Stalin's Contributions

For the record;
-I disagree with essentially every one of your posts, but that is not why I posted.
-I've stated my opinion of Allied bombing (and other topics such as the Atomic bombings and unrestricted submarine warfare) in previous threads. If you really want to pick a bone here, feel free to look them up

As for why I posted that message, I was merely stating my opinion on taking a dubious source and calling it credible. Its not so much the content -- its the context, the way in which it is presented, the source from which its taken and its intended effect.

For example, I'm sure on some page in Mein Kampf, Hitler says something completely reasonable. Does mean I can quote that page to support an argument? Sure, but it would add nothing and instead detract from everything else that I said. You mention 'commie sites' -- there is no 'hypocrisy' here -- it depends on the factors that I mentioned above. Another example; If a 'commie site' supports something like reinstating Stalin by whitewashing his regime, I wouldn't call that credible. However, if it instead does something like honoring the Red Army (with the 'commie' connection being some hammer and sickles on the header), it could be perfectly acceptable.

As I said, just my 2 cents. I wasn't planning on getting involved here as this thread has wandered much too far off topic, so I'll extract myself from this conversation.

 

Disagree why? Your logic has to be the same one lwd is using: "the West already did horrible things, but the Axis in WWII were worst!". Or something like: "the West is a lesser evil than Nazism and Communism". I know that. I'm simply saying that the so-called "knights of justice" - the Allied countries from WWII to today - have a LONG list of horrible things done against human rights directly or indirectly (not to mention immoral actions in practically all fields). For example, the United States was decisive to the implementation of a dictatorship in Brazil in 1964 (which they also supported after it came to power). I don't care if the Americans feared Communism here or if their interests were treatned by what our democratic government and people wanted, but the fact is the Americans put their noses here in the same way the Soviets put their noses in the countries they "liberate" during WWII. Both the Soviets and Americans should not have done what they did.

I understand your criticism, it was indeed not the best source to be used. I found that article in Google and didn't verify the site's nature. Even so, some common sense to read the arguments from the article together with the criticism would be better than just try to supress the content due to it's source. I also would like to say that I'm against "affirmative action" policies only for Jews and the Holocaust. In the same way that there are Holocaust deniers, there are deniers of attrocities of the Soviet and other regimes. I understand that the objetive of such policies in the case of the Holocaust is to prevent the grow of Neo-Nazism. But if that's the case, similar policies for deniers of Communist crimes also should exist (we also don't want new Stalins, isn't?). The EU has already advance in this way, with a day to commemorate the victmins of both regimes, which IIRC is in the same one the MR Pact was signed. The Americans, Russians and practically all the other democratic countries also should introduce similar days to remember their victmins. And most importantly: judge and punish the government agents envolved in humans rights violations (including those agents from contemporany violations). All of this would be very noble, but try put those things in practice.

 

Gentlemen, the actions of the West and the Warsaw Pact post war, while facinating, are wildly off topic here. If such a thread is desired I am sure it would be entertaining and probably short lived. If we must discuss this, Start a new thread in the Free Fire Zone. Otherwise let us stick to the original topic.

If we can not, this thread may need to close.

 

I was preaparing an extenive post pointing out the numerous flaws, inaccuracies, and illogical statements made by one of the posters here when I read this. Thinking about it I realized most of those posts are off topic. Since some of them contain assertions that are not only lacking in fact and logic but ones I have serious problems with and others are mischaracteriztions of my statments I'm reluctant to let them stand. So while it's a lot of work I would really appreciate it if the off topic posts could be deleted. That would take care of the above problems and perhaps encourage people to stay on topic.

 

I feel your pain lwd. I too was redy to reply myself after a bit of research (about an hour, which is an eternity for me ) when I realized this had nothing to do with Stalin's actions during the war. I hope some of your work can be salvaged for this thread.

I will look into splitting off some portion of this thread (oh the pain, the pain) into something more suitable if possible where the post war actions of the victors can be debated.

 

We started veering off couse back on page 3. As many tried to stay on topic we have a thread, that if split, I fear will become completely incoherent.

Your full reply to the post you have problems with might serve as a good original post for a new thread.

Just a thought.

 

OK, you asked for it. Leave it, move it, edited, or delete it as you see fit.
It may have to be split into multiple parts as there's a limit to the number of quotes this forum allows (having hit it before).

That very much depends on your POV doesn't it? Post war the Communist killed a lot of people possibly more than the Nazi's did in WW2.

You point out that once Stalin was gone the Soviets were less homicidal then suggest that post Hitler the Germans would have continued with Hitlers program unmodified. Or are you suggesting Hitler would have lasted for some considerable time after the war?

Guess what they did and he did of course the West was in. Of course there are serious questions as to whether or not Germany would even have attacked Poland at least for several years if the Soviets hadn't agreed to split it much less if they had made an announcment similar to the Franco-British one.

That in no way indicates that the US and British "loved" Stalin at least with any reasonable defintion of the word "love".

Hitler's guilt may belong to him alone but both he and Stalin along with the Japanese ruling council shoulder most of the blame for starting World War II. The allies may have contributed to letting the situation go "out of control" but they did so in large part becasuse they didn't believe someone would want to start a war like that. Then there's the question of what options they had.

This may actually mostly be on topic. Part II may be less so. It will follow soon.

 

Cor....thats good...I thought Lwd was talking about me...Seems the right place to close it then...Or at least if Jenisch want to carry on he can post about South America and the American century or the plan for 2020....etc...on there...There is an argument there, but its not really for ww2 forums Jenisch. In the stump you can compare the actions of today, yesterday to ww2 even the zulu wars for us Brits. But its not the main topic on a thread on Stalin.

Belasar...please feel free to delete this post too if necessary.

 

I did indeed reach the quote limit. Some of what follows had to be delted from part 1.

Causes a bit of cognitive disonance with your world view doesn't it?

Indeed. Some much more or much less than others but there's also the fact that the actions of some contries and some individuals are much worse than those of others.

So you don't think it's bad that some countries murder millions of their own people or start wars that also kill millions and others don't? That seems like a very extreme case of the "moral equivalancy" falacy.

Isn't that what threads like this encourage poeple to do? Yet you seem to take odds with anyone who comes to different conclusions than you do.

No but they came pretty close didn't they? Indeed a case could be made for Communist contries enslaving their population and they certainly killed a lot of them along with others. They didn't focus on Jews true but they did on "class enemies" which the Nazis didn't focus on.

Not just those who opposed it but those who the leaders thought might oppose it or those who underlings were willing to say might oppose it ... etc.

Was it? Certainly not from the view point of the Polish or those of most of the residents of the Baltic states and since it set the ground for Barbarossa from hind sight it doesn't appear to have been in the best interest of the Soviets either.

So many generalities and ill defined terms that this statement is essentially useless.

Actually you are not. You are simply interpreting everything in your own personal worldview (and IMO it is a very warped one) and denying all the evidence to the contrary.

That's sure not the impression I've gotten from your posts.

At the posting limit for the number of quotes so will post this then on to part II

 

Part III.

Got some sources on that? Not that I doubt some such events happened but I'd like to see just what you are talking about and how often.

Not really. For one thing countries do not "concuct torture" individuals do. They may or may not be sanctioned by their governements to do so (or it can be the "don't tell me how you got the info" sort of thing). However in the case of the US there was a legally defined meaning to "torture" and this was not violated often. Of course the whole "harsh interogation" thing was a mistake because there are better ways to get the information so these actions even if they weren't torture were "wrong" from a pragmatic as well as a moral postion.

Explain to me how that is on the same level as the Holocaust? or even the US "enhanced interrogation" initiatives.

Really? They why did you state earlier that the Axis and the allies were more or less the same?

??? This was only marginally coherent but you seem to be suggesting that citizens of various countries are not aware that their countries are not perfect. That does not conform to reality.

I'm not sure who you think is saying the Allies are the "knights of justice" but it's clear that Nazis were bad/evil and the Western allies at least were to a great extent their antithesis.

Really? Then why do you keep posting stuff that is clearly politically motivated.

For the most part the allies didn't bomb civilian targets though. They target sitest of military or industrial (and thus military) signifgance. Not only was attacking pure civilian targets "agaisnt the rules" it didn't make sense. Dresden was a military target and was attacked as such. And frankly your opinion as to what is and isn't "terrorism" is suspect at best and I suspect from the POV of many here of very little value.

Looks like it's close to time for part IV.

 

Really? I don't see anyone claiming Communism is a dream regime and most of us realize that democracies aren't perfect. So I guess this qualifies as another straw man.

Actually many of the thigs you claimed are either disputeable or outright wrong. Some of the rest are incoherent so it's hard to tell.

??? Well to start off with some of the US interventions in Latin America have been humanitarian in nature. I.e. good. Others are neutral and some others were under some critieria "wrong" or bad. I think you will find that we realize that countries will act in their own best interest. However what you seem to fail to realize is that some activies of this sort may be in the interest of the country concerned or its citizens and some of the others may be neutral. You also don't seem to differentiat the magnitude of the effect equating plans that were never executed to events which leat to the deaths of thousands or even millions.

??? Your thesis that all are equivalant would mean that none are more guilty than others i.e. if we're all as guilty no matter what we do what does it matter?

You can't participate in a war without doing "horrible things" to equate the West with the Nazi or the Communist which you have done is a falisy. Furthermore using your own term like "knights of justice" and implying that it is our term is awfully close to a "straw man" and neither an ethical nor a logical debating technique. Failure to acknowledge that the severity and the size of actions are different is also of some import. You have come close to comparing the Holocaust to Northwood at least by inference and not acknowledging that they are incredibly different. There is also a difference between direct and indirect which again you seem to equate above.

Care to share with us just how decisive US actions were? The US clearly supported the coup but was it "decisive"? If so why?

I'll agree that neither should have acted as they did. On the otherhand there was a considerable difference between the Soviet actions and those of the US. Eastern Europe was occupied by botht the Red army and Soviet police and the governments there took their orders directly from Moscow. Not quite the same thing as happened in Latin America is it?

Actually it has happened in the US and in Britain to I beleive. Not all are convicted and punished true but it has happened.

 

Alfredo Astiz...eventually got his cumuppence...even if it was not the Brits who sorted him out...They don't always fly away free.

 

It was a good discussion, I will take lessons from it. But ok moderator, I will quit it now.

 

Thanks for the support.

Still I feel that even the Baltics have been a bit unfairly treated, keeping in mind their devastating situations of having been invaded by both evil dictatorships. It's very easy to criticize the tiny countries and individuals struggling to simply survive, when looking things back after 70 years from big countries, which never (well - for centuries anyway) have experienced similar hardships.

One needs only to look at the population statistics of those countries before and after the war to realise, what their citizens had to go through.

 

I don't have to imagine anything, since it did happen in reality - no scandal!

Britain, France and the USA divided Europe with Stalin in spheres of influence (when the war was on) and provided critical materials to the USSR to fight Germany. Almost exactly the same thing!

Otherwise I agree with you.

 

As I wrote before, the idea to exterminate the Jews was not the original idea of the Nazis. It is difficult to compere the evils of the Communism in peace time and the Nazism in war, since those are very different situations.

We know for sure, that the Communism was always lethal, peace or war . However we don't know for sure what the Nazism would really have been like in peace time after the war. We know for sure, that the Communism was far worse in the peace time berfore the war.

Commies did exterminate and enslave several nationalities before and during the war - only because of their nationalities. Surely you are aware of this?

 

Well, yes. But this was probably because the West was already under great pressure to fight Germany in the conditions they were after the BoF. Had France not have fallen, however, the West posture with the Soviets could have been well different. After the MR Pact, the Soviets were viewed as active supporters of Hitler by Paris and London, and this is why Operation Pike (to bomb the Caucasus oil fields in 1940) was already in advanced state by the time France fell. If we considerate the US support or even envolvement, the Commies could have been well kicked out of Eastern Europe if they didn't agree to withdrawal after Germany fell. If we considerate that Japan could have well remained neutral in this sceanario, the combined American, British and France military against the USSR was indeed capable of intimidate it.

 

Some additions to my earlier post. Of course this is only a small portion of the soviet atrocities:

"Looking at the entire period of Stalin's rule, one can list: Poles (1939–1941 and 1944–1945), Romanians (1941 and 1944–1953), Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians (1941 and 1945–1949), Volga Germans (1941–1945), Ingrian Finns (1929–1931 and 1935–1939), Finnish people in Karelia (1940–1941, 1944), Crimean Tatars, Crimean Greeks(1944) and Caucasus Greeks (1949-50),[12]Kalmyks, Balkars, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Karapapaks, Far East Koreans (1937), Chechens and Ingushs (1944). Shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, Stalin conducted a series of deportations on a huge scale which profoundly affected the ethnic map of the Soviet Union.[2] It is estimated that between 1941 and 1949 nearly 3.3 million were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics.[13] By some estimates up to 43% of the resettled population died of diseases and malnutrition.[14]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union

 

That's exactly what the soviets wanted us to believe - and indeed many Russians even today...

In reality the West didn't want to give Stalin the rights to occupy the Eastern European countries, Hitler did. Therefor it was an easy decision for Stalin.

Stalin indeed did not want to get involved in "other people's war" - not until they had exhausted themselves that is...!

There was indeed a deception - by Stalin. He fooled Hitler into a war with the West, which Hitler wanted to avoid - at least in 1939.