Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11Ok
actually i have called it that ever since the joke that an "obama nation" is an abomination.What thread is this?
EU forum and its closed by the adorable Moderator who purged the Antedilluvians like Stalin purge the Russian middle class(for damned of me I can't remember...oh right)aslo known as the Kulaks(right 😕 ?)
Originally posted by Enyalus2nd Greatest
Dude...No talking bad about my man. Ya stal!Stalin was the greatest leader of the 20th century. End of discussion.
For a minute I thought You were talking about Ush(no hard feeling ush)
Lenin was a foolish coward with a horrible feel for the economy (think a Lawyer version of Bush). When the revolution broke out in 1917, he wasn't even in Russia. Compare that to Stalin, who when the Germans were 20 miles outside of Moscow, and the rest of the city evacuated - he stayed behind and issued radio messages every day.
The man had an immesurable amount of balls. 😛
Originally posted by EnyalusGoogle it...
Lenin was a foolish coward with a horrible feel for the economy (think a Lawyer version of Bush). When the revolution broke out in 1917, he wasn't even in Russia. Compare that to Stalin, who when the Germans were 20 miles outside of Moscow, and the rest of the city evacuated - he stayed behind and issued radio messages every day.The man had an immesurable amount of balls. 😛
Originally posted by EnyalusMurdered helluva lot more than the Nazis, held show trials, didn't even bother to mobilize despite obvious warnings, decimated his officer corp. out of paranoia, established a dictatorship which hurt "the people"...
Dude...No talking bad about my man. Ya stal!Stalin was the greatest leader of the 20th century. End of discussion.
Great, great man.
Originally posted by Tangible God
Murdered helluva lot more than the Nazis, held show trials, didn't even bother to mobilize despite obvious warnings, decimated his officer corp. out of paranoia, established a dictatorship which hurt "the people"...Great, great man.
And within 30 years of two world wars, two government revolutions, two civil wars, plus the Great Depression, molded his country from a backward, 3rd-world country into the second most powerful nation in the world. Plus, Russia was the only European country to successfully repel the Nazi invasion, and that was a direct result of him pushing rapid industrialization. He had a small amount of help from the US and the British, but new evidence has shown that even without it, he would have more than likely been able to push them back.
Furthermore, if it wasn't for Russian pressure on the Eastern front, D-Day would have never been successful. I believe Hitler had 147 divisions allocated to the Eastern Front towards the end of the war, 69 on the Western front (check my numbers if you want - they might not be right but it's close). That also allowed the British to retake North Africa because it bled troops from Rommel, who was making the Brits look downright foolish. Hitler was obsessed with taking Russia and destroying Stalin - and it cost him when Russia held. It was also thanks solely to Stalin that the Russian lines held like they did. During the first part of the war the Russians military was so poorly organized that they decided to retreat and run from the German advance. Stalin sent out the orders to either advance, hold ground, or be shot.
"In the Soviet army, it takes more courage to retreat than advance." Yes, his methods were brutal - but they were effective. Also, his collectivization plan was pretty brilliant and would have worked had the peasants not been greedy and wanted more compensation. They ended up slaughtering their own livestock and burning their crops instead of giving them to the government, causing a famine that killed 7 million people and blaming Stalin for it.
So meh.
Originally posted by Enyalus
And within 30 years of two world wars, two government revolutions, two civil wars, plus the Great Depression, molded his country from a backward, 3rd-world country into the second most powerful nation in the world.
Plus, Russia was the only European country to successfully repel the Nazi invasion, and that was a direct result of him pushing rapid industrialization.This is incorrect. The strict winter climate, the same thing that defeated napoleon, was what defeated Hitler's troops.
0nce again due to the Russian winter.
He had a small amount of help from the US and the British, but new evidence has shown that even without it, he would have more than likely been able to push them back.
so Stalin sent his enslaved, drafted army to either win or die. yes, this is a great man.
Furthermore, if it wasn't for Russian pressure on the Eastern front, D-Day would have never been successful. I believe Hitler had 147 divisions allocated to the Eastern Front towards the end of the war, 69 on the Western front (check my numbers if you want - they might not be right but it's close). That also allowed the British to retake North Africa because it bled troops from Rommel, who was making the Brits look downright foolish. Hitler was obsessed with taking Russia and destroying Stalin - and it cost him when Russia held. It was also thanks solely to Stalin that the Russian lines held like they did. During the first part of the war the Russians military was so poorly organized that they decided to retreat and run from the German advance. Stalin sent out the orders to either advance, hold ground, or be shot.
"In the Soviet army, it takes more courage to retreat than advance." Yes, his methods were brutal - but they were effective. Also, his collectivization plan was pretty brilliant and would have worked had the peasants not been greedy and wanted more compensation. They ended up slaughtering their own livestock and burning their crops instead of giving them to the government, causing a famine that killed 7 million people and blaming Stalin for it.
So meh.
True communism has never been enacted. and even if it could be, it springs forth hundreds of flaws. If you want the critical flaws and errors of communism, I will reply with a thesis explaining each one.
Originally posted by Knightfall
He lined his pockets...
Not true. Especially when compared to the Tsars in the Imperial era.
Originally posted by Knightfall
This is incorrect. The strict winter climate, the same thing that defeated napoleon, was what defeated Hitler's troops.
You need tanks and heavy machine weapons in order to hold a line. During WWI, in 1914 and 15, the Russians were still using cavalry and sending them against German tanks. Stalin's 5 year plans and pushed industrialization improved industrial technology a hundredfold and helped them hold back the Nazi threat - along with the Russian winter. (Kudos for the Napoleon reference, though.)
Originally posted by Knightfall
so Stalin sent his enslaved, drafted army to either win or die. yes, this is a great man.
It worked, didn't it? Plus, they were hardly enslaved. That's like calling the US Army during WWII and Vietnam enslaved because they had a draft. Most people eagerly joined the Red Army to serve the Motherland. 21 million of their soldiers died - by far the heaviest sacrifice of any country facing the Germans. Yet it was them who had to deal with the brunt of German Forces. And it was them who marched through Berlin first.
Originally posted by Knightfall
True communism has never been enacted. and even if it could be, it springs forth hundreds of flaws.
Agreed. But, no need to explain them to me. I've done an 18 page paper on the Russian Revolution and a 24 page paper on Stalin's reign. 😉
Originally posted by EnyalusSorry, Knightfall. I think completely bypassed your post.
And within 30 years of two world wars, two government revolutions, two civil wars, plus the Great Depression, molded his country from a backward, 3rd-world country into the second most powerful nation in the world. Plus, Russia was the only European country to successfully repel the Nazi invasion, and that was a direct result of him pushing rapid industrialization. He had a small amount of help from the US and the British, but new evidence has shown that even without it, he would have more than likely been able to push them back.Furthermore, if it wasn't for Russian pressure on the Eastern front, D-Day would have never been successful. I believe Hitler had 147 divisions allocated to the Eastern Front towards the end of the war, 69 on the Western front (check my numbers if you want - they might not be right but it's close). That also allowed the British to retake North Africa because it bled troops from Rommel, who was making the Brits look downright foolish. Hitler was obsessed with taking Russia and destroying Stalin - and it cost him when Russia held. It was also thanks solely to Stalin that the Russian lines held like they did. During the first part of the war the Russians military was so poorly organized that they decided to retreat and run from the German advance. Stalin sent out the orders to either advance, hold ground, or be shot.
"In the Soviet army, it takes more courage to retreat than advance." Yes, his methods were brutal - but they were effective. Also, his collectivization plan was pretty brilliant and would have worked had the peasants not been greedy and wanted more compensation. They ended up slaughtering their own livestock and burning their crops instead of giving them to the government, causing a famine that killed 7 million people and blaming Stalin for it.
So meh.
You know, by that same logic, we could call Hitler a great man for bringing Germany into the forefront in the post-Depression world.
As for Stalin's war efforts: A great man would have listened to the advice of his generals and the warnings of his messengers (thereby saving more lives, and gaining more time), yet Stalin refused to budge on the eve of Barbarossa, despite numerous warnings of the massing German divisions.
Stalin was a figurehead, not a great leader. He was neither a brilliant tactician nor a logistics genius. Scorched Earth was a smart move, but his "greatness" isn't measured by that alone. And any general can give the order "Deserters will be shot." Would have been down right un-Russian if he hadn't.
Hitler's defeat in Russia is traditionally blamed on his own ineptitude, not Stalin's "greantness." Napoleon made the same mistakes over a century earlier, and he actually gained Moscow. Winter, enemy idiocy, and overwhelming numbers were not Stalin's doing.