How can people still like Stalin - HOW?? [Archive]

Pete

13th April 2003, 23:36

I am assuming that that is directed towards AK47. But it is a very valid point. Most people when talking about democracy only latch onto the Liberal Democracy of the West, which began out of the power of the merchants and is inherent in the plutocrats that rule modern society.

After a revolution a people are usually united behind one party, ideology, or leader. That is why in places such as Cuba there is only one real valid party. The people have died for it and do not want to throw away all that they have gained, as well as they believe in their leaders who led them from (in most cases) colonial hell.

A liberal democracy already has an established capital base, since it was established by a revolution of those who own the capital. Logically it will all stay in the country. But in an illiberal revolution the capital (in the hands of liberals) will flee (Che spoke of this in Man and Socialism in Cuba and Colonialism is Doomed) to where it can be safe from nationalization. With this the illiberal revolutionary government are left with little capital on which to base there society.

That is where nonmarxist illiberal and marxist illiberal democracies split. The nonmarxist will try to become liberal, through the creation of capital and industrialization of the nation. A new class system will be born that models those of the liberal societies.

A marxist democracy will seek to give the power into the hands of the workers, since they are the ones who deserve capital. All others will be excluded from the process until they are either (a) destroyed or (B) assimillated into the proletariat. The workers will stick with the party that has given them the means of production aswell as a reason to live, and the ability to live. Why would you stab some one seeking to better your condition in the back? That is like if a leper would try and kill Mother Teresa. Bad analogy but that is the closest I could think of.

So by establishing a workers (marxist) democracy the middle and upper classes are excluded from the process, because they will only seek to exploit the instability of the revolutionary government and incite a counter revolution. Of course the newly emanciapated workers would be completely against this. Thus strict and level punishments will be dealt out to those going against the Party's line from teh out side, but inside the party there is intraparty politics.

The man at the top is often loved or trusted or both by the people that put him there (as stalin was by a large majority in 1927). They will not want to betray some one who had just handed them their life (look at the mother teresa/leper analogy). With intraparty democracy other parties are made obsolete and who the ruler is doesn't really matter if you can go against his will or the people can vote his support from under him.

Just a lesson on democracy. Marxist democracies mostly.

Source: Macpherson, The Real World of Democracy, CBC, 1970 (i believe)

Ian

14th April 2003, 00:01

Crazypete! Are you insane?! The worker had more power than the manager?!
Guess thats why in 1929 Stalin introduced the 7-day working week in factories, to give the workers more power. Guess thats why in October 1930 Stalin forbad the free movement of labour, and in December the same year he forbad factories employing a worker who had previous left jobs (any job) without permission. Guess that why in January 1931 he introduced prison sentences for violations of labour discipline, in February he made every worker carry around a Labour book which was a permanent record of their performance at work, just to give workers more power, eh?
In March 1931, when he made workers responsible for damage to tools or machinery, so workers that were working a massive machine that broke is liable to pay for the machine, no matter how expensive, all for the empowerment of the working class.
In July 1932 he made it possible to transfer a worker from one place to another without his or her consent, yep, those workers, they had the power! , This one tops them all in the empowerment recieved by the working class via royal Stalinist decree, in August 1932 the theft of state property became a crime punishable by death, a worker steals a few tools and s/he's up against the wall? What kinda BS is that!? I am unsure whether this was the mandatory sentence although I am certain that the death penalty should not be an option in a trial of a thief. In November 1932, it became acceptable for a manager to dismiss a worker after a single day's absence, the workers had infinite of power (sic).
And lastly, an internal passport was introduced by Stalin (this had been condemned by Lenin as one of the worst features of the Tsarist regime) to monitor the movements of everyday workers.

Those workers were omnipotent!

(Edited by Ian Rocks at 12:06 am on April 14, 2003)

Invader Zim

14th April 2003, 00:18

Quote: from the anarchist on 11:22 pm on April 13, 2003
perhaps you would prefer the "democraticly" election of a dictator no?

Yes bether a elected hitler than a self apointed Stalin....

is it becuase you select a fuckjer amongst two or three bourgeouse that you call your state democratic?

bether give a fundamental review on your politic dictionry boy becuase you arent making much sense...
expecially becuase you claim to be socialist...

Democracy is more than the western model...

RDA and Cuba are a good example of it...

but ofcourse you prefer the bourgeouse democratic regym...

Yes but in a democracy the dictators get kicked out if they start masacering the people.

Pete

14th April 2003, 01:16

I think, Ian, I misphrased what I was saying. The managers could be dismissed by the workers. Giving them in a way power over the managers.

Anonymous

14th April 2003, 01:22

Yes but in a democracy the dictators get kicked out if they start masacering the people.
Bush is still in power...
like many otehr presidents that started pitty wars for resources and anhilated entire populations he will be later consider a hero..

also...
about one that is probably your hero, Mr FUCKING POTHEAD Churchill..
he ordered the shooting of thousands and thousands of striking miners during the war and he was still elected president and kept in power...

the diference betwen a president and a chairman is litle..
the only diference is that presidents have more subtile ways to hide theyrs killings...

(Edited by the anarchist at 1:23 am on April 14, 2003)

Guest1

14th April 2003, 01:33

Socialism can never exist in the interests of the people without democracy, democracy can never exist in the interests of the people without socialism. You are attempting to separate between the two, they are inseperable. Socialism is the democratisation of society in all forms. This means democratic government and democratic distribution. Stalin, Hitler, Bush, Churchill, these are all examples of what happens when you have one without the other.

Anonymous

14th April 2003, 02:00

well with church you didnt really had democracy...

he wanst elected but apointed becuase of the war..

yet afer the war he was elected i think...

thursday night

14th April 2003, 02:11

Without Stalin, the Soviet Union would have fallen most probably before even World War II. We have Stalin to thank for turning a backward, peasant based country into a industrialized superpower in less than forty years. We have Stalin to thank for leading the Soviet Union and the Red Army to victory over the super-advanced Nazi military, when the average socialist volunteer in the Soviet Union fought with only basic weaponry and little ammunition.

One must realize the state of the Soviet Union when the conditions of Stalin came into place. After the 1917 Revolution various imperialist nations, including England, America, Japan, Czechoslovakia and others covertly invaded and attempted to end the world’s first socialist experiment almost before it even began (the reason being that Marxism-Leninism was a threat to their super-profits). Furthermore, after Comrade Stalin was elected to power Trotskyite and counterrevolutionary elements were constantly trying to sabotage the USSR, not to mention the capitalist nations continuing to pose a threat.

Thus, the reason the conditions of the Soviet Union from the mid twenties to the mid fifties are as such. It explains them, but of course it does not excuse some of the excesses undertaken during them. As hard as times may have been, it was necessary for the survival of the Soviet Union and the people of the USSR were more than willing to undertake them.

Ian

14th April 2003, 08:54

Gee Crazypete, that's really fantastic how you just said the exact same thing and claimed you misphrased yourself, I think you have expressed your point already, one of workers having power over managers, seeing as workers could be sacked after one days absense by managers, and managers could only be sacked if the workers chose to band together to exercise their 'power' and remove the manager through red tape, I doubt any true power existed.

Sure I have the power to get rid of my school principal, but I would have to organize other students together, ultimately I would be under my principal's authority as I am only one student, this would have been the situation faced by the workers of the Soviet Union. Now tell me, do you still believe they are, honestly, the powerful?

Cassius Clay

14th April 2003, 10:34

Ian Rocks it's ironic that you are repeating the precise same claims (literally) that my history teacher claimed with sources from guess who? Robert Conquest.

It's okay if you wan't to believe what you wrote but please don't try and present it as fact. A book 'Labor Disputes in the Soviet Union' clearly details how the workers had the power up to around 1956. Anyway if you have the time read this.

http://www.marx2mao.org/Other/RCSU75.html

From there is the below.

''At the same time as they were charged with heavy and strict responsibilities, the Soviet managers as a rule had considerably less power than their capitalist counterparts over the workers. They did have strong authority, particularly during the great influx of peasants in the industrialization drive of the early 1930s, to assign workers to different roles in the internal division of labor, to punish lateness and absenteeism with fines and otherwise to "run the shop" -- though even this authority could be challenged successfully. But they did not have the most vital of the powers possessed by their capitalist counterparts, namely the power to fire a worker at will. They could not threaten a worker with unemployment and hunger.

This was a concrete meaning of the phrase that labor power in the USSR was no longer a commodity bought and sold like any other: its price (wages) was no longer depressed by the existence of a relative surplus army of unemployed and the inalienable right of commodity buyers to refuse to buy -- the right to not hire and to lay off -- was no longer recognized. Except during wartime, workers were free to quit; but managers could not fire them except by proving some criminal offense against them. Thus, lacking the whip hand, the managers were weak.

page 48

Moreover, the workers had more than one channel by which to get at directors who abused such authority as they had. As the British bourgeois scholar Mary McAuley writes (in "Labour Disputes in the Soviet Union," Oxford 1969), there were special courts to hear industrial disputes to which only workers had access; managerial personnel could appear there only as defendants and were barred from initiating cases (pp. 54-55). Even before matters came to court, there were ways that the workers on the shop floor could let a troublesome director know who was boss. One of these avenues, the production meeting, is described by the bourgeois scholar David Granick in his book, "The Red Executive":

"Management is operating under severe ideological and practical handicaps in its efforts to keep down worker criticism. One factory director . . . implied that production meetings were a real ordeal for him. But at a question as to whether workers dared to criticize openly, he said, 'Any director who suppressed criticism would be severely punished. He would not only be removed, he would be tried.'" (New York, 1960, p. 230)

The combination of enormous responsibility but relatively little power in the hands of the enterprise directors was not in the long run a healthy one. The way forward would have been progressively to transfer more and more of the directors' responsibilities to the workers themselves, to match their power. But as the party's policy on the question remained basically static, the directors seized the initiative themselves. On the one hand they arrogated to themselves more of the powers held by the workers, and at the same time chipped away at the responsibilities imposed on them by the plan. Both these tendencies on the directors' part, stemming from an identical capitalist impulse, were kept in check and suppressed during Stalin's lifetime. But their source was not eradicated. After his death, once the new leadership had consolidated its grip on the party, the directors' suppressed complaints at their powerlessness and at the onerous burden of the plan were given free play in the press and the demands implicit in these complaints were given full satisfaction.''

That's entitled 'Is the Soviet Union Capitalist' written in 1975. There's also a very nice article by Comrade Ludo Martens which Redstar provided on another website, which shows who had power in the 'Stalinist' Soviet Union. Redstar provide the dam article?

Felicia

14th April 2003, 19:36

How can people still like Stalin?

It's easy, Stalin was a sexy beast :biggrin:

Ian

15th April 2003, 04:09

I like his moustache!

Pete

15th April 2003, 04:27

Thank you Cassius!

The problem with most leftists on this board (and now I will appear a Stalinists in all eyes) is that you deny history as a lesson learning process. Especially the figure of Stalin. You point out all of the Western propaganda that we fight against in OI. You believe it because it is old. That is a poor strategy for education.

Che signed letters Stalin II, he swore on a picture of Stalin. Stalin was a movitivating force behind communism until the 1950's he is one of the reasons why it still exists. Any claims against this are flawed and strawmans.

Please think with your brain and read before posting such gibberish (I one time was the same way) ^_^ Maybe I've been spending too much time around Stalinists, but I still think the whole debate is a waste of time.

Ian

15th April 2003, 06:46

Please think with your brain and read before posting such gibberish (I one time was the same way) ^_^
Do not patronise me Crazypete, after all it was Cassius who won the arguement, not you. To suggest that I do not think with my brain before posting is interesting, from whom have you heard this? I for one would like to talk with them on how they would acquire such information.

Ian

15th April 2003, 06:47

Strange, a moderator is a self confessed Stalinist

(Edited by Ian Rocks at 6:48 am on April 15, 2003)

SwedishCommie

15th April 2003, 11:59

I think that both CrazyPete and CassiusClay are right!
We have Stalin to thank for much!

Pete

15th April 2003, 15:08

As I said I am not a Stalinist. I think it is foolery to make a complex out of either Stalin or Trotsky. You can learn from them, but the debate is the stupidest one that I have seen on the left. Seriously. Learn from their mistakes and move on. That is what I am saying. And also learn from their successes.

Invader Zim

15th April 2003, 15:54

Quote: from the anarchist on 1:22 am on April 14, 2003

Yes but in a democracy the dictators get kicked out if they start masacering the people.
Bush is still in power...
like many otehr presidents that started pitty wars for resources and anhilated entire populations he will be later consider a hero..

also...
about one that is probably your hero, Mr FUCKING POTHEAD Churchill..
he ordered the shooting of thousands and thousands of striking miners during the war and he was still elected president and kept in power...

the diference betwen a president and a chairman is litle..
the only diference is that presidents have more subtile ways to hide theyrs killings...

(Edited by the anarchist at 1:23 am on April 14, 2003)

No fool i hate churchil he is the worst primeminister we have ever had. Ever heard of Golipili.

Without Stalin, the Soviet Union would have fallen most probably before even World War II. We have Stalin to thank for turning a backward, peasant based country into a industrialized superpower in less than forty years.

We also have stalin to thank for one of the Worst cases of Genocide in living memory.

We have Stalin to thank for leading the Soviet Union and the Red Army to victory over the super-advanced Nazi military, when the average socialist volunteer in the Soviet Union fought with only basic weaponry and little ammunition.

No we have the Russian winter to thank for that. More men died in the russian winter from Desiese, cold, malnutrition etc. Than were killed by russian solures, by a very large amount. In the Russian campain you were 4 more times likely to die from these factors than from a Russian Bullet.

The only thing that Stalin did was excecute large numbers od Soldures so the men were more frightened of the consiquenses of running away than fighting the enemy. The Russians Partasans did however interupt supply lines using hit and run techniques, which did far more dammage than the convetional Russian army, who charged machine guns like on the western front in WW1. They might have well have not bothered the only dammage they did was waste German ammunition.

To support the Army the Russians stripped the land of food. This meant that thousands of peasants starved that winter along with the Germans.

DO NOT TRY TO SAY THAT STALIN DEFEATED THE GERMANS, THE WINTER DID!

(Edited by AK47 at 3:59 pm on April 15, 2003)

Cassius Clay

15th April 2003, 16:39

Oh AK47 stop reading Robert Conquest and watching Enemy at the Gates.

Want to take such rubbish seriesly fine? Don't try to represent it as the only opinion that is FACT. It is far from that. Guess what the Soviets had to fight in the winter as well. Virtually all historians agree that Moscow was in a state of panic until Stalin announced he would stay and fight if neccessary.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

15th April 2003, 17:13

Quote: from Digital Nirvana on 12:50 pm on April 13, 2003
with the benefit of hindsight we can see the way Stalin treated his people, the millions who starved to death, those imprisoned in the Gulags and Concentration Cams, the Secret Police who arrested and killing thousand of opposing party memebers, just read animal farm. How can people still like him??

Before Stalin and Lenin there was a Imperialist captalism, in which the elite openly owned litterly everything. From livestock and patatoes to live humans.

After this tsaric periode Lenin came, the standard of live was much improved.

Then Stalin came, who started a whole personality cult, who leaded the country when it was invaded and kicked the facist invaders massmurderers out and even occupied them.

Because of his secret police and his policy in which neighbours, familymembers and even children and parents feared each other, because they could be betrayed and accused of "crimes against socialism".

This is really good explained in George Orwell's 1984, in which the people always fear of treason by family.

This resulted that you only could get a one sided picture of Stalin, stalin "the liberator","the general","the saviour" etc.

That means that the generation who is born then only hears the good things about Stalin and this generation teaches it to their children.

This way the cult is kept in excistence, since Krutsjev this cult has been damaged alot, because the Party needed someone to blame on.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

15th April 2003, 17:19

Quote: from SwedishCommie on 11:59 am on April 15, 2003
I think that both CrazyPete and CassiusClay are right!
We have Stalin to thank for much!

Every one contributes to history, their mistakes and succeses are our lessons for the future.

Hitler has just as Stalin, just as Che left us something to learn from, they'all have had their better and worser ideas.

These were men who all had an ideal of a perfect world, all at different ways.

Even Bush, will now leave us his mistakes and his successes behind.

SwedishCommie

15th April 2003, 17:29

Well put CCCP!

Invader Zim

15th April 2003, 17:39

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 4:39 pm on April 15, 2003
Oh AK47 stop reading Robert Conquest and watching Enemy at the Gates.

Want to take such rubbish seriesly fine? Don't try to represent it as the only opinion that is FACT. It is far from that. Guess what the Soviets had to fight in the winter as well. Virtually all historians agree that Moscow was in a state of panic until Stalin announced he would stay and fight if neccessary.

So you are arguing that the winter killed more than the Russians. Well known Historical Fact... Right.

Virtually all historians agree that Moscow was in a state of panic until Stalin

Moscow was then promptly captured. If you had not noticed.

Guess what the Soviets had to fight in the winter as well.

Yes The total death count of Russian military personel huge. Below i will post a number of different sources who all state different amounts.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Military:
Info. Please: 6,115,000 (all causes)
Compton's: 6,750,000
Keegan: 7,000,000
Small & Singer: 7,500,000
Eckhardt: 7,500,000
Davies: 8,000,000 to 9,000,000
Mazower: 3M POWs through starvation + 6.5M in battle = 9.5M
Urlanis: 10,000,000
Volkogonov: 10,000,000
Ellis: 11,000,000
Britannica: 11,000,000
Encarta: 13,000,000
Kinder: 13,600,000
Wallechinsky: 13,600,000
HarperCollins: 14,500,000
30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 22M
Steven Shabad
Sokolov's new calculations: 26.4M
Gorbachev's official est.: 8,668,000 Red Army dead
MEDIAN: 10M

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm#USSR

A lot of them did in the winter. But they had the support of the local people, good supply lines, shelter etc etc. The Germans had none of this.

Ps I have not seen enemy at the gates, and i have never read Robert Conquest. I read eye witness accounts.

(Edited by AK47 at 5:59 pm on April 15, 2003)

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

15th April 2003, 17:42

Quote: from AK47 on 3:54 pm on April 15, 2003

Quote: from the anarchist on 1:22 am on April 14, 2003

Yes but in a democracy the dictators get kicked out if they start masacering the people.
Bush is still in power...
like many otehr presidents that started pitty wars for resources and anhilated entire populations he will be later consider a hero..

also...
about one that is probably your hero, Mr FUCKING POTHEAD Churchill..
he ordered the shooting of thousands and thousands of striking miners during the war and he was still elected president and kept in power...

the diference betwen a president and a chairman is litle..
the only diference is that presidents have more subtile ways to hide theyrs killings...

(Edited by the anarchist at 1:23 am on April 14, 2003)

No fool i hate churchil he is the worst primeminister we have ever had. Ever heard of Golipili.

Without Stalin, the Soviet Union would have fallen most probably before even World War II. We have Stalin to thank for turning a backward, peasant based country into a industrialized superpower in less than forty years.

We also have stalin to thank for one of the Worst cases of Genocide in living memory.

We have Stalin to thank for leading the Soviet Union and the Red Army to victory over the super-advanced Nazi military, when the average socialist volunteer in the Soviet Union fought with only basic weaponry and little ammunition.

No we have the Russian winter to thank for that. More men died in the russian winter from Desiese, cold, malnutrition etc. Than were killed by russian solures, by a very large amount. In the Russian campain you were 4 more times likely to die from these factors than from a Russian Bullet.

The only thing that Stalin did was excecute large numbers od Soldures so the men were more frightened of the consiquenses of running away than fighting the enemy. The Russians Partasans did however interupt supply lines using hit and run techniques, which did far more dammage than the convetional Russian army, who charged machine guns like on the western front in WW1. They might have well have not bothered the only dammage they did was waste German ammunition.

To support the Army the Russians stripped the land of food. This meant that thousands of peasants starved that winter along with the Germans.

DO NOT TRY TO SAY THAT STALIN DEFEATED THE GERMANS, THE WINTER DID!

(Edited by AK47 at 3:59 pm on April 15, 2003)

Ak-47 is right in this.

Stalin has always tried to picture himself of like the defeater of the facist invaders, defeater of the enemy's of the communists.

But the true story is that he ruined the once much feared Red Army through his "cleanings", which costed the live of I thought 15 of the 18 marshall generals. I am not sure if it's called marshall generals. It costed the lives of thousands of experienced officers and hundert thousands of experienceds troops.

After the cleaning the Red Army came in action in Finland, the Finnish army defeated them, with much less men.

This scared Stalin and the Red Army a lot, so they started to renovate their training proggrams, but only months later the German invasion occured.

In 1942/43 the renewings were enough complete to really make a fist.

Before Soviet tanks didn't even have radio's. To communicate, the commander had to come out his tank, in the middle of the combat to wave with his flags. To give u an example of the many faults of the Red Army.

Stalin's only effort to the Red Army was to threaten to kill everyone who didn't run into the German shower of bullets.

Yes, Enemy at the gates was a "lil' too much of the good".

But you musn't underestimate the Russian Winter and the power of the Partizans. Under Tito's command it became clear what Partisans hit and run actions could do.

Invader Zim

15th April 2003, 17:57

Quote: from CCCP on 5:42 pm on April 15, 2003

But the true story is that he ruined the once much feared Red Army through his "cleanings", which costed the live of I thought 15 of the 18 marshall generals. I am not sure if it's called marshall generals. It costed the lives of thousands of experienced officers and hundert thousands of experienceds troops.

After the cleaning the Red Army came in action in Finland, the Finnish army defeated them, with much less men.

Details of Stalins Military Purges.

Military Purges Since 1937

3 out of 5 marshals
13 out of 15 army commanders
55% of divisiional and brigade commanders
80% of colonels
43% of all other officers
The strength and scale of the German invasion of Russia stunned the Allies, even though the British knew about the invasion plans beforehand and even warned Stalin. In the largest land invasion ever launched German forces attacked along a 1,200 mile (1930 km) front with three major army groups comprised of more than 3 million troops. German aircraft swept out before dawn and systematically annihilated Soviet airfields destroying a total of 1,811 planes, all but 322 of these on the ground. For the cost of 32 planes the Luftwaffe had virtually wiped out the Russian air force before them in a single day.

source (http://www.danshistory.com/ww2/eastern.shtml)

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

15th April 2003, 19:17

tnx for the source, but some comment on my piece plz.

Invader Zim

15th April 2003, 19:52

Quote: from CCCP on 7:17 pm on April 15, 2003
tnx for the source, but some comment on my piece plz.

Well you said 15 out of 18 generals were purged. I simply posted that to correct that.

13 out of 15 army commanders.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

15th April 2003, 22:49

Owk.

Felicia

16th April 2003, 16:22

there was a survey done a few years ago (when I was 16... I clipped it from the newspaper, lol) that surveyed russians asking them about their most loved leader or something like that, and stalin was on the top of the list. I've got the news clipping in a scrap book somewhere..... I'll try and find it. It was entitled "stalin, stalin, he's their man" or something like that, I'm surprised that I even remember this much :-P

lostsoul

16th April 2003, 18:35

i think my questions fit into this dicussion, so i will post them here.

1) Why do capitialist and communist(the ones here), seem to hate stalin? i mean if he fucked communism so bad, then wouldn't capitialist be happy and not hate him so much? i find it very odd and both sides seem to hate the same guy.

2) I read that stalin had 14 volumes of writtings, but most of it was destroyed after he died. i also know that he spend alot of time studying, so it leads me to believe that maybe he had something smart to say(perhapes), but does anyone know why certain people went threw such measures to make sure his thoughts did not spread?

3) Also other then the USSR is there any other country that tried to fight capitialism in other countries as effectively? Most countries it seems were too busy setting up their system to bother. (china, korea, vietnam seem to only be in their countries,.)

i was reading a book on him and these questions came to my mind. Sorry if the answers are really obious, i am just starting to learn about stalin.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

16th April 2003, 20:46

The captalists hate him, because he was communistic.

I hate him, because he was very authoritian and made some hugh mistakes (intended and unintended)

Not all commies hate him, though.

Edit:Felica there is copy right on my already legendous words :biggrin: You have to pay for it and never show it publicly :biggrin:

(Edited by CCCP at 8:51 pm on April 16, 2003)

Felicia

16th April 2003, 22:42

Quote: from CCCP on 4:46 pm on April 16, 2003

Edit:Felica there is copy right on my already legendous words :biggrin: You have to pay for it and never show it publicly :biggrin:

Well poo for you :-P . No private enterprise allowed here :biggrin:

Anonymous

17th April 2003, 01:49

There are a lot of lies and western propaganda regarding stalin...

yet it is foolish not to admit and see how authoritarian, impulsive, and conterversial Stalin was...

i know the management of a state (expecially russia during WWII) isnt easy...
but purging the very own Bolcheviks, comrades in arms in the revolution, becuase they were the bigest threat to the stalinist rule is simply crazy...

Stalin´s bigest and most feared enemy wasnt the capitalist nor the west..
it was the rest of the left and his own fear for coud de estat´s...

that fear doomed a lot of people...

Cassius Clay

17th April 2003, 13:11

On Stalin's role in the Second World War and the 'Purges' of the Army. Here is part of a article by some Russian Communists from the 90's.

The most prevalent lies about Stalin is that in 1937-1938 years, the army was decimated with purges and that Stalin purged and killed 300,000 commanders and political commissars. These falsehoods and lies should look at the known facts, that the Red Army had only 140,000 commanders and political commissars in total.

In the magazine "Young Guard" (1989 -- #9) there was published a document taken from the archives of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, which was presented at that time to Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov and Beria on May 5, 1940, that in 1937-1939, 36,898 commanders were dismissed from the ranks of Red Army. More than 75% of them were retired because of their age, sickness, moral grounds (drunkenness) and unworthy of service in the Red Army. From August of 1938, there was working a commission which was told to look into these cases and make recommendations. More than 30,000 requests were received by those dismissed to look into their appeals. In January 1, 1940, this commission returned to their posts more than 12,461 commanders, from those 10,700 were formerly dismissed for political reasons and now put back into ranks.

Do not forget that there were hidden enemies of the Red Army inside the CC CPSU and did their dirty work.

In the above listing of numbers in the Red Army, let us not forget that there were thousands of former Tsarist officers, who were accepted into the Red Army by Trotsky, in whose ranks were Tukhachevsky, Yakir, Uborevich and others. Most of them harbored their lost class interests and were hidden enemies of socialism, although there were hundreds who became loyal Army Officers in the Red Army and fought valiantly against the Hitler Hordes.

The main conspirator of these anti-state officers was Trotsky who was expelled in 1929 but still kept in touch and led the hidden officers in the Red Army. Let us not ignore the fact that foreign secret services were also in touch with these officers and manipulated them for their own ends.

Many so-called "historians" to this day say that in the middle of 1930s, there was no Officers Corps left in the USSR. Let us examine this falsehood again. How serious are these charges and how are they built on facts? They say that it was a planned uprising against the political leadership of Marshal Voroshilov. If this was the case, in any civilized country, this action is called a PUTSCH. In the Soviet Union, they would call this attempt an anti-Soviet pro-Trotsky agreement. This Putsch was found out and brought into the open and this was just before the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War. This attempt was tragic and in any tragedy, there are some innocent people that suffer, because the guilty enemies try to implicate innocent patriots, communists who had nothing to do with this attempt. Every serious student of history knows this to be a fact -- examples in the historical context are many. The blame must be shared by the counter-revolutionaries and some enemies that were inside the NKVD.

In the "War and Historical Magazine" (1991 -- #9) there is a photocopy of the statement by Tukhachevsky who was in charge of Internal Security of USSR. The Marshal states that he was arrested May 22, 1937, taken to Moscow on May 24 and was interrogated on May 25th. In his statement of May 26th, he says that he agrees with his sentence as was handed down by the Tribunal. He then proceeded to give facts, names of the conspirators, their actions, and gives documents. All this was handwritten in his own hand. He said that he was not forced to do this confession. The Captain who was interrogating him in no way would have been able to know the facts, the details and the personnel. It showed that Tukhachevsky, after his arrest, was demoralized by actual facts and decided to give the details himself and confess that he was guilty. The other conspirators also confessed since the proof was irrefutable.

Of course, there were mistakes in the General Command and Stalin... in what High Command of the Allies were there not -- they readily admit this, but of course, the press does not condemn them or dwell of their human errors. President Roosevelt of the USA publicly admitted that one third of his decisions were wrong. Roosevelt said that America should have stepped in quicker to help the USSR and not wait for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor.

Stalin was never worried about his prestige. Whenever he made a mistake, he always said so and tried to correct it. As an example, during the Plenum of CC AUCPB in 1938, he admitted being rude and uncivil to some party people and non-party personnel. This was published in all of the newspapers in the USSR. There were people that were rehabilitated and received apologies personally from Stalin. You must remember again, that Stalin DID NOT know everyone that was sentenced, he based himself on people like Beria for information and documentation. Knowing the history as was given above, you can draw your own conclusion as to the complexity of those years.''

The anarchist, you correctly say that 'western propaganda' spreads alot of lies about Stalin. Then you proceed to repeat them. Oh well.

Lostsoul. Excellent questions/points. I guess this is kind of like the Animal Farm logic, surely if Stalin was anything like the pig Napolean the west would never stop praising Stalin. Your right Khruschev and others were scarred of Stalin's writtings and ideas, Nikita revised alot of Marxism-Leninism ('They were dangerous'). Your third point, come over to the 'Permanent Revolution' thread in the theory forum.

Anonymous

17th April 2003, 15:30

yes maby i am using western propaganda myself...

yet until i see the original documents in moscow i just wount know for sure...

so il just stick for a contained western propaganda :D

Nic8

17th April 2003, 22:16

Quote: from thursday night on 7:11 am on April 14, 2003
We have Stalin to thank for turning a backward, peasant based country into a industrialized superpower in less than forty years.

Uh, the bourgeoisie did that to. Should we get down on our knees and thank them to?

Rohan

28th April 2003, 03:48

Hitler killed out of hate.
Stalin killed out of love.

More seriously though... without Stalin the Soviet Union would have collapsed a lot earlier. From the minute of its conception the USSR was under attack from the West (note British and American forces landing at Vladovosky). Without rapid industrialization the Soviets would have been crushed by the Germans and... well.

I don't think anyone really likes him.. at least I think I end up justifiying his actions more than anything

lostsoul

28th April 2003, 05:00

this may be an irrelavant post but....

i think we can't really judge stalin, times were very different back then. I read most of europe, spain, britain, america, etc..were all trying to fuck up the soviet union at the time.

Also there was internal problems with the party members trying to sabtage or trying to get power.

Stalin had alot to deal with, internally and externally, i don't feel its correct to say he's bad since we have no idea what he went threw.

Also i have met many russians, and i can honestly say from my view point it really looks like its 50/50 in regards to people who love him and people who hate him.(although its not some offical poll, its just the people i have meet.) It seems like people tryin to fit into canada hate stalin, but people who are here yet try to preserve their culture seem to like him.(which makes me feel many of the russians from russia actually seem to like him)..this is just my view point though.

take care

Invader Zim

28th April 2003, 20:14

There are a lot of lies and western propaganda regarding stalin...

I am sure there are many lies by supporters of Stalin as well.

Cassius Clay

The soviot records prove nothing as they are simply a matter of perspective. You can get anti stalinists also quoting material from the soviot archives, they prove nothing in either sides favour.

Cassius Clay

28th April 2003, 21:07

AK47 archives are not 'perspective'. Guess what the USSR had a prison system and everyone who went in and out was recorded, everyone who appealed was listed and everybody who was sentenced to be executed was recorded. Only the Supreme Soviet Court could order/approve executions and Capital punishment was actuallu abolished between 1945 and 49. These are the FACTS AK and most certainly not lies. Infact I have NEVER lied to my knowledge on this board, yet you are 'sure' supporters of Stalin do lie.

lostsoul

29th April 2003, 01:06

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 9:07 pm on April 28, 2003
AK47 archives are not 'perspective'. Guess what the USSR had a prison system and everyone who went in and out was recorded, everyone who appealed was listed and everybody who was sentenced to be executed was recorded. Only the Supreme Soviet Court could order/approve executions and Capital punishment was actuallu abolished between 1945 and 49. These are the FACTS AK and most certainly not lies. Infact I have NEVER lied to my knowledge on this board, yet you are 'sure' supporters of Stalin do lie.

sorry this doesn't have alot to do with this topic, but Cassius Clay i have read many of your posts and you seem to know alot about stalin(postitive things). I have tried to read many history books but they seem to make him look stupid, or evil. Yet he brought the soviet union to be a world superpower and was also greatly loved by his people(from what i have seen), so i take it that he was not stupid, and not really evil(since his own people would have seen it..i know very few germans who still like hitler, although many still do(so i have heard from friends)).

So my question to you, where do you get your information regarding Stalin's good qualities? achievements? but without making him look crazy or evil. I am reading a book right now called "Selected writtings of stalin", its the closest thing i could find to looking at him in a postitive way, but i was hoping you knew of more. I have read about his bad crimes, now to balance it i am hoping to find some good stuff.

thanks in advance

Dynatos II

30th April 2003, 21:59

The gulags of the soviet union in 1936 held 5,000,000 prisoners. Source: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/gula.html. I'm sure that there are allot of those who were criminals, like thieves and murderers, and they deserved to be sent there but do you honestly believe that all of them were criminals? On average 0.3% of the population of a given country is imprisoned for criminal behavior. Since in 1939 the population of the soviet union was 135 million witch means that the gulags should have around 700 000 prisoners or even a million would have been acceptable. So why were there so many prisoners for the given population? I think the majority of the people in the gulags were 1.political prisoners that were arrested because they disagreed with Stalins policies 2.workers who were put there simply because Stalin needed more slaves. But unfortunately i have no way of proving this. There are many sites i can name that say the same thing but you would just call it capitalist propaganda so i wont even bother. I'd like to ask you why there were so many prisoners in the prison camps?

By 1940 the only member of the 1917 central committee of the Bolshevik party that was still alive and not in prison, exiled or missing was Stalin. Rykov, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Krenestinsky, and Smilga were all shot during the purge trials in the 30s for being Fascist or Gestapo agents. Do you really believe that all of Lenin's comrades in armes during 1917 were fascists? I Think that Stalin killed them during the purges because they simply didn't agree with his totalitarian policies and they were the only ones who remembered Lenin's policies and saw it was in direct opposition to Stalin's policies. They were the only ones that knew that Stalin was not a Leninist. But again i have no way of proving this. So id like to ask you if you believe that these victims of the purge trials were fascists or why they were shot?

Wether or not Stalin's USSR was socialist or not isn't important any more since its in the past and with all the falsifications that exist today (made by Stalinists, the bourgeois, and maybe even Trotskites) it's almost impossible to prove what really happened in the USSR at the time. I'm sure both the Stalinists and the Trotskites have the same ideas of what a socialist state is suppose to look like in the future. All the talk about Stalin and Trotsky is irrelevant today and they should both be forgotten. As for ''Socialism in one country'', i don't think Marxists are going to have to deal with the problem of an isolated workers state in the future.

Kwisatz Haderach

9th May 2003, 21:29

I am a diehard Trotskite. I do not believe in covering up Stalin's crimes just because he was a "communist". The truth is, he was nothing less than a traitor, and he is no comrade of mine.

Stalin was a fool. History has already proved that his path leads to failure. Stalin's twisted brand of communism lead to a repressive, totalitarian regime ruled by a corrupt upper class of bureaucrats. Stalin's police state was a mockery of the revolution, and Stalin himself was the greatest traitor to the communist cause that has ever existed.

How can you ignore the fact that Lenin himself warned us about Stalin leading the Soviet Union to ruin?

Urban Rubble

11th May 2003, 20:29

Thank you, my thougts exactly.

Cassius Clay

11th May 2003, 20:40

Hmm, Edric why do you feel the need to openly lie? Lenin said no such thing.

lostsoul

11th May 2003, 23:43

Quote: from Edric O on 9:29 pm on May 9, 2003
I am a diehard Trotskite. I do not believe in covering up Stalin's crimes just because he was a "communist". The truth is, he was nothing less than a traitor, and he is no comrade of mine.

Stalin was a fool. History has already proved that his path leads to failure. Stalin's twisted brand of communism lead to a repressive, totalitarian regime ruled by a corrupt upper class of bureaucrats. Stalin's police state was a mockery of the revolution, and Stalin himself was the greatest traitor to the communist cause that has ever existed.

How can you ignore the fact that Lenin himself warned us about Stalin leading the Soviet Union to ruin?

No one said stalin was a saint. Stalin is just a teacher to us, through his failures and success's.

Yezhov

27th May 2003, 08:14

Once again on this board I am seeing lies. Are you people taking propaganda as gospel? How can you denounce modern pro-american propaganda, and then buy anything anti-Stalin.

Thank you Cassius Clay for your input.

Edric O: A diehard Trotskyite? Hmph, menshevik. And a traitor? He kept the Soviet Union alive. You are obviously a little misguided. Next please actually learn what it is you're saying.

Urban rubble: Quite the sheep aren't we?

Nikolai

Invader Zim

27th May 2003, 13:43

Quote: from Yezhov on 8:14 am on May 27, 2003
Once again on this board I am seeing lies. Are you people taking propaganda as gospel? How can you denounce modern pro-american propaganda, and then buy anything anti-Stalin.

Thank you Cassius Clay for your input.

Edric O: A diehard Trotskyite? Hmph, menshevik. And a traitor? He kept the Soviet Union alive. You are obviously a little misguided. Next please actually learn what it is you're saying.

Urban rubble: Quite the sheep aren't we?

Nikolai

Speaks one of thementaly delinquant Stalinist who fall into trap of actually believing Stalinist propaganda. Has it ever occured to you perhaps its not the wests propaganda which is confusing people but stalins propaganda?

Cassius Clay

27th May 2003, 19:02

Yes AK because there's been so much 'Stalinist' propaganda unleashed upon the world for the last fifty years. Sigh.

Let's see whose lied. Who said there were ten million political prisoners in Siberia in 1984 yet they all dissapeared in 1991? Who said they had personally seen the cases of 40 million prisoners executed during Stalin's time yet couldn't prove any of it and is now asked by the avearge women in Russia 'Haven't they put you in prison yet?'? Who called the Taliban 'Freedom Fighters'? Who in 1918 declared that the Bolsheviks had nationalised every Russian women into prositution? Oh yeah and who said there was a 'Jewish-Bolshevik' conspiracy who had murdered 50 million innocent Christians?

Wow that's some reliable sources you got there.

Kapitan Andrey

28th May 2003, 06:57

I say:

PEOPLE, WHO LOVE sTALIN - are russian-stalinists-MOTHER-FUCKERS or foreign stupid-stalinists(who don't know anyting about his crimes)!!!

lostsoul

28th May 2003, 07:05

Quote: from Kapitan Andrey on 6:57 am on May 28, 2003

I say:

PEOPLE, WHO LOVE sTALIN - are russian-stalinists-MOTHER-FUCKERS or foreign stupid-stalinists(who don't know anyting about his crimes)!!!

i'm just wondering, have you studied Stalin before? I think going to the extreme of loving him is bad, but also the extreme of hating him is bad also.

Too many people hate him so much that they disregard his lessons for us. You don't have to worship him, just understand him, and maybe you'll find something you can use.

Pete

28th May 2003, 07:12

Stalin is a part of history, and thus a part of humanity. He is a figure to learn from, as my comrade said, as is Trotsky. Stalin saved the CCCP, although Kruschev put it on the road to destruction. Of course Stalin killed 40 million people during his 50 year riegn (this statement is some of teh bullshit I have read in the past couple days). But hey atleast he worked long hours, slept on his couch (opposed to in a palace like a certain Red Army Commander who lost in an election and turned sour) and died with about as much money as he was born to (he was from a low class georgian family).

inessa1917

28th May 2003, 07:53

well, stalin did good things also (fe. his role in the ww2, he saved europe from nazism after all), but i think he can't be regarded as a marxist, because he sometimes acted even against the ideology (fe. when he oppressed the revolution of the proletariat at the time of the civil war in spain). yes, once he was a revolutionary, but his personality and the circumstances made him almost a usual, imperialistic dictator who only cares about his power and about his country's position in the world. his acts and his publications are far from Marxism -- i've only read quotes from him, but these quotes didn't inspire me to get more literature from him ;-/ well, he tends to brutally simplify and misunderstand things, and this way he practically falsificates Marxism.

Invader Zim

28th May 2003, 13:30

Quote: from inessa1917 on 7:53 am on May 28, 2003
well, stalin did good things also (fe. his role in the ww2, he saved europe from nazism after all),

Not really, it can be argued that Europe save Russia from Nazism as well. It was an allied war, if Battles such as El Alamian and operations such as D-Day had not occured then Russia would have fallen as more German troops would have been available to fight on the Eastern front. Also the Russian winter had more to do with defeating the Germans than any individual nation, with out that bad winter killing more Germans than the entire allied armies, i think you can safley say that the Germans would have won the war.

Cassius Clay

28th May 2003, 15:02

Oh dear. AK the Soviets had to fight in the winter aswell. It wasn't just the Red Army in the USSR which defeated the Fascists, alot of credit must also go to the Communist partisans in China (who held down twice as many Japanese Divisions than were ever fighting the U$A), Yugoslavia, Albania. Vietnam, Italy, France, Phillipines etc, etc.

While D-Day was going on the Red Army smashed a entire German Army of over half a million troops, so much that 17 divisions were never reformed. If it hadn't been for the Red Army launching a offensive at the request of the 'Allies' then the Germans would of won the Battle of the Bulge.

Who killed eight out of every ten Fascist soldiers in the war? The Red Army, the partisans can take credit for the various others. What do you think would of happened if the entire might of the German Army and half a dozen of their allies had been left to fight Britian or the U$, hell just leave them in western France? The Western 'Allies' would of been smashed. Just look at France in 1940, and that was against what many considered to be the best Army in the world. And there's a world of difference between the German Army in 1940 and that in 1941/2/3. Eg it's much better equipped, experienced and morale is higher.

You seem to thing a bunch of kids and old men if deployed to the Eastern front would of made a significant difference. But ignoring the fact that if millions of crack German troops had faced the 'Allies' then we would all be saying 'Heil Hitler' right now. Comeon Rommel had the British on the run in North Africa for three years with small German forces and a large bulk of unmotivated Italians, this was against the best the British and Americans had.

Honestly AK when are you ever going to stop repeating what Hollywood tells you and just use some common sense.

Invader Zim

28th May 2003, 23:01

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 3:02 pm on May 28, 2003
Oh dear. AK the Soviets had to fight in the winter aswell. It wasn't just the Red Army in the USSR which defeated the Fascists, alot of credit must also go to the Communist partisans in China (who held down twice as many Japanese Divisions than were ever fighting the U$A), Yugoslavia, Albania. Vietnam, Italy, France, Phillipines etc, etc.

While D-Day was going on the Red Army smashed a entire German Army of over half a million troops, so much that 17 divisions were never reformed. If it hadn't been for the Red Army launching a offensive at the request of the 'Allies' then the Germans would of won the Battle of the Bulge.

Who killed eight out of every ten Fascist soldiers in the war? The Red Army, the partisans can take credit for the various others. What do you think would of happened if the entire might of the German Army and half a dozen of their allies had been left to fight Britian or the U$, hell just leave them in western France? The Western 'Allies' would of been smashed. Just look at France in 1940, and that was against what many considered to be the best Army in the world. And there's a world of difference between the German Army in 1940 and that in 1941/2/3. Eg it's much better equipped, experienced and morale is higher.

You seem to thing a bunch of kids and old men if deployed to the Eastern front would of made a significant difference. But ignoring the fact that if millions of crack German troops had faced the 'Allies' then we would all be saying 'Heil Hitler' right now. Comeon Rommel had the British on the run in North Africa for three years with small German forces and a large bulk of unmotivated Italians, this was against the best the British and Americans had.

Honestly AK when are you ever going to stop repeating what Hollywood tells you and just use some common sense.

1. The soldures on the western frount were not old men and boys, unless you caount the majority of the SS german elite troops under that catagory. Also the majority of Rommels tanks were part of the Crack panzer divisions the pride of the German artilery.

Who killed eight out of every ten Fascist soldiers in the war?

2. The winter in Russia.

3. With out the Red Army the war would have been lost, however with out the Rest of the allies tying down german troops and recource the war would have been lost.

4. With out the Winter which killed more Germans the the allies, the war would have been lost.

5. With out D-Day and El Alamian the war would have been lost.

Honestly AK when are you ever going to stop repeating what Hollywood tells you and just use some common sense.

When are yopu going to stop believing the Soviot propaganda Stalin prodused to imporve Russian moral, and actualy READ up on the history of the war.

A while a go we had this same argument and i provided a time line of the war which distinctly shows how the tide of the war turned in the allies favour (especially russias) after the victory of El Alamin, i will try and dig it up again, or make a new one if i cant find it. However it would be much easier if you would not be blinded by your devosion to defend Stalin to historic fact.

Pete

29th May 2003, 01:16

however with out the Rest of the allies tying down german troops and recource the war would have been lost.

Actually all that the Allies did in the East was the Dieppe raid and we all know how that turned out. The Soviets where moving on their own force by the time D-Day came, and the German Army could have been defeated by the Soviets if time allowed.

Invader Zim

29th May 2003, 01:21

Quote: from CrazyPete on 1:16 am on May 29, 2003
however with out the Rest of the allies tying down german troops and recource the war would have been lost.

Actually all that the Allies did in the East was the Dieppe raid and we all know how that turned out. The Soviets where moving on their own force by the time D-Day came, and the German Army could have been defeated by the Soviets if time allowed.

Or not.. because the only reason that the soviot counter attacks worked were because British code breakers had cracked the german codes and were able to give all the allies detailed information regading German troop postions and placements.

Also do you really think that with a further 1 and a half million troops added to German postions in the eastern frount the Russians would have won? If you do you are one deluded individual.

(Edited by AK47 at 1:23 am on May 29, 2003)

Pete

29th May 2003, 03:03

Until 1944 the Russians where alone. The only real strike on the Western front was dieppe which was a massacre. The allies where happy to watch the Nazis and commies fight it out.

The German army fell because it started to fight a war against both Britan and Russia. If they had kept the peace in the east until the west had fallen, the war would have been much different. But instead Hitler invaded Russia and was decimated. That is the main reason the war turned out what it is.

I am not deluded, but I know my history. Nothing I said was false. I beg you to prove me wrong AK.

Yezhov

29th May 2003, 03:16

AK47, why are you constantly throwing out ad hominem arguments? "Deluded" "mental delinquent" etc. You know you're wrong, so stop abusing people and actually back up your position.

Ever heard of Marshal Zhukov? He repulsed two German offenses on Leningrad. The Battle of the Kursk, (July 1943) the largest tank battle of the war. Zhukov kicked the Germans all the way back to Berlin. After bitter fighting he signed the German surrender.

British codebreakers? HAHAHA. I guess you've never heard of Professor Baidakov.

and you've neer heard of Katyusha?

I mean, really. Learn the facts.

Nikolai

Invader Zim

29th May 2003, 10:17

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:03 am on May 29, 2003
Until 1944 the Russians where alone. The only real strike on the Western front was dieppe which was a massacre.

Really??? Then how do you explain this?

Jan 22, 1941 Tobruk in North Africa falls to the British and Australians.

Feb 11, 1941 - British forces advance into Italian Somaliland in East Africa.

March 7, 1941 - British forces arrive in Greece.

May 27, 1941 - Sinking of the Bismarck by the British Navy.

June 8, 1941 - Allies invade Syria and Lebanon.

July 14, 1941 - British occupy Syria.

May 30, 1942 - First thousand bomber British air raid (against Cologne).

July 1-30 - First Battle of El Alamein.

Aug 17, 1942 - First all-American air attack in Europe.

Nov 1, 1942 - Operation Supercharge (Allies break Axis lines at El Alamein).

Nov 8, 1942 - Operation Torch begins (U.S. invasion of North Africa).

Dec 13, 1942 - Rommel withdraws from El Agheila.

Dec 31, 1942 - Battle of the Barents Sea between German and British ships.

Jan 23, 1943 - Montgomery's Eighth Army takes Tripoli.

Jan 27, 1943 - First bombing raid by Americans on Germany (at Wilhelmshaven).

March 2, 1943 - Germans begin a withdrawal from Tunisia, Africa.

March 20-28 - Montgomery's Eighth Army breaks through the Mareth Line in Tunisia.

April 6/7 - Axis forces in Tunisia begin a withdrawal toward Enfidaville as American and British forces link.

May 7, 1943 - Allies take Tunisia.

May 13, 1943 - German and Italian troops surrender in North Africa.

July 9/10 - Allies land in Sicily.

July 19, 1943 - Allies bomb Rome.

July 22, 1943 - Americans capture Palermo, Sicily.

July 24, 1943 - British bombing raid on Hamburg.

July 27/28 - Allied air raid causes a firestorm in Hamburg.

Aug 12-17 - Germans evacuate Sicily.

Aug 17, 1943 - American daylight air raids on Regensburg and Schweinfurt in Germany; Allies reach Messina, Sicily

Sept 8, 1943 - Italian surrender is announced.

Sept 9, 1943 - Allied landings at Salerno and Taranto.

Oct 1, 1943 - Allies enter Naples, Italy.

Oct 13, 1943 - Italy declares war on Germany; Second American air raid on Schweinfurt.

Nov 18, 1943 - Large British air raid on Berlin.

Is that proved wrong enough for you?

The German army fell because it started to fight a war against both Britan and Russia. If they had kept the peace in the east until the west had fallen, the war would have been much different. But instead Hitler invaded Russia and was decimated. That is the main reason the war turned out what it is.

Thats the whole point, it was a joint effort no individual country can take the credit for the victory of WW2, it was an allied war. If the western front and Africa had not been consuming valuble Axis recources (1.5 million men) then the Russians would not have held the German offensives. With out the Russians fighting the Germans on the Eastern front the rest of the allies would not have stood a chanse. It was an allied multi front war, remove any of the allies from the equasion the allies lose.

British codebreakers? HAHAHA. I guess you've never heard of Professor Baidakov.

Ohh really ever heard of Alan Turin? Ever heard of the Enigma machine, ever heard of Bletchley park???

Try reading this site http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/

Ever heard of Marshal Zhukov? He repulsed two German offenses on Leningrad. The Battle of the Kursk, (July 1943) the largest tank battle of the war. Zhukov kicked the Germans all the way back to Berlin. After bitter fighting he signed the German surrender.

I have heard of all of the above except the bit about him sighning the treaty.

BTW have you ever heard of these events?

June 28, 1941 - Germans capture Minsk.

July 10, 1941 - Germans cross the River Dnieper in the Ukraine.

Aug 20, 1941 - Nazi siege of Leningrad begins.

Sept 19, 1941 - Nazis take Kiev.

Sept 29, 1941 - Nazis murder 33,771 Jews at Kiev.

Oct 2, 1941 - Operation Typhoon begins (German advance on Moscow).

Oct 24, 1941 - Germans take Kharkov.

Oct 30, 1941 - Germans reach Sevastopol. (1st time)

Nov 20, 1941 - Germans take Rostov.

July 3, 1942 - Germans retake Sevastopol. (second time)

July 5, 1942 - Soviet resistance in the Crimea ends.

July 9, 1942 - Germans begin a drive toward Stalingrad in the USSR.

Sept 13, 1942 - Battle of Stalingrad begins.

----------------------------------------

AND then...

Nov 1, 1942 - Operation Supercharge (Allies break Axis lines at El Alamein (first major defeat of Axis Army's).

Just watch the sudden trend....

----------------------------------------

Nov 19, 1942 - Soviet counter-offensive at Stalingrad begins.

Dec 16, 1942 - Soviets defeat Italian troops on the River Don in the USSR.

Jan 10, 1943 - Soviets begin an offensive against the Germans in Stalingrad.

Feb 2, 1943 - Germans surrender at Stalingrad in the second big defeat of Hitler's armies.

Feb 8, 1943 - Soviet troops take Kursk.

Feb 16, 1943 - Soviets re-take Kharkov.

Nov 6, 1943 - Russians recapture Kiev in the Ukraine.

Jan 6, 1944 - Soviet troops advance into Poland

Jan 27, 1944 - Leningrad relieved after a 900-day siege.

You see Yezhov I know the facts very well, and as you will know the Soviets were getting there arses kicked until German troops were moved from the eastern front to defend Italy and Tunisia after the battle of El Alamain, the turning point of the war.

I really admire the achivments of the Red Army, however it really annoys me when people say that the soviots could have won alone with out any of the other allies, which is stupid.

However i am especially fond of the Soviet T.34 tank which quite possibly won the majority of Russian victorys on the Eastern front.

AK47, why are you constantly throwing out ad hominem arguments? "Deluded" "mental delinquent" etc. You know you're wrong, so stop abusing people and actually back up your position.

I have yet to see an argument from any one to disprove any thing i have said on this matter, so i feal i have more than backed up my position because no one has actually put up any arguments to oppose what i have said.

and you've neer heard of Katyusha?

Yes its the soviet rocket, which were put on vehicles and were designed to counter the german Nebelwerfer. What have they got to do with code breaking?

Vinny Rafarino

30th May 2003, 06:49

For fuck's sake...I've gotta hand it to you mate...That's a dick load of information. I think I almost nodded off like I was hittin' the scag halfway through...But indeed I made it 'till the end.

I only have one thing to point out from your post:

"Sept 29, 1941 - Nazis murder 33,771 Jews at Kiev."

Hey Kelvin you worthless twat...Are you going to blame these on Stalin too??

Invader Zim

30th May 2003, 12:00

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 6:49 am on May 30, 2003
For fuck's sake...I've gotta hand it to you mate...That's a dick load of information. I think I almost nodded off like I was hittin' the scag halfway through...But indeed I made it 'till the end.

I only have one thing to point out from your post:

"Sept 29, 1941 - Nazis murder 33,771 Jews at Kiev."

Hey Kelvin you worthless twat...Are you going to blame these on Stalin too??

Sorry, but someone told me i should learn the facts, I was mearly showing them that i do know quite a lot.

Pete

30th May 2003, 12:24

Quit the flaming!

Vinny Rafarino

30th May 2003, 13:24

I'm a little confused about your post Pete. You do realise I was not slagging AK right?...Lets call a spade a spade. It was a dick load of information. GOOD information just a lot of it. I don't think you would get angry at me for calling Kelvin a twat as I have seen much worse from you. So what exactly are you talking about? I only pointed out this portion of AK's post to make a point to all the anti Stalinists who try to blame every death in the USSR for the last 1000 years on Stalin. (Kelvin is a big advocate of this viewpoint) 'Cos we all know he was capable of travelling back in time. Fuck it...He was responsible for the death of every human being ever.

Please enlighten me as to who was getting flamed here.

Cassius Clay

30th May 2003, 15:10

I think he would of been reffering to me Comrade RAF.

Anyway here's something from the other perspective.

First of all I'll quote something from the very much anti-Soviet and anti-Stalin book OSTFRONT Hitler's war on Russia 1941-45.

''In August 1944 38 Alliend divisions fighting on a 120Km front in France encircled 20 German divisions and, after 27 days' fighting, took about 90,000 prisoners. At the same time the Soviet forces mounted three offensives. Along the borders of Romania, 92 Soviet Divisions and 9 tank/mechanised corps attacked 47 German and Romanian divisions on a frontage of about 700Km, encircling 18 German divisions and taking 100,000 priosners in a week. Meanwhile, 86 Soviet divisions and 10 tank/mechanised corps were attacking into southern Poland. destorying nearly 40 German divisions in the process. The third Soviet offensive, which had been underway since 22 June, involved 172 divisions and 12 tank/mechanised corps in an advance of 600 Km along a 1000Km front: 67 German divisions were overwhelmed in the battle, 17 nver to reappear on the German order of battle.

By late 1944 91 Allied divisions in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, faced 65 German divisions across a 4000Km front. In the east 560 Soviet divisions were fighting 235 German divisions across a 3,200km front, and driving them rapidly westwards. Thus there is a strong argument that the Soviet Union had already won the war by 1944, whether the western Allies finally opened a second front or not.''

Just look at France in 1940 or better yet the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. According to one military historian at Sandhurst in the 1980's 'The Battle of the Bulge while being the biggest battle on the western front was relativly minor compared to the battle's on the eastern front' even then it was only because the Red Army was willing to launch a early offensive (thus diverting the remains of Hitler's 6th Panzer Army to the east) that the 'Allies' managed to barely win. More Fascist soldiers died in the first weeks of Barborasa than throughout 1939 and 1940, making AK argument that it was the 'winter' that killed the soldiers flawed.

Where the Red Army didn't defeat the Fascists it was often partisans who held down the majority of the 20% of forces not fighting on the Eastern front. Take Yugoslavia as the best example. Is anybody seriesly concluding that had the 240 Fascist divisions who were thrown at the USSR merely at the beggining of 1942 had been reserved to wither guard the west against invasion or thrown into North Africa the 'Allies' would of stood a chance. Only through bombing Germany with Nukes come 1945 could they of won.

Pete

30th May 2003, 15:13

It was more to everyone, including my self.

Invader Zim

31st May 2003, 00:31

CC you are entirley right, with out the great effort of the Red Army the war would have been lost. However with out the millions of German soldures stuck down by thecold and desiese caused by the winter the red army would have been defeated and the war lost.

Your denial that the winter was a major cause for allied victory supprises me as you seem to have a fine mind for history, surley you see that the winter was as important as any individual nation if not all of them, to the enevitable defeat of the fascist armys.

However i hope you and Pete now accept that maybe the western front was not as unnecessary as you previously thought, and thatyou at least give credit deserving to those who died to protect europe from fascism, and not just take all the credit for Stalin.

Pete

31st May 2003, 01:08

The Western Front was of no consequence compared to the eastern front. Until D-day the biggest battle (other than air) after Dunkirk was Dieppe. And we all know the slaughter that that was (one regiment destroyed in a morning!)

Invader Zim

31st May 2003, 13:21

Quote: from CrazyPete on 1:08 am on May 31, 2003
The Western Front was of no consequence compared to the eastern front. Until D-day the biggest battle (other than air) after Dunkirk was Dieppe. And we all know the slaughter that that was (one regiment destroyed in a morning!)

You show obviously how little you know about the war with that ignorant, statment. Do you have any idea how much expolsive was dropped on Germanys industrial citys. Dresden for example had a third of its are completely destroyed.

The Bismark was sunk, them most powerful Axis ship.

The Italians even surrendered in 1943.

Until November/december 1942, the Soviots might not have even bothered being in the war the way the Germans were cutting through their armys. At which point Western front started winning, and suddenly the eastern front starts winning when thousands of German troops were sent west to hold off Montgomerys attacks in N Africa. Not to mention the pycological victory to all allies in hearing that the Germans could actualy be defeated. Within 3/4 of a year Italy had been defeated, all before 1944. As you can see the western front allies had invaded an Axis country. By the same period of time the Red army had only re-captured there own land.

The fact that the majority of German armanents and recources were made in Cologne and Dresden which Britains bombers crippled massivley dammaging the German war effort.

The time line I created earlier proves the simple fact that what you have said is fundermentaly incorrect.

Also so have you ever heard the of the Battle of Britain, the Big air battle in which the RAF crippled German supremmacy. Theses same plains destroyed by the British were not available to fight on the eastern front. Imagin an extra thousand or so fighters and several hundred German bombers added to the German forces of the Eastern front.

Pete

31st May 2003, 15:25

Western Front. As in the French Seawall.

Italy. Ahh that was where the Canadian's proved themself. But was that not Mussolini (He died in 43 didn't he?)

But everything you list is important, but AK, you still forget that it was in the Eastern Front that Germany lost. They did not lose the war in the West, but the East. You have heard enough proof of that.

Invader Zim

31st May 2003, 16:45

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:25 pm on May 31, 2003
Western Front. As in the French Seawall.

Italy. Ahh that was where the Canadian's proved themself. But was that not Mussolini (He died in 43 didn't he?)

But everything you list is important, but AK, you still forget that it was in the Eastern Front that Germany lost. They did not lose the war in the West, but the East. You have heard enough proof of that.

Italy. Ahh that was where the Canadian's proved themself. But was that not Mussolini (He died in 43 didn't he?)

No italy was defeated, but Hitler Re-Invaded and reinstated Mussolini, however soon after that Mussolini was swinging from a lamp post... and good ridance to the bastard.

Western Front. As in the French Seawall.

Ahh my misunderstanding... as in just the French part of the western front, that was reletivly unimportant. Except the Air battles which possibly can be contributed to winning the war.

But everything you list is important, but AK, you still forget that it was in the Eastern Front that Germany lost. They did not lose the war in the West, but the East. You have heard enough proof of that.

I would say that the Italians would disagree... But yes I agree that the Eastern front was were the Germans lost the war. But it is very foolish when people say that the western front was unimportant and plaid no part in the victory, as I have said with out it the Red Army would have been defeated.

(Edited by AK47 at 4:46 pm on May 31, 2003)