U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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 04-28-2013, 10:55 AM
 
Location: City of Angels
2,934 posts, read 4,992,951 times
Reputation: 2251

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Yes he did.
He was not in any way a head of democratic state, but a ruthless dictator, who was watching out for the interests of his state. Once he knew that the alliance with traditional allies of Russia - France and England - was not going to work out ( he tried to hold negotiations with them BEFORE turning to Hitler you know,) and once he realized ( after Munich agreement) that all these countries were doing was appeasing Hitler ( I am pretty sure he was aware that Poland took part in partition of Czechoslovakia as well,) he did the next logical thing under the circumstances; signed the pact with Hitler and took as much territory as he was allowed to, because history showed that those vast territories played an important key factor for Russia's security and survival.
or he wanted to use it as a platform for his eventual invasion of europe.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2013, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Guangzhou, China
10,212 posts, read 14,178,408 times
Reputation: 11782
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
According to my observations, it's the other way around.
The radical right wing with their desire to "bring the order" is closer to Stalin's nature than the left wing.
Yeah, the "progressives" seem to be criticized most commonly for wanting people to have too many rights - like, for gay people to marry, or for accused criminals to have the rights promised by the constitution... the radical/hardline right want to selectively decide who gets rights and who doesn't, generally based off of economic, religious, ethnic, racial, sexual, parental, or national markers.

Contrary to what right-wing blogs and media try to push, one side just wants people to be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as it hurts no one else; the other side wants to make a litmus test to see how "American" you are, and for everyone else to pay for not being their ideal. One sounds a hell of a lot more like Uncle Joe than the other.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2013, 10:58 AM
 
18,314 posts, read 15,376,318 times
Reputation: 8040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komodo666 View Post
Apart from being a mannic and sick sociopath, he was an atrocious leader. The fact that he won the war was due to: Russian people, Cold Weather and the extension and magnitude of the USSR.
Not quite so, because you are missing one important factor in this victory, namely - the industrialization of Russia, which took place shortly BEFORE the WWII. If Russia were to remain 90% agricultural state, ( legacy of Russian Monarchy,) they wouldn't have a chance against such technologically advanced country as Germany. And Stalin was behind this industrialization, as deadly and costly as it was, and as paranoid as he was.
So you should look at Stalin in the context of those times in all complexity of situation, not just in context of the right-wing propaganda.
Hope this helps.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2013, 11:01 AM
 
381 posts, read 820,348 times
Reputation: 289
Naw...we are talking about "caviar progressives" in Europe. Stalin and Chavez Wanabees. Weirdos that dress as Vietcongs and were in favour of Saddam Hussein.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2013, 11:03 AM
 
381 posts, read 820,348 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Not quite so, because you are missing one important factor in this victory, namely - the industrialization of Russia, which took place shortly BEFORE the WWII. If Russia were to remain 90% agricultural state, ( legacy of Russian Monarchy,) they wouldn't have a chance against such technologically advanced country as Germany. And Stalin was behind this industrialization, as deadly and costly as it was, and as paranoid as he was.
So you should look at Stalin in the context of those times in all complexity of situation, not just in context of the right-wing propaganda.
Hope this helps.

Russia already was an Industrial Giant before 1918...and the ones in charge of the Soviet War Machinery in the Urals were surviving engineers from the Zarist past.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2013, 11:14 AM
 
254 posts, read 216,860 times
Reputation: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komodo666 View Post
Russia already was an Industrial Giant before 1918...and the ones in charge of the Soviet War Machinery in the Urals were surviving engineers from the Zarist past.
Poland beat the Soviets head to head in 1921

Stalin tag teamed and set up control for the next 40 years
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2013, 11:22 AM
 
18,314 posts, read 15,376,318 times
Reputation: 8040
Quote:
Originally Posted by foadi View Post
or he wanted to use it as a platform for his eventual invasion of europe.
No one could still explain to me in a rational manner, why would Stalin ( or any other Russian ruler for this matter) ever wanted to invade Europe, while Europeans invading Russia ( be that Napoleon or Hitler) was quite a logical thing. Russia has huge territory rich in natural resources; if managed properly (at least once in history, ) it could have been one of the most self-sufficient countries in the world. And since Russians could never establish an order and prosperity in their own land, where they never know for sure what's going on in one place or the other, why on Earth would they want to go and conquer Europe on top of that? Plus, if they'd conquer Western Europe, where would they go to get away from their own craziness, where they'd get all their luxury items, and what they'd ponder and complain about while defining their own national identity?
No, Russia was never a real threat to Europe before the WWII with Stalin at helm including, but Europe that was poor both in lands and resources was always more of a threat to Russia.

Last edited by erasure; 04-28-2013 at 12:22 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2013, 11:22 AM
 
5,722 posts, read 6,418,370 times
Reputation: 4538
Plague or cholera...

As a Norwegian, I think Hitler was worse. He invaded Norway in 1940 and deported many Norwegian citizens to KZ camps in Germany or Poland. The Russians, on the other hand, liberated Northern Norway in 1945.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2013, 11:43 AM
 
18,314 posts, read 15,376,318 times
Reputation: 8040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komodo666 View Post
Russia already was an Industrial Giant before 1918...and the ones in charge of the Soviet War Machinery in the Urals were surviving engineers from the Zarist past.
You don't know history good enough.
In spite of the economic boom at the end of the 19th century Russia was still lagging far behind the European countries, and since the majority of investments in her industry were foreign capital, she was basically in semi-colonial situation.
By the time of Socialist revolution it was still 90% agricultural country.

You didn't do your home work, so here is something for you to read...

RussianLegacy.com | Russian History - E. Prussakov - Tsarist Economy
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2013, 11:48 AM
 
18,314 posts, read 15,376,318 times
Reputation: 8040
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmptrwlt View Post
Plague or cholera...

As a Norwegian, I think Hitler was worse. He invaded Norway in 1940 and deported many Norwegian citizens to KZ camps in Germany or Poland. The Russians, on the other hand, liberated Northern Norway in 1945.
I think it ALWAYS depends on whom you ask, how well-informed the person is, and where he/she originally hails from.
The poll in history forum shows that the majority of Americans think that Stalin was worse.
If you ask Europeans however, the results might be quite different.
Rate this post positively 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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top