag. He just gave to capitalist media every historical facts they needed to play with public opinion against socialism.

Thank you Stalin.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Technically, Hitler is probably worse. I believe he killed significantly more people and caused a lot more harm. I don't think Stalin can be held responsible for tarnishing the reputation of communism. The media did that, not him.

A person is perfectly capable of telling the difference between a cat and a raccoon. If a cat attacks a house, the people will assume things about the cat, not all cats. If a raccoon attacks a house, people will assume the same.

Stalin is a raccoon. Communism is a cat. People are perfectly capable of differentiation between different animals as well as different political ideologies. The media spun things for their own advantage. Not sure if that's Stalin's fault.

Also, it's pretty sad that we allow Stalinists to post if we think Stalin is as bad as Hitler. I mean, restrict the capitalist but not the guy as bad as Hitler? Makes no logical sense. Sure, it's a "revolutionary leftism" board, but the forum restrictions already impose notions of what is acceptable (abortion, sexism, racism, bad). Not supporting a guy who is almost as bad as Hitler is pretty strong criteria following the reasoning.

[mykittyhasaboner]

This thread should be closed, MiltantAnarchist is trolling. Plus there are like 2 or 3 threads dealing with similar/the same topic.

[Vincent P.]

When we try to revive an old thread we usually don't get a cheerful answer, so we like better to discuss between us newbies in a new one.

[mykittyhasaboner]

There is a sticky in the History forum where everything regarding Stalin is discussed.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-thread-all-t100814/index.html

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why rank horrible?

The main difference as I see it was that Stalin didn't start off to become a monster but became one as the USSR tried to replicate 100s of years of industrial development (which also had similar atrocities, though it was over a longer period of time and involved many many more people) in a few decades.

Hitler on the other hand set out to destroy political opposition and working class movements and "degenerates" and he achieved this.

[LOLseph Stalin]

They were both crazy, but Stalin less so than Hitler. I'm going to leave it at that. There's way too many of these debates already.

[Brother No. 1]

Stalin as bad as hitler..oh no here we go again. This is just going to be like the "Was Stalin a facist" thread. Stalin helped the economy,industry,culture,rights for women,among other factors and Hitler basicly destryed all political oppostions and instaled a National Socialist facist distatorship. Hitler also caused the deaths of 6 million jewish citizens and caused the death of over 60 million Soviet citizen and troop deaths. Not to mention that he also put stict laws to obey the 3rd Reich or mysteriously "dissapper." Hitler also wanted HIS pure own osciety of the "aryan race" this so called "race" was "pure" germans who were roman cathloic and were pyhiscaly fit and had no "defects." But now I bet I'm going to hear about how Stalin killed millions but really you say as bad as hitler? Hitler was the most burtal tyrant of the 20th century.

[Vincent P.]

Stalin as bad as hitler..oh no here we go again. This is just going to be like the "Was Stalin a facist" thread. Stalin helped the economy,industry,culture,rights for women,among other factors and Hitler basicly destryed all political oppostions and instaled a National Socialist facist distatorship.
Hitler put the German economy back on its feet, while it was the most badly hit nation by the great depression, and it became one of the most powerful nation while there was a famine in USSR. He also lauched the very first public-health campaigns and was the first nation to put into practice environmentalism and animal right protection. So don't worry, Nazi Germany didn't lack in term of innovation.


Hitler also caused the deaths of 6 million jewish citizens and caused the death of over 60 million Soviet citizen and troop deaths.
23 million soviets, which is about equals to China's 20 million. I'm not saying "it wasn't that bad", I'm jut correcting the number. Also may I remind you that Stalin was Hitler's buddy when it was time to invade Poland?


Not to mention that he also put stict laws to obey the 3rd Reich or mysteriously "dissapper."

You mean *poof*, like this:

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/picture_11_3.jpg


Hitler also wanted HIS pure own osciety of the "aryan race" this so called "race" was "pure" germans who were roman cathloic and were pyhiscaly fit and had no "defects." .
Hitler was atheist, and despised roman catholicism, but the big idea is here. But hey, speaking of deportation, this isn't bad either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union


But now I bet I'm going to hear about how Stalin killed millions but really you say as bad as hitler? Hitler was the most brutal tyrant of the 20th century.
Hum, they sounds very alike to me.

[Brother No. 1]

Hitler put the German economy back on its feet, while it was the most badly hit nation by the great depression, and it became one of the most powerful nation while there was a famine in USSR. He also lauched the very first public-health campaigns and was the first nation to put into practice environmentalism and animal right protection. So don't worry, Nazi Germany didn't lack in term of innovation.

Lets remember this was Pre-war and what I said Stalin did in the 20s and Hitler rose in the 30s. The famine was a large loss to the CCCP so i highly doubt that when WW2 started in Europe the CCCP had the means to not only attack the Facist but defend from invasion if their attack failed. So can have a few reasons why he put those health cares,enviormentaism, and animal protection for he "loved" germany as much I bet he "loved" it in 1945 when he made Germany crumble at its final hours. He believed in the "ayran utopia."



You mean *poof*, like this:

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/picture_11_3.jpg

Somehow i knew that card would be played on me. Werent these taken oh I dont know during the War.


23 million soviets, which is about equals to China's 20 million. I'm not saying "it wasn't that bad", I'm jut correcting the number. Also may I remind you that Stalin was Hitler's buddy when it was time to invade Poland?


I know fully well of this but lets see the situation. Germany was already a superpower and had its armies already for war. CCCP on the other had wasnt ready to attck or even defend. Stalin needed a distance or at least a partial peace with them besides this isnt the first time the Soviets made peace with the germans. Lenin did this for the early CCCP couldnt even do the First World War hell they might have done worse then with the Czar if they continued the War. The Red Army wasnt red for a offensive or a defensive if they attacked the germans. The Non-agression act was to keep a defensive line and to build up for forces and sadly they didnt know Hitler wasnt the one to always keep treaies and pacts.





Hum, they sounds very alike to me.

So now a Facist Dictator who believed in a supeior race above all and that all other races should either bow down and obey or be exterminated is the same as Joseph Stalin. Is Joseph Stalin now a racist to you?




Hitler was atheist, and despised roman catholicism

Was he now? Well then thats another thing Hitler depised in this world other then Communism,jediaism,Capitalism,ect.

[Vincent P.]

As for racism and deportation, you forgot to quote this from my post:

But hey, speaking of deportation, this isn't bad either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populat...e_Soviet_Union (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union)

[Hoxhaist]

oh boy I dont think anyone is going to change anyone's mind. I mean about 6 generations of Stalinists and Trotskyites have been fighting for ninety years over these same questions. We each believe what we believe leave the Trots alone and leave the Stalinists alone and we can all hash out our differences after the revolution just like Trotsky and Stalin did

[Vincent P.]

leave the Trots alone and leave the Stalinists alone and we can all hash out our differences after the revolution just like Trotsky and Stalin did
You mean with an icepick?

Oh, and I'm not Trot :p. We're discussiong history here, but in practice I support every anti-capitalist movement.

[Plagueround]

Although I'm generally not big on Stalin, I always find it amusing when socialists are convinced that the media and history are merely products of bourgeois revisionism of history and can't be trusted...except when it comes to Stalin, then everything that was ever said about him is a stunning and truthful expose on the baby eating monster.

[Brother No. 1]

but in practice I support every anti-capitalist movement.

you support the "pratice" on it yet in Reality you dont support every anti-Capitalist movement. Hes not a Troskyist hes a Anarcho-communist has his title says.

[Vincent P.]

Although I'm generally not big on Stalin, I always find it amusing when socialists are convinced that the media and history are merely products of bourgeois revisionism of history and can't be trusted...except when it comes to Stalin, then everything that was ever said about him is a stunning and truthful expose on the baby eating monster.
Well we haven't got any better source, don't we? Exept maybe Nikita after Stalin death. Meanwhile anti-revisionists are trying to convince us with stalininst sources about stalinist crimes :p. Joking, it's just that we all have a tendency to cherry pick sources.

[Brother No. 1]

how long has the Stalin agurement going on with Anti-Revisionists and Troskyists...maybe over 90 years or so. I think we've agured about the same thing for alot longer then its really needed. shouldnt we just stop the fighting before the Revolution then after it we can argue about it as much as we want. Trosky and stalin settled quiet for the entire Bolsheviks Revolution and the Russian Civil War.

[LOLseph Stalin]

you support the "pratice" on it yet in Reality you dont support every anti-Capitalist movement. Hes not a Troskyist hes a Anarcho-communist has his title says.

There's differences between the history and the actual leftist movements in practice. It's the history that he's criticizing as it's gone and past so we all know what mistakes everybody made. In practice we should be focusing on the present situation and how we could be using that to apply Socialism in the future. Gah...this description sounded better in my head...

[Vincent P.]

how long has the Stalin agurement going on with Anti-Revisionists and Troskyists...maybe over 90 years or so. I think we've agured about the same thing for alot longer then its really needed. shouldnt we just stop the fighting before the Revolution then after it we can argue about it as much as we want. Trosky and stalin settled quiet for the entire Bolsheviks Revolution and the Russian Civil War.
Absolutly. But take it as a cheerful off-topic conversation between friends . As I said I wouldn't refuse to work with you because of history business, although now that I think of it our divergence on theory and practice is kinda big:blink:. But if one day some anti-revisionist are doing an anti-capitalist strike I'd join them.

[LOLseph Stalin]

But if one day some anti-revisionist are doing an anti-capitalist strike I'd join them.

I would too. As long as we're all supporting worker's struggle it's all cool with me. It's actually putting our ideas into practice that'll cause much dispute among different groups.

[Brother No. 1]

There's differences between the history and the actual leftist movements in practice. It's the history that he's criticizing as it's gone and past so we all know what mistakes everybody made. In practice we should be focusing on the present situation and how we could be using that to apply Socialism in the future. Gah...this description sounded better in my head...

I see and know what your getting at it sounds good. But the pratice of Troskyism has been the same since Trosky was alive. Pratice of Anti-Revisionism has been the same and the pratice of Maoism has been the same. If you mean by pratice we should be foucsing on the current situation then how come the pratice of Anti-Revisionism before its even pratice is called its "a pathetic ideal" "its beyond to stupidity to be a Stalinist in the 21st century."



But if one day some anti-revisionist are doing an anti-capitalist strike I'd join them.

Thats good to hear. for we're all leftists and should untie to defeat the Capitalists. I mean we are called the UNITED left.




I would too. As long as we're all supporting worker's struggle it's all cool with me. It's actually putting our ideas into practice that'll cause much dispute among different groups.

and I'd join some Troskyists if their were doing a Anti-Capitalist strike. Since we are all leftists we SHOULD all support thr workers struggle for we all are trying to reach for communism just in different ways and ideas.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I see and know what your getting at it sounds good. But the pratice of Troskyism has been the same since Trosky was alive. Pratice of Anti-Revisionism has been the same and the pratice of Maoism has been the same. If you mean by pratice we should be foucsing on the current situation then how come the pratice of Anti-Revisionism before its even pratice is called its "a pathetic ideal" "its beyond to stupidity to be a Stalinist in the 21st century."

Basically I was trying to say that the actual ideals shouldn't have to matter until after the revolution. We have no way of knowing now what the best way to govern the masses on the road to Communism is. Us Trots have our own opinions as do you Anti-Revisionists. Remove the governing part and we're generally one and the same.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Hitler was atheist

Since when? Not that it matters, particularly. I've only seen religious nuts claim that because they have the illogical notion that anyone that evil can't believe in God. I did a brief search, and all the information suggested he either a Christian or a non-Christian theist.

[Brother No. 1]

Basically I was trying to say that the actual ideals shouldn't have to matter until after the revolution. We have no way of knowing now what the best way to govern the masses on the road to Communism is. Us Trots have our own opinions as do you Anti-Revisionists. Remove the governing part and we're generally one and the same.

Very true i mean Stalin and Trosky disliked each others ideas and they had to work together in the Bolsheivk Revolution and the Russian civil War. Yes if we remove how we govern the masses, or as the theory desribes, we're all the same. We're al leftists we are all seeking Capitalism's end. Yes I have my own oppions and you have your owns,which i have seen many times, and I respect you for your ideas and you respect my ideas. When the Revolution is over then we can argue about how the Socialist state should be run.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Since when? Not that it matters, particularly. I've only seen religious nuts claim that because they have the illogical notion that anyone that evil can't believe in God. I did a brief search, and all the information suggested he either a Christian or a non-Christian theist.

I'm pretty sure Hitler was some kind of Protestant as that is the dominant form of Christianity in that part of Europe.


When the Revolution is over then we can argue about how the Socialist state should be run.

Exactly. :)

[Brother No. 1]

He believed in god and wanted a "Pure Ayran" nation, more likely World, that had "perfect" citizens. the Health care was most likely to keep the "supieor race" health pure. Other factors such as Envoitmentalism is for they wanted a "perfect World" for their "prefect race" basicly they wanted everything to be perfect.


Exactly.

Besides I'm a AR and I treat you well your a Troskyist, Really ideals dont matter for behind all of those theories,ideals,ideas,and ways of governing were all leftists.

[LOLseph Stalin]

He believed in god and wanted a "Pure Ayran" nation, more likely World, that had "perfect" citizens. the Health care was most likely to keep the "supieor race" health pure. Other factors such as Envoitmentalism is for they wanted a "perfect World" for their "prefect race" basicly they wanted everything to be perfect.

Yes, "utopia" seekers...fun... :rolleyes:

(1000th post. :D)

[Brother No. 1]

Yes, "utopia" seekers...fun...

and they said that us communists wanted "utopia."

[khad]

Although I'm generally not big on Stalin, I always find it amusing when socialists are convinced that the media and history are merely products of bourgeois revisionism of history and can't be trusted...except when it comes to Stalin, then everything that was ever said about him is a stunning and truthful expose on the baby eating monster.
There's a certain self-cannibalizing tendency on the part of certain sectarian leftists who will attack the left more vociferously than they would the reactionaries.

[Vincent P.]

Since when?
He was found of Nietzsche, which is maybe the most notoriously atheist philosopher of all time. There is a long story on how nazism deformed Nietzsche nothing-but-brilliant philosophy into their Aryan crap.

[Brother No. 1]

Aryan crap.

Really believeing in a single superior race that can do anything..if theys real they how come they lostn the Great War,aka War the End all wars or just World War one, I mean its idiotic to believe that one race is supeiror to all others.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

He was found of Nietzsche, which is maybe the most notoriously atheist philosopher of all time. There is a long story on how nazism deformed Nietzsche nothing-but-brilliant philosophy into their Aryan crap.

Nietzsche's views were deformed, as you mentioned. That includes the removal of his atheist ideas. People borrow ideas from religious and atheist individuals all the time. That doesn't mean their atheist or religious because of it.

[Pogue]

Really believeing in a single superior race that can do anything..if theys real they how come they lostn the Great War,aka War the End all wars or just World War one, I mean its idiotic to believe that one race is supeiror to all others.

The ideas of a master race came from the Nazis who then lost World War 2 if thats what you're talking about.

Naturaly I'd work with anyone supporting the same workers struggle as me but Stalinist ideas influence Stalinist practice. I'd never support someone who wanted a repeat of what Stalin did for example, and obviously Stalinists tend not to be supportive of autonomous workers organisation and action, they support rigour, discipline, the state and nationalism, so its not a matter of all cooperating, because sometimes we'll be forced not too by the tactics/ideas of a certain group. If the Stalinists wanted to say betray a revolution again like they did the Spanish one I'd never support them.

If we were to be in a position of supporting a workers struggle the ideological divides would already have been meated out. It'd be how you'd build and work within that struggle that leads to the splits.

On a note of the history, if I met someone who honestly believed Uncle Joe was a great guy and supports all of his purges, the pact with Hitler etc, I think that'd be a strong reason to doubt their politics for the present.

[Rjevan]

Hitler was atheist
Hitler referred to God several times in his early career and when he became Reichskanzler. But I guess this was just a rhetorical trick to impresss the masses and give himself the image of a moderate conservative.
But he firmly believed in the providence. He thought that he was sent by the providence to redeem the "Aryan race" from all its misery (= Jews, Communists, opression by inferior races...) and that he is protected, because he has to fulfill his task and could not be killed before he finished. After every failed assassination he praised the providence.

[Brother No. 1]

The ideas of a master race came from the Nazis who then lost World War 2 if thats what you're talking about.



Yes i know they came from the Nazi party in germany. Hitler promised the germany people redemption and glory. He basicly used his way with words to pursade the people to his ideas and if they didnt follow well you can guess what happened to them. The "ayran race" he believed in was a "true perfect" german race. Its Irony that his own paranoia saved his life from being assassinated. He was only good at talking and when he did something then it got destroyed. Really to compare a Socialist leader to a Facist dictator is kinda stupid.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Really to compare a Socialist leader to a Facist dictator is kinda stupid.

I think people like to compare them based on the fact that both caused millions of deaths. How these deaths happened doesn't matter to Capitalists. What matters to them is that they happened. You can also bring the whole nationalism factor into play as well. Stalin believed in "Socialism in one country" while Hitler believed Germany was superior. Obviously both are forms of nationalism, but to different degrees and applied to different situations. Also propaganda too. I'm sure both leaders used propaganda to help contribute to their rise to power, but probably Hitler more so than Stalin.

[KC]

This thread is absolutely ridiculous. Move it to Learning or Chit-Chat.

[Brother No. 1]

I think people like to compare them based on the fact that both caused millions of deaths. How these deaths happened doesn't matter to Capitalists. What matters to them is that they happened. You can also bring the whole nationalism factor into play as well. Stalin believed in "Socialism in one country" while Hitler believed Germany was superior. Obviously both are forms of nationalism, but to different degrees and applied to different situations. Also propaganda too. I'm sure both leaders used propaganda to help contribute to their rise to power, but probably Hitler more so than Stalin.

Hmm the CCCP After Stalin was way more Nationalstic. "Socialism in one country" helped the CCCP build its self up and helped alot of factors. Besides all leaders after Stalin used far much more propaganda then Stalin. He didnt believe just that germany was superior he believed the entire German race was superior to all. Besides like the "Was Stalin a facist" thread this thread isnt really required. Unless you turely believe Stalin was as bad as hitler then I think you need to be taught a little more on Hitler and Stalin. their "rise to power?" last time I checked Stalin was elected into the party and premiership. The Situtation Hitler used to help him rise to power was that Germany was in a time of depression and distrust. he promised to give the german people back their pride,power, and superiority over all. He said he "loved" the country but by 1945 he tried to destroy germany. The Nazi party destrpyed any and all books that didnt relate to the "futhiers" law. Thus thounsands of books were burned about human evolution. Hitler also made anyone who dared question his athuority,his will, and the "ayran way" dissapper. People also have to take in mind that there is never a pure good and pure bad choice in this world. Every choice has its consiquense. Thus if you say Stalin=hitler then your histroy is way off. you believe the CCCP is a degenerate workers state but you must see that Stalin is not as bad as hitler. Hitler has done so many harsh crimes that i cant even explain them all.







This thread is absolutely ridiculous. Move it to Learning or Chit-Chat.

Yes please do for this thread really doesnt make alot of sense to be in histroy. More like learning or chit-chat for how does this relate to histroy saying that Stalin is as bad as hitler.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The Situtation Hitler used to help him rise to power was that Germany was in a time of depression and distrust. he promised to give the german people back their pride,power, and superiority over all.

You have to remember that Hitler was also elected into power. He had support and i'll admit, that he was a pretty damn good public speaker. Giving good speeches can definitely help a politician's popularity. Obama did it as did Hitler.


Besides all leaders after Stalin used far much more propaganda then Stalin.

Stalin used censorship. Anybody he didn't like in the pictures of him disappeared... He also allowed no criticism of the party. In a true Democratic society there should be freedom of speech. Yes, even in a Socialist democratic society. None of the Soviet sattlite states allowed that either.


Besides like the "Was Stalin a facist" thread this thread isnt really required. Unless you turely believe Stalin was as bad as hitler then I think you need to be taught a little more on Hitler and Stalin.

You have to remember that I wasn't the original creator of this thread. I'm just pointing things out. Also I never said whether Stalin was as bad as Hitler or not. I was criticizing both men. :)

[Brother No. 1]

You have to remember that Hitler was also elected into power. He had support and i'll admit, that he was a pretty damn good public speaker. Giving good speeches can definitely help a politician's popularity. Obama did it as did Hitler.

also remember that he had support from the Nazi party. Thats the thing he was a good speaker but he was a coward and with these speeches he gained the support of the people but he just used the support to create his own personal empire we know today as the 3rd reich.





Stalin used censorship. Anybody he didn't like in the pictures of him disappeared... He also allowed no criticism of the party. In a true Democratic society there should be freedom of speech. Yes, even in a Socialist democratic society. None of the Soviet sattlite states allowed that either.

your going to say next the Soviet sattlite states=Stalinist regimes. Now your going to say that a Anti-Revisionist society isnt a true workers democracy. the Soviet people,if we look at other eras,were better with Stalin. Why? all others after him were idiots who made the Revisionism worse.



You have to remember that I wasn't the original creator of this thread. I'm just pointing things out. Also I never said whether Stalin was as bad as Hitler or not. I was criticizing both men.

Yes Yes i know and you just love to criticizie Stalin. I know your not the creator of this for you wouldnt put a thread like this. It would be like asking the question "was the CCCP as bad as the 3rd reich?"

[LOLseph Stalin]

your going to say next the Soviet sattlite states=Stalinist regimes. Now your going to say that a Anti-Revisionist society isnt a true workers democracy. the Soviet people,if we look at other eras,were better with Stalin. Why? all others after him were idiots who made the Revisionism worse.

I'm sorry to say it, but all attempts at establishing Communism thus far have been Stalinist. The only exception I would say is Yugoslavia. These Soviet sattlite states weren't true worker's democracies. Look at Hungary. People got crushed by tanks because they wanted Democracy. Look at the DDR. They built a wall to keep people in. Anybody trying to cross over was killed. Yes, I'll admit the leaders after Stalin were crap too but personality I would have rather lived under one of them than under Stalin's Iron Fist.

[Brother No. 1]

Look at Hungary. People got crushed by tanks because they wanted Democracy.

1965 ths happened Stalin was dead for 10 years before this.



Look at the DDR. They built a wall to keep people in.

would it have been much better if the US soliders and the Soviet troops fought each other there or if Capitalism spread through out there? it was either build the wall or it could have been way worse then the wall.



I'm sorry to say it, but all attempts at establishing Communism thus far have been Stalinist.

So now Maoism = Stalinism? So now Marxism-Leninism in cuba,when Castro was in power, = Stalinism?




Yes, I'll admit the leaders after Stalin were crap too but personality I would have rather lived under one of them than under Stalin's Iron Fist.

You would rather live in the final hrs of the CCCP, the rule of Nika, and the others?
But is this just because if you lived in the CCCP under Stalin he wouldnt like you for you support Troskyism?




The only exception I would say is Yugoslavia.

the Socilaist Federative Republic=Revisionist state.

[LOLseph Stalin]

1965 ths happened Stalin was dead for 10 years before this.


That's not my point. Many of the leaders after Stalin continued his legacy of oppression.


would it have been much better if the US soliders and the Soviet troops fought each other there or if Capitalism spread through out there? it was either build the wall or it could have been way worse then the wall.


The wall had nothing to do with troops fighting as far as I know. It was built because too many DDR citizens were fleeing. Obviously if they're trying to leave the country, something is being done wrong unless these people just happened to be Capitalist pigs. Somehow I doubt they all were though.


So now Maoism = Stalinism?

Technically, yes. You're Maoist and you support Stalin. Plus, Mao was oppressive as well.


You would rather live in the final hrs of the CCCP, the rule of Nika, and the others?
But is this just because if you lived in the CCCP under Stalin he wouldnt like you for you support Troskyism?

That has nothing to do with my Trotskyism. Ordinary Soviet citizens feared for their lives under Stalin because they knew they could be suspected as going against him or something.


the Socilaist Federative Republic=Revisionist state.

There's nothing wrong with Yugoslavia. Tito actually did some things right such as refusing to go under Stalin's control.

P.s- I'm really trying to stop with these tendency wars, but it's difficult sometimes...

[Brother No. 1]

That's not my point. Many of the leaders after Stalin continued his legacy of oppression.

So your theory is the the CCCP was a "Stalinist regime that was passed fown from leader to leader after Stalin."



The wall had nothing to do with troops fighting as far as I know. It was built because too many DDR citizens were fleeing. Obviously if they're trying to leave the country, something is being done wrong unless these people just happened to be Capitalist pigs. Somehow I doubt they all were though.

At 1945 tentsions rose between the CCCP and the US. this is how the so called "Iron Curtain" was formed because of that tentsion.





Technically, yes. You're Maoist and you support Stalin. Plus, Mao was oppressive as well.

I dont see Maoism in any relation to Stalinism but Maoism does = a form of Anti-Revisionism. Mao was a great leader for the Socialist China. Why? he made China better for the people something the Nationalists and the Imperialist japanses would never do. Mao on the long march gained favor of the peasants and helped them along with the opressed people of China under the centuries of the imperialist China.





That has nothing to do with my Trotskyism. Ordinary Soviet citizens feared for their lives under Stalin because they knew they could be suspected as going against him or something.

Was this Stalin's fault? No. did he judge the people or was it the central commite. Answer:Central commite.





There's nothing wrong with Yugoslavia. Tito actually did some things right such as refusing to go under Stalin's control.

I can only admit he kept a country together that had different opposing people that disliked each other. Yet he went fully for Nika's control of the Union of Soviet Socialist republics.





P.s- I'm really trying to stop with these tendency wars, but it's difficult sometimes...

Whta do you think i like this? no i hate it arguing with you. It tears me up and threads like this do that. That makes us always oppose each other for we have different ideals. Its hard to stop soemthing that has been passed down ever since the 1920s. But for the record your a good debater and i think I'm almost beat.

[LOLseph Stalin]

So your theory is the the CCCP was a "Stalinist regime that was passed fown from leader to leader after Stalin."


Pretty much, yes.


At 1945 tentsions rose between the CCCP and the US. this is how the so called "Iron Curtain" was formed because of that tentsion.

Yes, that's the Cold War. But still. If those people wanted to leave DDR then fine. Let them. That wall wasn't neccessary.


I dont see Maoism in any relation to Stalinism but Maoism does = a form of Anti-Revisionism. Mao was a great leader for the Socialist China. Why? he made China better for the people something the Nationalists and the Imperialist japanses would never do. Mao on the long march gained favor of the peasants and helped them along with the opressed people of China under the centuries of the imperialist China.

Sure Mao did all that, but he also killed revisionists because he was losing power. He was easily able to get away with it too with his brainwashed Red Guard.


Was this Stalin's fault? No. did he judge the people or was it the central commite. Answer:Central commite.


????


Whta do you think i like this? no i hate it arguing with you. It tears me up and threads like this do that. That makes us always oppose each other for we have different ideals. Its hard to stop soemthing that has been passed down ever since the 1920s. But for the record your a good debater and i think I'm almost beat.

I'm not that great of a debator, Trust me.

[Brother No. 1]

????


Remeber the Central commity that decided on the Centralziation. The Central commity that has been with the CCCP ever since Stalin died.




Sure Mao did all that, but he also killed revisionists because he was losing power. He was easily able to get away with it too with his brainwashed Red Guard.

Brainwashed? He merely guided them and they did their own actions. The Revisionists were trying to change the goverment like they changed the goverment in the CCCP. Besides he should have killed Deng for he was a Capitalist reformists. He brought Capitalism to China and ruined many people's lives.





Yes, that's the Cold War. But still. If those people wanted to leave DDR then fine. Let them. That wall wasn't neccessary.

This is just like the Castro and the Cubans leaving. most likely those DDR citizens wanted to go to the West and not come back. But in the end they hear the stroies of Capitalism and wanted to see this dream. Outcome: it was their worst nightmare instead.



I'm not that great of a debator, Trust me.

Yet your here and debating with me about Stalin and Mao. You really just have to believe you can do it and then find eviendce to support your claims on so and so.





Pretty much, yes.

Yet Anti-Revisionism died in the CCCP in 1956 when nika was in power. "Stalinism" is a insult to Anti-Revisionism and Anti-Revisionists. It says all over it " we worship Stalin." I mean really does it look like I would worship anyone? No I dont worship anyone.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Somebody please move or close this thread. I don't want any more of these tendency wars.

[Brother No. 1]

I agree..this thread should have never been create din the first place.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It did however inspire a new discussion... ;)

[Brother No. 1]

It did however inspire a new discussion...

I'll admit it did do that..but it created another Tendeny war...

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'll admit it did do that..but it created another Tendeny war...

No, i'm not talking about this. I'm talking about my thread I just made about the Berlin Wall.

[Brother No. 1]

No, i'm not talking about this. I'm talking about my thread I just made about the Berlin Wall.

oh? maybe I should check that thread out.:D

[MilitantAnarchist]

I thought this thread got deleted... and i am new here so i dont know how many previous threads there has been do i?...
But to me its obvious, they were exactly the fucking same, i dont know how anyone can be a 'stalinist' and think they are above a 'nazi'...

[ComradeOm]

But to me its obvious, they were exactly the fucking same, i dont know how anyone can be a 'stalinist' and think they are above a 'nazi'...The obvious answer being that they were not "exactly the fucking same". See my posts in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-nazi-joint-t106190/index.html)

[LeninBalls]

I'm sorry to say it, but all attempts at establishing Communism thus far have been Stalinist. The only exception I would say is Yugoslavia.

Sorry but Yugoslavia was easily one of the most revisionist nations ever. If you think they were genuine socialism we have a long way to go.

[Andropov]

I'm pretty sure Hitler was some kind of Protestant as that is the dominant form of Christianity in that part of Europe.

He was in fact baptised a Catholic, his father was staunchly Catholic if memory serves me correct.
And in fact Austria is overwhelmingly Catholic.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Sorry but Yugoslavia was easily one of the most revisionist nations ever. If you think they were genuine socialism we have a long way to go.

Even Yugoslavia wasn't genuine Socialism, but they were still less of a shithole than the USSR where there was no worker's control.

[LeninBalls]

If workers self management is what you consider revisionist, I'm proud to be a revisionist. :D

What does it even matter to you, you're an Anarchist.

As someone said before "Yugoslavia were drinking pepsi and blaring western music louder than any other socialist nation".

[PeaderO'Donnell]

What does it even matter to you, you're an Anarchist.



What is that supposed to mean?

[Dimentio]

Stalin as a person was smart, hardly working and a superior political-strategic planner.

Stalin's regime degenerated during his entire term, mostly because the marxist-leninist strategy of having the economic process operated by the state in the entirety (as a cause of Russia's backwardness and urgent need for industrialisation rather than communist ideology - in fact, I could imagine a White Russia nationalising and create five year plans as well as a Red Russia). Stalin rode on that process rather than combatting it. He also turned the regime a lot more authoritarian than it already was.

Hitler as a person was also a great political-strategic planner, but also a socially awkward dreamer who I think may have suffered from traits of asperger's syndrome.

Hitler's regime I would characterise as "bonapartist". Hitler relied on the big finance, on the NSDAP, and on the army and bureaucracy and maneuvred each of these factions against each-other when he saw it as beneficient to do so. I don't see Hitler as pro-capitalist in the sense that he was some kind of pawn to the capitalists. The German capitalists supported Hitler's rise to power not because they preferred him before the other right-wing factions but because they had no other option given their class interests and fears of the KPD.

[LeninBalls]

That proves they were revisionist. ;)

Which is what I'm trying to tell an apparent Marxist-Leninist. What are you trying to say? :confused:

[Dóchas]

stalin has pretty much given the capitalist/bourgeoisie media all the firepower they need to shoot down socialism/communism whenever it starts to build strength so...thanks stalin!!! :rolleyes:

[Cumannach]

You mean in the same way Saddam Hussein gave the West all the firepower it needed to shoot down any domestic opposition to invading Iraq, by building weapons of mass destruction?

[Bilan]

how long has the Stalin agurement going on with Anti-Revisionists and Troskyists...maybe over 90 years or so. I think we've agured about the same thing for alot longer then its really needed. shouldnt we just stop the fighting before the Revolution then after it we can argue about it as much as we want. Trosky and stalin settled quiet for the entire Bolsheviks Revolution and the Russian Civil War.

Over 90 years?
It is the year 2009. So, a 90 years ago would have been 1919, or prior, as indicated by your 'over 90 years'. Though, Trotskyism and Stalinism didn't even exist.
The split was not in the revolutionary upheavals (Russia 1917, Germany 18-19). It was after that that it really took off.

[mosfeld]

the sickening cult of personality To be fair, Stalin never advocated a cult of personality. It was the party which built it.


What is that supposed to mean?
He's not a revisionist because he's not a marxist to begin with, so why should he care?

[Dimentio]

As for Stalin and the cult of personality.

If it is true that Stalin was so weak (which I don't believe) that he could not stop the party from naming literally everything after him despite that he did'nt want it (which I also don't believe), then he should'nt have been general secretary in the first place, or resigned out of disgust.

In short, that defense is moot.

[PCommie]

I'm not going to read this whole thread, but here's my two cents: Josef Stalin was the worst man ever to curse the Earth. You know why? Here's why:

-He rises to power through political manoevering and deceipt, against the wishes of Lenin.

-He executes all his enemies, murdering countless millions. He executes all the poor old Bolsheviks, basically eleminating the Social Democratic Party, leaving him as the absolute ruler of the state.

-He enacted purges, murdering millions.

-He worked people to death to bring his precious nation up to speed. The ends do not justify the means.


A common Stalinist argument is just that: He made an economy and got things done. Well hell, so did Hitler, so let's support him too!

But here's why he was the worst man ever: Socialism, communism, they are the salvation of the people. Stalin not only destroyed socialism in the CCCP, but gave the Imperialists the perfect image they needed to stop socialism spreading: Socialism = Fascism, murder, death-cultism. Stalin ruined it for all of us. Great job. I really understand the "Anti-revisionists."

H&S forever,
-PC

[Brother No. 1]

Josef Stalin was the worst man ever to curse the Earth.

#1: its Joseph Stalin
#2: Hitler was the worst man on earth comrade



-He rises to power through political manoevering and deceipt, against the wishes of Lenin.


Last time I checked he was Democraticly elected by the Bolshevik party.





-He worked people to death to bring his precious nation up to speed. The ends do not justify the means.


If the CCCP wasnt industrized I doubt they could have the means to defeat the Facists invaders. Also do you know what he did in the retrospects of science and Womans rights?



A common Stalinist argument is just that: He made an economy and got things done. Well hell, so did Hitler, so let's support him too!

The differences between Hitler and Stalin are: Hitler built up germany into a Facist state and Stalin built up the CCCP into a Socialist state. Stalin grave freedoms and Hitler took away freedoms. Comparing the 2 leaders to be the same is beyond me.



Stalin not only destroyed socialism in the CCCP,

Now I know when I say this I suspect their are going to be alot of others that are saying I'm a fool or idiot. If he destroyed Socialism in the CCCP then freedom of women and helping the working class must also be against Socialism. He helped Science,Industry,Tech, ect. After Stalin Socialism began to fail for Revisionism.




but gave the Imperialists the perfect image they needed to stop socialism spreading: Socialism = Fascism, murder, death-cultism. Stalin ruined it for all of us.


If Stalin wasnt in power I'm sure the Imperialist would fin another way to make us look bad.





I really understand the "Anti-revisionists."

you seem to not understand us. More then likely you would call us, Anti-Revisionists, "evil Stalinist" or " hero-worshipers."

[LOLseph Stalin]

To be fair, Stalin never advocated a cult of personality. It was the party which built it.

From my understanding, the personality cult was indeed developed by the party to unite the Soviets under one ruler. Something along those lines.

[Drace]

can all hash out our differences after the revolution just like Trotsky and Stalin did

We should kill each other?

[Brother No. 1]

We should kill each other?

mostly I think after the Revolution ARs will argue with the Trots about the same old topic.

[LOLseph Stalin]

mostly I think after the Revolution ARs will argue with the Trots about the same old topic.

They always do. It's getting old, considering it's always the exact same arguments.

[Brother No. 1]

They always do. It's getting old, considering it's always the exact same arguments.

Well cosidering the fact that we have done this since the 1920s...then yes it is a very old argument.

[tavariskommisar]

Hitler was a power-hungry demagogue, he wanted all of the World. But Stalin (this is my opinion) didn't wanted rule the World, he wanted made the communism in one country.

[Brother No. 1]

he wanted made the communism in one country.

Comrade I think your taking "Socialism in one country" to seriously. Socialism in one country builds up the country, and the socialism, to provide for the other Revolutions. Stalin,like all other Communists, wanted Communism in the world just that each Communist had a different plan to make it so.

[Vincent P.]

Hitler was a power-hungry demagogue, he wanted all of the World. But Stalin (this is my opinion) didn't wanted rule the World, he wanted made the communism in one country.
Well, what I say isn't my definitive statement for its been a while since I read about Nazism, but if I remember well Hitler wanted pan-germanism, not to rule the world. And if Stalin wanted socialism in one country, then he wanted his country to be kinda big (ie: invasion of Poland with the secret pact with Hitler...)

[Brother No. 1]

So Stalin respected the individual thinking of other people? Stalin was a really tolerant and repectful guy after all, if we forget that he purged all those who disagreed with him.

How is this in the context of what I just said? I said every Socialist leader had their own thinking of bringing Communism to this world. Trosky,Mao,Enver Hoxha,Tito,Stalin,Lenin,ect.


And if Stalin wanted socialism in one country, then he wanted his country to be kinda big (ie: invasion of Poland with the secret pact with Hitler...)

Lets see Nazi Germany was a rising power and the CCCP couldnt build up a army to attack or defend if War was called on them.
Stalin did this Non-agression pact for he knew Hitler was powerful and had a army of blind followers behind him. Besides it Wasnt just the CCCP that made "pacts" with Hitler if we remember WW2 History.

[Vincent P.]

Lets see Nazi Germany was a rising power and the CCCP couldnt build up a army to attack or defend if War was called on them.
Stalin did this Non-agression pact for he knew Hitler was powerful and had a army of blind followers behind him. Besides it Wasnt just the CCCP that made "pacts" with Hitler if we remember WW2 History.
I'm perfectly aware of that, and if it was only a simple non-agression pact it would have been more pragmatic than crappy, but the fact is that it also dealt with helping Hitler invading Eastern Europe, and sharing it afterward. Hitler started invading Poland from West on September 1rst, and Stalin sent Red Army troops from east to assist german invasion on September 17th.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/800px-Ribbentrop-Molotov.PNG

The most basic anti-facist and anti-imperialist move would have been not to assist Nazi Germany if you cannot help them resist the invasion. But hey, if Soviet Union was strong enough to help invade Poland, it should have been strong enough to indirectly help Poland resist, that is with supplying them with food or weapons.

[Vincent P.]

With socialists like those, who needs capitalists?:D

Apologists for the above, don't jump on my back. I have a right to criticize power-hungry politicians!

You're welcomed to do so!

[ComradeOm]

But hey, if Soviet Union was strong enough to help invade Poland, it should have been strong enough to indirectly help Poland resist, that is with supplying them with food or weapons.Not to detract from your overall point but this logic just does not work. In the first place no amount of "indirect aid" would have prevented the Polish collapse. Poland's problem was not a lack of "food or weapons" but rather the reality of facing an enemy that was vastly superior in terms of numbers, weaponry, and tactics. The Wehrmacht had effectively broken the back of their opposition within the first few days of contact. Supplying guerrillas is another issue entirely that would have been of little use - IIRC historical resistance to the Nazis did not become organised and tanganiable until after 1942

Any meaningful Soviet aid to Poland would have taken the form of direct intervention. Leaving aside logistical issues, this was probably unacceptable to the Poles, who had real and understandable concerns about allowing Soviets troops through their territory. More importantly though is the simple fact that the Red Army (as demonstrated in both the Winter War and Barbarossa) was simply not prepared for modern warfare and would not be ready until '43 or so. This was the underlying fear that drove Stalin to seek rapprochement with the Allied Powers, and later Nazi Germany, and has to underscore any analysis of Soviet actions during the period

[Vincent P.]

Unfortunatly I don't know about the details, so all I can do is bow before your knowledge on the matter. But the big idea is still valid.

[Hoxhaist]

Why should the USSR support a militaristic nationalist govt that supported counter-revolution and White Russian reaction?

[an apple]

The fact is that the Soviets had no good reason to support the Polish. They were patriotic, had the potential for very strong resistance and were extremely anti-Soviet.

They had even gone to war in 1920 in the Polish-Soviet war with hundreds of thousands of casualties and the eventual Polish victory (see Miracle at the Vistula) and ending with the Bolsheviks begging for a peace treaty, which the Polish only agreed to negotiate after being throttled by the international community.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Polish-soviet_war_1920_Aftermath_of_Battle_of_Warsaw.jpg
Polish troops parade captured Soviet Flags (courtesy Wikipedia)



During WWII, the Polish had enormous resistance armies (the Armia Krajowka - AK and the Polska Partia Robotnicza - PPR). When the Soviets were only miles from taking back Warsaw, the AK began the Warsaw Uprising and revolted against the Germans.


It became so serious Himmler called in brutal SS troops under the anti-Soviet Brigadekommandeur Bronislav Kaminski, whose troops raped and killed anything that was alive. His Russian force destroyed the uprising due to a lack of support from the Soviets, though Kaminski's behaviour was so horrific that Himmler had him shot.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-280-1075-11A%2C_Russland%2C_Brigadekommandeur_Borislaw_Kami nski.jpg/200px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-280-1075-11A%2C_Russland%2C_Brigadekommandeur_Borislaw_Kami nski.jpg
Brigadekommandeur Bronislav Kaminski



This lack of assistance was bad to the point that it was insulting. The Soviets dropped weapons intentionally airdropped weapons without proper packaging so they would be destroyed on landing.


The Soviets made sure of the destruction by the Nazis of the resistance, so they wouldn't have to deal with it when they began their totalitarian occupation.

[Hoxhaist]

the Poles were enemies of the Soviets who had absolutely no reason to suport the Polish regime

[Black Dagger]

Moved to Learning.

[Sarah Palin]

Stalin was worse to the leftist movement because he killed 20,000,000 under the guise of communism.

[Sam_b]

He worked people to death to bring his precious nation up to speed.

Go on then, give us some evidence.

[Cumannach]

I'm perfectly aware of that, and if it was only a simple non-agression pact it would have been more pragmatic than crappy, but the fact is that it also dealt with helping Hitler invading Eastern Europe, and sharing it afterward. Hitler started invading Poland from West on September 1rst, and Stalin sent Red Army troops from east to assist german invasion on September 17th.

Wrong, the Soviets refrained from entering Polish-held territory for weeks after the Nazi's invaded in order to let the Poles give it their best shot against the Nazis. Only when the Polish defence was collapsing and the reactionary Polish authorities were abandoning their people did the Soviets enter the eastern territory, and protect the population from the Fascist hordes.



The most basic anti-facist and anti-imperialist move would have been not to assist Nazi Germany if you cannot help them resist the invasion. But hey, if Soviet Union was strong enough to help invade Poland, it should have been strong enough to indirectly help Poland resist, that is with supplying them with food or weapons.The Soviets offered before the war to join with Poland and the allies in attacking Nazi Germany before it was too late. The Poles refused.





This lack of assistance was bad to the point that it was insulting. The Soviets dropped weapons intentionally airdropped weapons without proper packaging so they would be destroyed on landing.


The Soviets made sure of the destruction by the Nazis of the resistance, so they wouldn't have to deal with it when they began their totalitarian occupation.


This is not true.

[Black Sheep]

the secret pact with Hitler...Okay man, you are an anti-authoritarian socialist, hurray on anti-stalinism

But please dont rape history in the process.To name as a 'secret pact' the non-aggression pact between Germany and USSR implies that stalin was in cahoots with old-pal adolf.

Instead, using simple fucking logic, you can understand that saving time to prepare for defense against an industrial imperialistic fascist monster was one of the best things to do.

ffs.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In many cases he was worse, since he did more to destroy Bolshevism than Hitler ever managed.

[STJ]

Stalin destroyed the revolution in the Soviet Union.

[Vincent P.]

Wrong, the Soviets refrained from entering Polish-held territory for weeks after the Nazi's invaded in order to let the Poles give it their best shot against the Nazis. Only when the Polish defence was collapsing and the reactionary Polish authorities were abandoning their people did the Soviets enter the eastern territory, and protect the population from the Fascist hordes.


The Soviets offered before the war to join with Poland and the allies in attacking Nazi Germany before it was too late. The Poles refused.

Well, again I'm happy to learn from you guys. Just one thing: got any source?

[Vincent P.]

Okay man, you are an anti-authoritarian socialist, hurray on anti-stalinism

But please dont rape history in the process.To name as a 'secret pact' the non-aggression pact between Germany and USSR implies that stalin was in cahoots with old-pal adolf..

Part of it was kept secret, the part talking about sharing eastern europe once it's defeated, and it was kept hidden until the German defeat in 1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Agreement#The_Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact_and_its_secret_protocol


Instead, using simple fucking logic, you can understand that saving time to prepare for defense against an industrial imperialistic fascist monster was one of the best things to do..
As I said, I consider that signing the pact of non-agression was a clever move, but signing a piece of paper to get a part of the defeated eastern Europe was crappy.

Also, I don't think Stalin was aware that Hitler would launch operation Barbarossa and that he wanted to re-arm for the purpose of defending itself from Germany. For if we're using simple fucking logic, Hitler couldn't have gone as far as Moscow if USSR had been "preparing for defence" for 3 years.

[ComradeOm]

In many cases he was worse, since he did more to destroy Bolshevism than Hitler ever managed.Which implies that Bolshevikism was in a healthy state before Stalin somehow got his hands on the levers of power

[Comrade Anarchist]

Ya hitler is just more popular to talk about

[an apple]

[U]

This is not true.


It is and I have the references for it.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It is and I have the references for it.

If that's supposed to be a link, I thought I would point out that it doesn't work.

[an apple]

Hopefully this post doesn't bore anyone, but I though I'd best provide my perspective on the Soviets and Nazis from 1939 to 1941.

By the time the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (or Non-Aggression pact) was signed, the Nazis had:


Invaded Czechslovakia
Annexed Austria
Retaken the Rhineland and the Danzig Free State
Illegally rearmed and reinforced the military

All of these moves had been in clear violation of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles (which was the post-WWI agreement the Allies had created to retard Germany's progress) yet Germany had faced no resistance.

When invading the Rhineland, his troops had orders that if the slightest resistance was encountered from the region's French occupation that they should immediately retreat. Austria had been invaded with little response from England and France; the enforcers of the treaty.

Czechoslovakia had been betrayed by the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at the Munich Conference in 1938, in which he appeased the Germans, promising to not intervene if the Germans invaded a part of Czechoslovakia. Hitler was pleased and Chamberlain returned to England a hero claiming "Peace for our time" while waving around the agreement.


http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/chamberlain.jpg
Neville Chamberlain declaring that war had been averted


The German military was by then the strongest in Europe,had developed a highly-advanced air force (Luftwaffe) and had an army numbering millions all of which were in blatant disregard of the Versailles treaty.

By then the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed, which treated Europe like a big cake, to be cut up and shared between the Soviets and Germans. During secret negotiations towards the end of the discussions, the Germans granted the Soviets rights to territory in several nations of the Nazi's 'to-do' list, including Poland.



http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/Map_1_English_web.jpg
Germany's territorial advances in Europe



Hitler finally miscalculated the Allies' response when he invaded Poland in 1939. Britain and France were held in by their defense pact with Poland, one which they finally upheld. The Soviets only invaded Poland after the Germans did and thus, were not drawn into the war. The German and Soviet forces met in Poland, a strange scene, as Hitler had declared the need to 'annihilate' the Bolsheviks a great many times before, while the Soviets regarded Fascism as Communism's greatest enemy. Shortly afterwards, both of the nation's co-operated in extinguishing Polish resistance.



http://web.ku.edu/%7Eeceurope/hist557/lect16_files/Rendezvous.jpg
'Rendezvous' by David Low



By early 1941, the war was raging furiously in Germany's favour with few defeats, however the tide was about to turn.

Hitler, in search of his ever so beloved Lebensraum or 'Living Space' for the German people, decided to invade Russia. It was a decision that may have cost him the war. Stalin trusted Hitler and refused to belief that preparations for an invasion were underway even in the face of definitive evidence:


Hitler had outlined his plans for an invasion in Mein Kampf stating that Germany should "turn to the east" and that "the end of the Jewish domination in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a State." He constantly referred to the Slavic people as 'untermenschen' or 'sub-human'

All intelligence services were noting a clear increase of German troops on the Soviet border
The famous Soviet spy Richard Sorge (who was at the time stationed in the Nazi ally Japan) designated an extremely accurate launch date for the invasion, which Stalin was reported to have mocked:


"There's this bastard who's set up factories and brothels in Japan and even deigned to report the date of the German attack as 22 June. Are you suggesting I should believe him too?""

Despite all of the warnings, Stalin still believed Hitler was a loyal ally. He was proved wrong on the 22nd of June, 1941. German mechanized infantry rolled over the Soviet border and captured key positions in execution of 'Operation Barbarossa'.

It wasn't until months later that the German plans began to falter. In the Soviet Union, the infamous Russian winter and hardiness battered the German troops, in Africa, Rommel began a retreat, at Pearl Harbour, the Japanese struck, bringing Germany with them into war on the USA.

Germany was now not only fighting against Britain, but now against two superpowers, supported by industrial might and huge armies.

The tide had turned.

By Luke AKA 'An Apple'

Note: If you see an inaccuracies or mistakes please let me know and I'll try and fix them.

[Cumannach]

Well, again I'm happy to learn from you guys. Just one thing: got any source?

It's common knowledge. Read an actual history book.


Part of it was kept secret, the part talking about sharing eastern europe once it's defeated, and it was kept hidden until the German defeat in 1945.



As I said, I consider that signing the pact of non-agression was a clever move, but signing a piece of paper to get a part of the defeated eastern Europe was crappy.

Also, I don't think Stalin was aware that Hitler would launch operation Barbarossa and that he wanted to re-arm for the purpose of defending itself from Germany. For if we're using simple fucking logic, Hitler couldn't have gone as far as Moscow if USSR had been "preparing for defence" for 3 years.

Again, it's common knowledge Stalin expected the Nazis to attack.





It is and I have the references for it.

It isn't and I have references too.




...

By the time the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (or Non-Aggression pact) was signed, the Nazis had:



You got the first part right, except you forgot to mention the repeated desperate attempts by the Soviets to get the French, British and Polish to join with them and disarm the Nazis before it was too late, all such offers being refused, the Western powers hoping Hitler was en route to attempt to destroy the Soviet Union, which he was.


By then the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed, which treated Europe like a big cake, to be cut up and shared between the Soviets and Germans. During secret negotiations towards the end of the discussions, the Germans granted the Soviets rights to territory in several nations of the Nazi's 'to-do' list, including Poland.

Europe wasn't 'cut up like a cake'. The Soviets needed more time to build up their war machine and defenses for the inevtiable German attack. This pact not only gave them that time, it allowed Soviet defenses to push all the way up to estern Poland. The territories the Soviets held on to after the war had been originally taken from the Soviet Union by the foreign interventionists in Lenin's time. This huge new chunk of territory separating the Nazi armies and Soviet Russia was a crucial advantage.

The pact also had the effect of forcing the British and French into becoming allies of the Soviets against Hitler.


Hitler, in search of his ever so beloved Lebensraum or 'Living Space' for the German people, decided to invade Russia. It was a decision that may have cost him the war. Stalin trusted Hitler and refused to belief that preparations for an invasion were underway even in the face of definitive evidence:
The evidence was not definitive. There were intelligence reports coming from all over the place, including false ones to try and push the Soviets into making the first move, which if it wasn't neccesary, meant a loss of time for preparation.