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, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
4,191 posts, read 2,408,919 times
Reputation: 2850

Advertisements

If we are going to be bringing up Truman, shouldn't we also discuss Churchill and his policies that killed millions in India?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2019, 05:21 AM
 
Location: Preussen
385 posts, read 105,865 times
Reputation: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94 View Post
If we are going to be bringing up Truman, shouldn't we also discuss Churchill and his policies that killed millions in India?
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it"- Winston Churchill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2019, 09:24 AM
 
Location: MN
162 posts, read 282,454 times
Reputation: 170
Quote:
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.
State intervention in economy is only a crude definition of socialism. I mean the wouldn't Roman emperors, Franklin Roosevelt, and Bismarck also qualify as being socialists then?
Quote:
If Hitler hated socialist then he would have to hate himself as those things listed above are basics of being socialists.
And when the Nazis acquired state power did they do with it? They suppressed the more "socialistic" wings of the party, viz. the Strasserites and SA, and went into business with the largest firms; they never handed them over to the workers
Quote:
He hated american model of capitalism as much as he hated communism.
Granted Hitler was definitely no communist or liberal, his economics seem to gear towards populist state-capitalism rather than socialism.
Quote:
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.
I've heard it said that the ultimate war crime is to lose. While even targeting civilians may be underhanded, I and many others believe it can be justifiable. The gentlemanly Geneva convention rules seem to be mostly applicable in cases of "respectable" wars; however war is seldom gentlemanly or respectable and often not fought between well-defined classes of soldiers and states. Only losers are really held accountable to those rules.
Quote:
Hitler and Stalin were equally bad in my opinion.
In my opinion, one should take account for what they were attempting to achieve. For the Nazis it was what? A unified "German people" to exterminate "Judeo-Bolshevism" and take the Slavs as servants. On the other hand, the Bolsheviks had an emancipatory ideology, to free workers from capitalists and abolish private property and establish an industrialized economy based upon needs and abilities.
Quote:
I just point out to people that said that Hitler was worse that they would 100 percent choose to live under Hitler than Stalin.
That depends on the person though. And being so abstract really says nothing about Stalin or Hitler at all. Would you rather rather live in Denmark or Rwanda? Almost everyone would choose Denmark, but that hardly qualifies anything about their respective leaderships.

Quote:
Life in Soviet Union in 1930s was a russian roullete and one huge gulag for its people,
No it wasn't. For most people it was a time of unprecedented social mobility.

Quote:
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.
I am not Russian but I find the Soviet Union - Stalin included- deserving of some respect. The Soviet Union started in the 1920s with a backwards subsistence economy wrecked by world war, civil war, and foreign intervention and had what? One allied state, Mongolia? In 1917 the Tsarist empire buckled under a portion of the Reichswehr (+allies), in 1945 the Soviet Union, nearly alone, was victorious over the massive bulk of the Wehrmacht (+allies) and the USSR at the time was quite a bit smaller than the Russian Empire. What the Soviet Union achieved militarily alone far outweighs what the Tsarist empire could have ever achieved. And the Soviet Union saw a huge increase in the living standards for most people, and that's in spite of being encircled, invaded, and starting with a subsistence economy.

Quote:
Have a high standard of living and be global superpower. Just take a look at the United States of America.
The Soviet Union never had banana republics with which to exploit, the client states it acquired were for security, but they were more or less economic burdens; not to mention the US already had large industries in the early twentieth century which were untouched with bombs.
Quote:
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.
Stalin probably extended the lifetime of the Soviet Union by quite a bit. If one looks where he started, an encircled nation with a backwards economy, then its really quite a feat it lasted so long and still achieved what it did. Stalin stabilized the Soviet Union, which was inherently unstable; while costly and perhaps a bit needlessly so at times, it was the only way for the it to survive.
Quote:
The latter resulted in millions of deaths.
Stalin stayed the course of the NEP initially, until he could no longer do so. Industrialization is always quite traumatic and unstable, but in the "West" this happened in the 19th century, but it was no less traumatic. Stalin had to industrialize Russia quickly or they would be overrun by one of the Western powers at some point all of which were itching to kill the Soviet Union at some point. Germany ended up being the one to attempt to do so, and lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2019, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Preussen
385 posts, read 105,865 times
Reputation: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post
State intervention in economy is only a crude definition of socialism. I mean the wouldn't Roman emperors, Franklin Roosevelt, and Bismarck also qualify as being socialists then? And when the Nazis acquired state power did they do with it? They suppressed the more "socialistic" wings of the party, viz. the Strasserites and SA, and went into business with the largest firms; they never handed them over to the workers Granted Hitler was definitely no communist or liberal, his economics seem to gear towards populist state-capitalism rather than socialism.
I've heard it said that the ultimate war crime is to lose. While even targeting civilians may be underhanded, I and many others believe it can be justifiable. The gentlemanly Geneva convention rules seem to be mostly applicable in cases of "respectable" wars; however war is seldom gentlemanly or respectable and often not fought between well-defined classes of soldiers and states. Only losers are really held accountable to those rules. In my opinion, one should take account for what they were attempting to achieve. For the Nazis it was what? A unified "German people" to exterminate "Judeo-Bolshevism" and take the Slavs as servants. On the other hand, the Bolsheviks had an emancipatory ideology, to free workers from capitalists and abolish private property and establish an industrialized economy based upon needs and abilities.
That depends on the person though. And being so abstract really says nothing about Stalin or Hitler at all. Would you rather rather live in Denmark or Rwanda? Almost everyone would choose Denmark, but that hardly qualifies anything about their respective leaderships.
Yes Roosvelt was of course socialist. Bismarck hated socialism, but he understood that it was inevitable, so he did some socialist reforms in order to prevent socialists from gaining power. Just because Strasser was practically communist does not make Hitler capitalist. There "light socialists" and there are hardcore socialists like communists. I don't understand what is your point. War crime is a war crime, therefore the one who commits a war crime is a war criminal. Very simple. If you steal something just because you are hungry, you are a thief anyway. Nobody cares about your motives. You get sentenced to jail. What nazis wanted to do to slavs is what you guys had already done to amerindians. And not that far back. Russia was supposed to be to them what India was to United Kingdom. They wanted to do what allies already had done. While I find it rather condemnig. It always amuses me how allies completely overlook the fact that what they hate about nazis, they already had done it themselves, just little bit earlier. And living in Denmark and Rwanda is strictly economical perspective. What I meant by comparision of living in Germany and Soviet Union was not from economical perspective but perspective of survival.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post
No it wasn't. For most people it was a time of unprecedented social mobility.
You had to get permission from authorities to be able to leave your area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post
I am not Russian but I find the Soviet Union - Stalin included- deserving of some respect. The Soviet Union started in the 1920s with a backwards subsistence economy wrecked by world war, civil war, and foreign intervention and had what? One allied state, Mongolia? In 1917 the Tsarist empire buckled under a portion of the Reichswehr (+allies), in 1945 the Soviet Union, nearly alone, was victorious over the massive bulk of the Wehrmacht (+allies) and the USSR at the time was quite a bit smaller than the Russian Empire. What the Soviet Union achieved militarily alone far outweighs what the Tsarist empire could have ever achieved. And the Soviet Union saw a huge increase in the living standards for most people, and that's in spite of being encircled, invaded, and starting with a subsistence economy.
What is impressive in having multiplied times of advantages in people, material, soldiers and loosing millions more people than your opponent? It is pathetic, not impressive. The standard of living was improved signaficantly in 90 percent of countries during 20th century. It would have happened, whatever governemnt had been in charge in Russia. But not every country had to pay a price of tens of million people dead to achieve that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post
The Soviet Union never had banana republics with which to exploit, the client states it acquired were for security, but they were more or less economic burdens; not to mention the US already had large industries in the early twentieth century which were untouched with bombs. Stalin probably extended the lifetime of the Soviet Union by quite a bit. If one looks where he started, an encircled nation with a backwards economy, then its really quite a feat it lasted so long and still achieved what it did. Stalin stabilized the Soviet Union, which was inherently unstable; while costly and perhaps a bit needlessly so at times, it was the only way for the it to survive.
Stalin stayed the course of the NEP initially, until he could no longer do so. Industrialization is always quite traumatic and unstable, but in the "West" this happened in the 19th century, but it was no less traumatic. Stalin had to industrialize Russia quickly or they would be overrun by one of the Western powers at some point all of which were itching to kill the Soviet Union at some point. Germany ended up being the one to attempt to do so, and lost.
Bolsheviks gained power thanks to westerners. Lenin was a german agent. It was west that made them. And bolsheviks were much more threat to west than west was to bolsheviks. Their ideology was to spread as much as they could worldwide. Had it not been for Germany having to fight two fronts world war, Soviet Union would be finished very fast, much faster than Russian empire was in first world war. Stalin was so clever that he killed his commanders in 1930., which had it not been for forced german intervention in balkans and very early winter would have cost him his empire. That is how clever this guy was. Much more luck than brain.

Last edited by WestPreussen; 11-12-2019 at 09:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2019, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Raleigh
8,066 posts, read 6,130,147 times
Reputation: 9830
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestPreussen View Post
You would rather live in 1930s Germany than 1930s Soviet Union. Believe me. Your chances of survival would be much better.
<>
Two old Jews meet up back in Germany years after the end of the War. One asks the other, "You look bad, where have you been?"
"I was in the Gulag as a political enemy of the State. By the way, you don't look so good yourself? Where have you been?"
"Hitler had me in his camps for 10 years."
"My gosh, what did you do?"
"Nothing."
"Ah, you're lucky, in Russia you got 30 years for 'nothing' ."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2019, 12:16 PM
 
Location: SE Estonia
2,740 posts, read 1,492,042 times
Reputation: 1006
Yeah, me thinks in fact it is a question of a worldview a bit. Each person has his or her own view of the world, often the person himself/herself does not even realize his or her own worldview and often fails to manifest it. But still - a person has a worldview.
Stalin, despite all the bad things he did, was a left-wing politician, albeit quite extreme. He is considered to be worse than Hitler by people who are themselves right-wingers, by those who despise leftist ideas. Hitler in turn is considered to be less bad by those who have nationalist ideas (prone to xenophobia) and who despise the leftist ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2019, 04:19 PM
 
2,959 posts, read 1,122,120 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestPreussen View Post
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it"- Winston Churchill.
History is written by the winners. Had Hitler won in WW2, people would be singing a different tune today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2019, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Preussen
385 posts, read 105,865 times
Reputation: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident View Post
History is written by the winners. Had Hitler won in WW2, people would be singing a different tune today.
That is truth. Look at the example of the first world war. Germany used poison gas on enemy'ssoldiers, Germany was made out to be evil because of that. During the same war United Kingdom used blockade to blackmail Germany into surrender knowingly that it will cause massive death toll among civillian population(and it did, at least 600 000 civillians died of starvation because of that blockade) yet this blockade is considered normal act of war and using poison gas on soldiers is not. Everyone (and rightly) knows about Holocaust, but how many people do know about begnal famine? Had Germany won either war it would be the other way around. The winners write the rules and history.

Last edited by WestPreussen; 11-12-2019 at 05:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2019, 07:32 PM
509
 
3,298 posts, read 4,251,386 times
Reputation: 4010
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post

............... No it wasn't. For most people it was a time of unprecedented social mobility...................

.
Social mobility straight into a mass grave.

My father came from a rather extended family. They ALL died, with the exception of ONE brother in the 1930's due to Stalin's mass killing of Ukrainians in the 1930's.

My father became an homeless orphan at the age of 13. He survived by hiding out in the swamps and literally killing ducks for his survival.

It is sad that people make apologies for mass murderers and the political policies that support such people. The excuses people make for killings of millions and millions of people is just sad.

Even the New York Times thought the murder of 10 million Ukrainians was NOT NEWS.

IF there is to be any hope for mankind....we need to understand the basic concepts of good and evil.

AND NOT make excuses for evil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2019, 07:47 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 bcgr View Post
I've heard it said that the ultimate war crime is to lose. While even targeting civilians may be underhanded, I and many others believe it can be justifiable. The gentlemanly Geneva convention rules seem to be mostly applicable in cases of "respectable" wars; however war is seldom gentlemanly or respectable and often not fought between well-defined classes of soldiers and states. Only losers are really held accountable to those rules.
I mostly agree, and penned War, to Humane, Must be Total. A short excerpt:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopeless. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post
In my opinion, one should take account for what they were attempting to achieve. For the Nazis it was what? A unified "German people" to exterminate "Judeo-Bolshevism" and take the Slavs as servants. On the other hand, the Bolsheviks had an emancipatory ideology, to free workers from capitalists and abolish private property and establish an industrialized economy based upon needs and abilities.
That depends on the person though. And being so abstract really says nothing about Stalin or Hitler at all. Would you rather rather live in Denmark or Rwanda? Almost everyone would choose Denmark, but that hardly qualifies anything about their respective leaderships.
The ideology might have been stirring. Stalin did not believe any of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgr View Post
I am not Russian but I find the Soviet Union - Stalin included- deserving of some respect. The Soviet Union started in the 1920s with a backwards subsistence economy wrecked by world war, civil war, and foreign intervention and had what? One allied state, Mongolia? In 1917 the Tsarist empire buckled under a portion of the Reichswehr (+allies), in 1945 the Soviet Union, nearly alone, was victorious over the massive bulk of the Wehrmacht (+allies) and the USSR at the time was quite a bit smaller than the Russian Empire. What the Soviet Union achieved militarily alone far outweighs what the Tsarist empire could have ever achieved. And the Soviet Union saw a huge increase in the living standards for most people, and that's in spite of being encircled, invaded, and starting with a subsistence economy.

The Soviet Union never had banana republics with which to exploit, the client states it acquired were for security, but they were more or less economic burdens; not to mention the US already had large industries in the early twentieth century which were untouched with bombs. Stalin probably extended the lifetime of the Soviet Union by quite a bit. If one looks where he started, an encircled nation with a backwards economy, then its really quite a feat it lasted so long and still achieved what it did. Stalin stabilized the Soviet Union, which was inherently unstable; while costly and perhaps a bit needlessly so at times, it was the only way for the it to survive.
He gained economic advancement by confiscating the production of farmers and selling it for hard currency. And then after the war by milking his "banana republic" colonies or satellites. Their citizenry, being Western-oriented, was harder working than that of Russia, which never really had a work ethic.
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