U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-11-2019, 11:28 AM
 
822 posts, read 619,486 times
Reputation: 1431

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WestPreussen View Post
And nazis were socialists themselves.
The Nazis were no more socialists than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy.

Hitler hated socialists. They were sending socialists and communists to concentration camps BEFORE they started doing it to the Jews.



The first regular Nazi concentration camp was Dachau, established in 1933. The first prisoners sent there were mainly socialists and communists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-11-2019, 11:36 AM
 
Location: MN
162 posts, read 282,454 times
Reputation: 170
Quote:
There should not be such thing as resigning from conventional attack at the expense of civilians. Soldiers are supposed to fight and die if neccesary, not civillians.
But don't civilians provide material and often moral support for their respective military? Or what are they but future soldiers or partisans? Why are "civilians" off limits? Would killing 100 soldiers who were conscripted be better than killing 10 civilians who were not?

Quote:
Living in Interwar and war period Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin was probably one of the worst places in time to live in. If not the worst.
Perhaps, but was this due to them or were they trying to find resolution to the crises? I mean can conditions of the RSFSR under Lenin or the Soviet Union under Stalin be squarely put on their shoulders?

Quote:
Still much higher chances of survival in 1930s Germany than in 1930s Soviet Union.
Which is a statement detached from any grounding. The survival chances of some random person would be better in Berlin in 1942 rather than in Leningrad for instance, therefore by the same logic would Germany be better (or "less bad") than the USSR, and by extension Hitler better than Stalin? Or another example, the survival chances of a slave were worse being with Spartacus in the Roman 3rd Servile War rather than under an aristocrat, should the Spartacan slaves renounced have just renounced their rebellion and capitulated, just always have been docile slaves and never bothered, or what?

Quote:
And nazis were socialists themselves.
Almost everyone in the 1920s and 30s who was not an aristocrat or liberal were calling themselves "socialists." After all the USSR renounced the "Great War" and was performing economic miracles in the 30s, the "West" was not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2019, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Preussen
385 posts, read 105,865 times
Reputation: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlarnla View Post
The Nazis were no more socialists than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy.

Hitler hated socialists. They were sending socialists and communists to concentration camps BEFORE they started doing it to the Jews.



The first regular Nazi concentration camp was Dachau, established in 1933. The first prisoners sent there were mainly socialists and communists.
Hitler and nazis were socialists. Not super far left socialists as that would make them communists but socialists neverthless. Hitler was very pro government intervene in economics. Under his rule country started to invest gigantic loads of money in national enterprises, to control and regulate prices and wages, to organize public labors. Government controled foreign trade. Nazis even made 4 year plan based on soviet one. He even made social programs like "radio for every german" and volkswagen brand which would be translated as vehicle for people. Every german was supposed to get radio and car. With radio he pretty much succeded, not with car. If Hitler hated socialist then he would have to hate himself as those things listed above are basics of being socialists. He hated american model of capitalism as much as he hated communism.

Last edited by WestPreussen; 11-11-2019 at 11:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2019, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Preussen
385 posts, read 105,865 times
Reputation: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post
But don't civilians provide material and often moral support for their respective military? Or what are they but future soldiers or partisans? Why are "civilians" off limits? Would killing 100 soldiers who were conscripted be better than killing 10 civilians who were not?
Yes, as it was their place to fight not civillians. Geneva rules for what a war crime is are very straightforward in this regard. Of course world war 2 was a total war from both sides. But war crime is a war crime regardless of one's motives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post
Perhaps, but was this due to them or were they trying to find resolution to the crises? I mean can conditions of the RSFSR under Lenin or the Soviet Union under Stalin be squarely put on their shoulders?

Which is a statement detached from any grounding. The survival chances of some random person would be better in Berlin in 1942 rather than in Leningrad for instance, therefore by the same logic would Germany be better (or "less bad") than the USSR, and by extension Hitler better than Stalin? Or another example, the survival chances of a slave were worse being with Spartacus in the Roman 3rd Servile War rather than under an aristocrat, should the Spartacan slaves renounced have just renounced their rebellion and capitulated, just always have been docile slaves and never bothered, or what?

Almost everyone in the 1920s and 30s who was not an aristocrat or liberal were calling themselves "socialists." After all the USSR renounced the "Great War" and was performing economic miracles in the 30s, the "West" was not.
Hitler and Stalin were equally bad in my opinion. I just point out to people that said that Hitler was worse that they would 100 percent choose to live under Hitler than Stalin. Life in Soviet Union in 1930s was a russian roullete and one huge gulag for its people, while in Germany if you were playing smart you could easily survive this period and emigrate if you did not like it.

Hitler was definitely socialist. I wrote arguments for that in my previous post, so I wont write them here again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2019, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,693 posts, read 14,659,985 times
Reputation: 16956
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85 View Post
There seems to be a consensus among many people that Josef Stalin was a far worse person and a tyrant than Adolf Hitler. Do you agree?

No. King Leopold II of Belgium was worse. He murdered 10 Million Africans. And to add insult to injury, stole everything from them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2019, 02:19 PM
 
11,137 posts, read 16,377,977 times
Reputation: 12750
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestPreussen View Post
Yes, as it was their place to fight not civillians. Geneva rules for what a war crime is are very straightforward in this regard. Of course world war 2 was a total war from both sides. But war crime is a war crime regardless of one's motives.



Hitler and Stalin were equally bad in my opinion. I just point out to people that said that Hitler was worse that they would 100 percent choose to live under Hitler than Stalin. Life in Soviet Union in 1930s was a russian roullete and one huge gulag for its people, while in Germany if you were playing smart you could easily survive this period and emigrate if you did not like it.

Hitler was definitely socialist. I wrote arguments for that in my previous post, so I wont write them here again.



No.

In one case, you have a "leader" that was put in high place by those in power with a sole purpose to "Drangh nah Ost" - Go East. This is how he succeeded in elections, this is how he had all kinds of donations to buy out population with ever so getting better standard of life, this is how he had such, sometimes miraculous, military successes, with Czech Republic - and it's weaponry - handed to him on platter, Poland was betrayed and Austria did zero resistance. Just look at the wide picture, all this is common knowledge. How amn came to power, who (including US capital) was sponsoring him and which direction he was constantly pressed to go to.
On the other hand, you have a man that inherited country, torn and ruined by civil war and unfathomable repressions of the 1917-1924, predominantly done by the 167 party leaders and their direct followers. 167 that were sent there from the US, yes, do your reserach. Leon Bronstein as their spearhead. Country, that was sold out to the Western capital by same Trozky and his cohorts, in form of concessions.Country that had deeply embedded 5th column. Both from the White Guard and from Trozkists, after he was kicked out.
Man that had to, basically, protect that country from entire world. Man who, in order to accomplish this, had to turn retarded backwater giant into advanced industrial and military power - what he, actually accomplished. Or, country would have been invaded and sold out right away.



Also, do not forget one simple fact. WW2 was not really war between Germany and USSR. It was war between West and USSR. USSR won. Not just won but, for years after, hindered West in its totalitarian global policies, with Stalin at the core of such resistance.

That in mind, there is NO WAY West will be favorable of him. Big money will be invested into turning him into a monster, history will be altered, traitors will be paid to write phony books and fake testimonies, like Solzhenitsyn.

So what you see and read generally available is, mostly, that exactly effort.
And this is from a man, who actually, unlike you, was born in that country and, even better - in Siberia, in family of the so called repressed people. Yet, I witnessed how much Stlain was loved by people and I, actually, grew with them, as they were still around. You do NOT get all that love based on being a monster, it simply does not work that way.
I', out of here, it's pointless, really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2019, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Preussen
385 posts, read 105,865 times
Reputation: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz View Post
No.

In one case, you have a "leader" that was put in high place by those in power with a sole purpose to "Drangh nah Ost" - Go East. This is how he succeeded in elections, this is how he had all kinds of donations to buy out population with ever so getting better standard of life, this is how he had such, sometimes miraculous, military successes, with Czech Republic - and it's weaponry - handed to him on platter, Poland was betrayed and Austria did zero resistance. Just look at the wide picture, all this is common knowledge. How amn came to power, who (including US capital) was sponsoring him and which direction he was constantly pressed to go to.
On the other hand, you have a man that inherited country, torn and ruined by civil war and unfathomable repressions of the 1917-1924, predominantly done by the 167 party leaders and their direct followers. 167 that were sent there from the US, yes, do your reserach. Leon Bronstein as their spearhead. Country, that was sold out to the Western capital by same Trozky and his cohorts, in form of concessions.Country that had deeply embedded 5th column. Both from the White Guard and from Trozkists, after he was kicked out.
Man that had to, basically, protect that country from entire world. Man who, in order to accomplish this, had to turn retarded backwater giant into advanced industrial and military power - what he, actually accomplished. Or, country would have been invaded and sold out right away.



Also, do not forget one simple fact. WW2 was not really war between Germany and USSR. It was war between West and USSR. USSR won. Not just won but, for years after, hindered West in its totalitarian global policies, with Stalin at the core of such resistance.

That in mind, there is NO WAY West will be favorable of him. Big money will be invested into turning him into a monster, history will be altered, traitors will be paid to write phony books and fake testimonies, like Solzhenitsyn.

So what you see and read generally available is, mostly, that exactly effort.
And this is from a man, who actually, unlike you, was born in that country and, even better - in Siberia, in family of the so called repressed people. Yet, I witnessed how much Stlain was loved by people and I, actually, grew with them, as they were still around. You do NOT get all that love based on being a monster, it simply does not work that way.
I', out of here, it's pointless, really.
Plenty of people cried on Kim Ir Sen funeral, does not change the fact that he was a monster like Stalin.
Russian mentality is well known around the world, that they would rather be global power but poor than being rich but meaningless on global stage. With that mentality Stalin could have a lot of fans in Russia. He made Russian into global power. It does not matter to people that they were starving and could not afford many things that were standard in the west. But hey, you can be both. Have a high standard of living and be global superpower. Just take a look at the United States of America. The country that defeated Soviet Union at the end of the day and just in a span of not even fourty years after Stalin's death.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2019, 05:51 PM
 
2,959 posts, read 1,122,120 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85 View Post
I am reading The last days of hitler, written by an English historian who researched and wrote the book right after the war ended. It reinvigorated my interest in WW2, and I ended up watching many documentaries.
There seems to be a consensus among many people that Josef Stalin was a far worse person and a tyrant than Adolf Hitler. Do you agree?

Personally speaking, whilst Stalin was a sociopath who sacrificed his troops unnecessarily and even killed many of his own people, I don't see how he was worse than Hitler. If we use this hypothesis of killing millions of his own people then shoudnt China's Mao also be included?

Hitler "ruled" for barely 12 years and he did immense damage. Stalin ruled for much longer. I can't imagine if Hitler won the war and ruled for as long as Stalin did, what he'd have done, or how many millions more would have perished. Hitler was far worse imo.
Actually, Mao gets mentioned a fair bit. The number of people that died during his reign exceeds that of either Hitler or Stalin. The Cultural Revolution alone attests to that.

However, I agree with the poster that said that death toll is a poor way to measure atrocity levels as there are numerous factors that come into play.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2019, 08:29 PM
Status: "Trump Resistance - The (establishment) Empire Strikes Back" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
17,266 posts, read 6,778,355 times
Reputation: 13329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident View Post
Actually, Mao gets mentioned a fair bit. The number of people that died during his reign exceeds that of either Hitler or Stalin. The Cultural Revolution alone attests to that.
I thought the Cultural Revolution was the evolution from Baroque to Classical to Romantic music. I'm confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident View Post
However, I agree with the poster that said that death toll is a poor way to measure atrocity levels as there are numerous factors that come into play.
Only to a point is it OK to consider motives, i.e. whether the leader intended atrocities or those were collateral damage from poorly considered policies. However, keep in mind that Lenin altered or slowed his course in collectivization whereas Stalin stayed the course. The latter resulted in millions of deaths.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2019, 08:34 PM
 
2,959 posts, read 1,122,120 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
I thought the Cultural Revolution was the evolution from Baroque to Classical to Romantic music. I'm confused.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

That's just the tip of the iceberg though.

Quote:
Only to a point is it OK to consider motives, i.e. whether the leader intended atrocities or those were collateral damage from poorly considered policies. However, keep in mind that Lenin altered or slowed his course in collectivization whereas Stalin stayed the course. The latter resulted in millions of deaths.
I don't disagree. To further elaborate on your point, Stalin was trying to turn an agricultural society into an industrial powerhouse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top