Considering that people like Josef Stalin and Pyotr Stolypin were two of the most brutal men in Russian history, I would imagine that most Russians didn't understand the question.
Stolypin, for example, was so brutal that the hangman's noose was actually nicknamed "Stolypin's Necktie".
"I have nothing but respect for the Soviet Union and the role they played in defeating Nazism through from my perspective this was achieved despite the role of Stalin not because of him."
Unfortunately I'd have to disagree with you there, when you take into account the mass rape the red army carried out, not just in Germany, but Austria, Czechsolvakia, Romania, and even nations there were supposedly 'liberating' such as Poland.
William makes a fair point. The Red Army Memorial in Berlin is still known today as the "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist". The Soviets committed mass war crimes in the Second World War.
And lets not forget that the USSR had a nonaggression pact with Nazi Germany.
Had Hitler not invaded Russia, your boy Stalin would not have lifted a finger against Germany.
Unlike Winston Churchill and damned few others, Stalin and his government had no problem with Hitler and with what his government was doing-- until the Wehrmacht raced East across the border into Russia.
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
Stalin
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."
Che Guavera
Viva che! Vive le revolucion!
Yeah hold on though according to anti-Che stuff I've read Che killed dozens in the immedeate aftermath of a revolution.
A war crime, certainly, but nothing compared to Stalin (or indeed compared to the US backed Chliean, Guatamalen, El Salvadorean, Brazilian etc regimes at the time or afterwards).
I think Chris has it right on Stalin here. However it could be argued Stalin's interference made it harder for the Red Army to win the war rather than anything else.
In fact his greatest move was probably leaving his generals to get on with It (in contrast to Adolf who got all micro-managy)
Yeah hold on though according to anti-Che stuff I've read Che killed dozens in the immedeate aftermath of a revolution
Yes, and he was 100% correct to do so.
The only difference between Che and Stalin was one of scale. Had a Bolivian bullet not found the Argentine mercenary, he might have done to Cuba what Stalin did to Russia.
Most of the kiddies who wear the Che t shirts have no idea of the man whose dreamy image they wear on their chest.
But the politically minded who adore him can only be seen to be as supporters of Che's methods. Which were very unsound ( a la Kurtz ) and which played a great part in the destruction of Cuban society.
"I have to admit that the admiration that many on the left have for Stalin has never stood easy with me."
I've never met a socialist who admired Stalin, his regime or his policies. As a war leader he certainly has admirers not least in the former USSR, and from virtual surrender to capturing Berlin the peoples of the USSR made a huge sacrifice in terms of labor and life. In a wider context for me the show trials and some of the transcripts of the confessions show just how much power he had not just in terms of absolute authority but how he became the revolutionary compass of the party. A historically compelling figure yes but sociopaths are hard to admire especially one responsible for millions of deaths.
The only difference between Che and Stalin was one of scale
Phantom,
I doubt you believe that. The man himself (Che) despised Stalinism. The reason he became estranged from Castro was because he travelled to the Soviet Union and was sickened by what he saw there.
In any case, I'm aware of your views on Che. But this thread is about Stalin so I won't derail it anymore.
JG
Happy almost New Year. Still in the office at 750 and not too happy about it.
All I know is that when Communists take power, an awful lot of people wind up dead.
Chris,
Stalin was a monster...and he wasn't even Russian. A joke among Georgians this year was that Stalin should be named the greatest ever Georgian - because of the number of Russians he killed!
I would even disagree on him being a great war leader.
Firstly, in his purges in the mid to late 30s he killed many of the army top brass in a fit of paranoia, seriously weakening the Red Army.
Secondly, as mentioned, under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, he colluded with the Nazis in partioning Poland (and executing its army top brass at Katyn) in a greedy land-grab. Despite Hitler's hatred for communism and his constantly stated ambition to destroy the USSR and obtain land in the East, he was genuinely shocked that Hitler broke the pact.
Thirdly, in the early months of the Nazi invasion, Stalin relied heavily on his military commanders. Only after his (admittedly brave) decision to stay in Moscow during the battle did he regain his previous confidence.
Also, as the lads have said, the Red Army raped and pillaged their way to Berlin; they stood by and let Warsaw burn; and they helped install the puppet dictatorships in Eastern Europe that lasted until 1989.
Lads
I have never disputed any of those things.
I think a few of you need to read the article again.
The point some were making was that the friendly and nonaggressive relationship with Nazi Germany was even worse than purges or any other thing done by him.
If the USSR had not been so friendly to Naziism, the later heroics and blood may not have been necessary to the same extent.
Stalin was a traitor not just to Russia but to humanity for cozying up to Hitler, until Adolf bit him in the ass.
Happy New Year to you too Phantom, and to everyone else here.
All the best for 2009.
Sorry Chris,
A lot of my comments were aimed at the generally held view that he was a great war leader. I wasn't suggesting that you thought he was.
Phantom,
On Stalin's treachery re the Nazis: I've read a few articles etc on the hilarious volte face by Western communists following the USSR entering the war. Previously they had been decidedly against this "imperialist" war, only to overnight become the greatest of anti-fascists.
Something is acting up here
Reg
Entirely correct. Definitely the case with the once significant US Communist/symp movement and probably the same in Britain and other European countries.
--
Haloscan was truncating the thread for a bit but now appears back to normal
Stalin was actually a traitor to two countries
Georgia, as he was a Georgian and he certainly was a fan of their servitude in the USSR
The USSR by virtue of his loving embrace of Hitler
"The point some were making was that the friendly and nonaggressive relationship with Nazi Germany was even worse than purges or any other thing done by him.
If the USSR had not been so friendly to Naziism, the later heroics and blood may not have been necessary to the same extent."
Now wait just a minute, the West were more complicit than anyone when it came to Hitler.
France and Britain could have stopped Hitler in the early 30's, instead they appeased him and drew up treaties with him e.g. British German Naval Agreement of 1935.
The West would have been more than happy to see Hitler deatroy Russia.
Let's not forget that the USA only entered the War after Pear Harbour.
Roosevelt was tilting pretty heavily to Britain, fighting the isolationist element in the US
The appeasement comments are accurate. But Britain did have a Churchill when it needed it, and I'll take him over Stalin any day. He was howling in the wilderness until someone finally listened to him. I don't know if there were any such figures in the USSR ( before the Germans crossed the border ) and in France we only had the fables of the Resistance, made up largely of Communists who only became anti Nazi when Stalin told them to do so.
"Now wait just a minute, the West were more complicit than anyone when it came to Hitler."
Chris,
I disagree. The British and French may have appeased Hitler (as you say, this happened even before Munich - look at their cowardice in the Spanish Civil War); but the USSR actively collaborated with Hitler by allowing Hitler to invade most of Poland...and gobbling up the rest for itself.
Hitler simply beat Stalin to the punch.
There was an enourmous Soviet military build up and troop mobilization near the Don River during the non aggression pact.
Captured Soviet generals admitted that they were hoping the Nazis would embark on a land invasion of Britain leaving them to sieze the oppotuinity and overun Western Europe.
Stalin would have been done for if it wasn't for the Russian winter stopping the unprepared German Army in it's tracks just outside Moscow.
PS: It's "On par", not "On power" Mr.Queen's graduate
Commenting by HaloScan
