Stalin's Contributions

The West was becoming every time stronger. If Hitler didn't eliminated France quickly, it would be more difficult do it later. The problem is that there was a possibility of Hitler defeat France quickly (just what happened) and subsequentely treatned the USSR. Therefore, it seems that the RKKA was indeed not able to face Germany at the time. Because if they were strong enough, they should have attacked Germany in 1940. But actually they didn't, and instead extended their defensive perimeter with the occupations in 1940. This seems to validates the Soviet position you criticize, Karjala.

 

Spot on in my view Karjala....Stalin wanted the facists and the western democracies to exhaust themselves. He was a bit taken aback when France fell so quickly.

 

Unfortnately this part of history is full of contraditions in my opinion. For example, Stalin could be felt treatned by Hitler, and fear that the West would let Hitler attack the USSR. But the West would allow Hitler conquer the USSR and obtain the resources to turn Germany into a superpower? Apparently not, and they had the military means to stab Hitler's back after a hypotetical Soviet defeat by a Hitler who didn't went to war with the West. However, Hitler also would not be aware of this?

Karjala mentioned that the West allowed the Soviets to set in Eastern Europe. Yes, but I will repeat: in my view this was mostly because the Allied situation, particularily the sudden fall of France in 1940. In 1939 the Allies could and indeed had a different view of the USSR. IIRC, there was not a formal protest of the Anglo-French to the Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland, but they delivered a note to the Soviets stating that the invasion was unacceptable.

 

An interesting TV series about this is WWII Behind Closed Doors, here's the first episodie of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2A4hyoOrlU

 

But Germany was building up her military machine rapidly. However in 1939 Hitler did not feel ready for a full scale war. France with the mighty British Navy seemed too strong for Germany at the time. For Germany later was better than 1939.

Hitler was expecting the West only to bluff with Poland, as they had done before. The declarations of war by the Western countries were a cold suprise shower to Hitler.

Stalin was not surprised, since the West had told him firmly, that this time it was not going to yield. Stalin got exactly what he wanted - a war between the West and Germany.

I don't buy that argument that "the USSR was not ready in 1939 and needed more time". The red army was believed to be well equipped with lots of planes and more tanks than the rest of the world combined. It also had just beaten the Japanese and were beating them again in Ghalkin Gol. Also the communist army was supposed to be ideologically superior to the other armies.

A major attack needs lots of time for the preparations. The German attack in 1940 was so fast and succesfull that France was beaten before the soviets had even time think. The ideal moment was over before they could react.

 

About Stalin's idea to let the West exhaust itself with Hitler. Let's see some things. Germany lacked the resources of the Kaiser, and was weaker than the Anglo-French. Germany could not survive an attrition war with French Empire, the British Empire and with the supporting or even participation of the US in such a war. Germany was specially weaker in it's navy. Since there would a naval blockade, and Germany would suffer due to it, Germany would need to have vital trade relations with the USSR in a war of attrition with the West. It seems to me that if France didn't fell in 1940, the West would only be able to launch an offensive towards Germany by 1942. In the documentary film I posted, there's a a declaration from Stalin to the German delegation which signed the Nazi-Soviet pact, which was something like: "Russia wants to see a strong Germany, and would come to the German aid if necessary". Indeed, just a few months after the pact was signed there were proposals for the Soviets to join the Axis showing up, with Stalin demonstrating some interest. By 1942, the Soviets would be much stronger without having been at war, and it seems to me that they could have "helped" Germany to counter an Anglo-French offensive, just like Stalin was quoted to have said. And there was also the Japanese, which were having their relations with the USSR improved and which Stalin could have helped by treatning the Chinese, in order to make them sign a peace treaty with Japan, so as to to boost the Axis (now with the Soviet Union as a member) position against the West. It seems that Stalin indeed could have been pursuting plans to desestabilize the capitalist powers by cooperating with the Facist States.

PS: those are mostly some ideas of mine, I don't have evidence of many things mentioned in this post.

 

Ops, found evidence of something:

"Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin to negotiate the terms for the Soviet Union to join the Axis and potentially enjoy the spoils of the pact.[55] Molotov spent much of the trip to Berlin searching his rail car for listening devices.[56] Molotov's train arrived at 11:05 a.m. on November 12.[57][58] It was a bad omen for success that von Schulenberg, the architect of the meeting, was excluded.[43] Molotov was greeted by Ribbentrop at the train station decorated with Soviet and Nazi flags above a large basket of flowers, with a band playing The Internationale for the first time since 1933.[59] After a brief breakfast, the talks started immediately that day at the Schloss Bellevue Hotel.[57] After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a Moscow journal published certain selected correspondence revealing that Stalin was closely supervising Molotov's talks via telegram, but some of those telegrams remain unpublished.[60]
At the outset, Ribbentrop stated, "England is beaten and it is only a question of time when she will admit her defeat.... The beginning of the end has now arrived for the British empire."[58] He further stated that "the entry of the United States into the war is of no consequence at all for Germany. Germany and Italy will never again allow an Anglo-Saxon to land on the European Continent.... This is no military problem at all.... The Axis Powers are, therefore, not considering how they can win the war, but rather how rapidly they can end the war which is already won."[58] He further stated that Germany and the Soviet Union had together "done some good business."[58]
Accordingly, Ribbentrop concluded that the time had come for the four powers (Germany, the Soviet Union, Italy and Japan) to define their "spheres of interest."[58][61] He stated that Hitler had concluded that all four countries would naturally expand "in a southerly direction."[58] Ribbentrop said he wondered if the Soviets might turn southward toward the sea, and when Molotov inquired "which sea?", Ribbentrop stated that "in the long run the most advantageous access to the sea for Russia could be found in the direction of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea."[58][61]
Regarding the division of the world into four spheres of influence, Molotov stated the new idea was "very interesting" and worthy of a discussion in Moscow with Ribbentrop participating.[62] Stalin became annoyed with a telegram to him from Molotov stating that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was "exhausted" with the exception of the Finnish issue, with Stalin stating that any future agreements would merely be added to it because it served as a fundamental basis for Soviet-German relations.[62]
In the afternoon, Molotov visited Hitler at the Reichskanzlei.[57][58] Hitler also spoke of striking that "final blow against England." Hitler stated that "it is time to think about division of the world after our victory."[57] Regarding the "problem of America" he stated that it could not "endanger the freedom of other nations before 1970 or 1980."[58] He and Molotov agreed that the United States had no business in Europe, Africa or Asia.[58] Hitler stated that there were no fundamental differences between the two countries in their pursuit of aspiring for "access to the ocean."[58] Molotov expressed his agreement with Hitler about the role of America and Britain and Soviet participation in the Axis Pact in principle but only if the Soviets could participate as an active partner.[62][63] That same day, Germany also postponed until the following year its plans to invade Britain because of failures in the air campaign against Britain.[42]
Molotov agreed with Hitler that there were no unresolved problems between the countries, except about Finland.[62] When Molotov returned to his hotel, he stated that he was "relieved at Hitler's amiability."[54] In a telegram to Molotov that night, Stalin insisted that the security of the USSR cannot be ensured "without securing tranquility in the area of the Straits", referring the Bosporus straits for entry into the Black Sea.[64] That was linked directly with the Soviet-Bulgarian agreement for passage of Soviet troops for "the defense of entry into the Black Sea."[64] Stalin added that "this question still bears current importance and does not allow any procrastination."[64]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks

 

The text in the last post is from Wik, really not a good source. But if that information is true, then I guess my thesis has some credibility .

 

Are you a psychic? You know what they all wanted and you know that was an easy decision for Stalin. Are you his confessor?
Simply this doesn't appear like scientifically founded debate! You guys (Karjala and Jenisch) know a lot of "novel" things that are not known to history as a science.

 

Guys, see the content of this contemporany Kremlin "newsreel": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTuh-hRoCNU

If the Russians were capable of bring such stronger forces to the battefield, it's strange to think that they were with "fear" of Hitler. Stalin could have simply say to Hitler: "The Soviet Union will not tolerate war in Eastern Europe". There was no need for any pact do do this, just a Soviet commitement to avoid war in the region. In fact, Ribbentrop was in Moscow two weeks before WWII just because the Füher wanted to invade Poland and didn't wanted Russian intervention.

I read in somewhere that the Soviets feared an attack by the Baltics, towards Leningrad. Were the occupations of the Baltic states necessary? It would depends IMHO. We all know that the RKKA was suppose to defend the USSR. Therefore, what the Soviets could have done with the Baltic states was to explain to them the Soviet situation and negociate to set Soviet military observers and some airfields in those countries, in order to detect a possible German offensive. If they didn't agree, then yes, they could be invaded. And even if the invasions need to occur, it was necessary to turn those countries in satellite states? No. According to the Soviet apologists, they were occupied because the RKAA was in bad shape to face Germany in 1939. If that was the case, it was not necessary to maintein troops after the RKKA's problems were solved in the post-war. We all know the story of the peoples from of the Baltic states supporting the Communist take over in their countries is a lie, which was obtained among other things by the deportation of thousands of people from those states after the war.

 

So...after all these posts from us all...gong off at tangents by many, myself included...Just where are we with this thread?

What is it we are saying?

What is it we are praising or cajoling Stalin for?

Are we cajoling him for not being a peacemaker, or for being a warmonger?

Are we saying his actions were meant to keep his status quo in Russia, are we saying his actions were to extend a Russian empire..

Seems to me after all this...all we can agree on is that he was who he was.

Equivilance has its place in history. But what matters here in my view is the utter defeat of nazism.
This brought about a new world order. I wouldn't say this was a good thing..But I also would say the defeat of Nazism by anyone and any means is was and in the future if it reigned its ugly head, would be acceptable

 

That is not at all clear. While the German military was expanding rapidly in 39 so were the British, French, and Soviets. Furthrmore the US was making infrustructure improvments and ordering it's own build up that would result in a massive industrial edge to the West in the early 40's. Furthermore Germany was resource constrained at that point indeed the gold reserves of Austria and Checkoslavakia were about all that were keeping her afloat. This would have been clear to most of the players to varying degrees with Stalin probably having the best overall view of the situation due to both the excellence of the Soviet espionage system and the limited knoledge of Soviet efforts in this regard available in the west. Relativly speaking Germany may well have been at her strongest in 39.

Personally I would condem his actions as an empire builder and aggressive opertunist that lead to the start of WWII, the war with Finland, and the occupation of the countries of Easter Europe.

I would also praise his determined resistance to the German assault on the USSR and the flexability/pragmatism he showed in the face of said onslaught.

 

To find an answer to this question we may go back to the opening post and read it carefully: a former communist, and a Stalinist too, Ludwig Kovalski, an author of a 'book' has informed us that he has received an email from certain Grover Furr of Montclair State University. Nothing more and nothing less. This tread had no proper introduction, no scope or some leading idea. Nothing. It was pointless from it's beginning. And then revisionists came along ...

That is why this tread has degenerated into nothing. There is nothing meaningful initiated by a Stalinist or a former Stalinist, especially when revisions stir the thing up.

 

In my understanding, and in the understanding of Realism in international relations theory, all states are searching for power and are cynical, and Realist authours have plenty of evidence to support this view. But then you guys attack my arguments with things like "oh, the West done less evil things than the Nazis", and "Russia was less evil than Germany". This does not change anything in my opinion. What I'm basically saying is that the West, the Soviets or the Nazis don't have any real moral to "attack" other countries, because all the countries have done, do and in my opinion always will do immoral actions (the CIA's "advanced interrogation methods" coming to light is a recent example). To exemplify this better, let's take two men. One kills five people, while the other kills fifteen, but the one who killed five people, as well as having killed less people, commited the murders by a "better cause". You people are telling me that the one who killed five people should have almost an immunity from the blood in it's hands, and this is precisely what you do to justify the Western immoral actions. It's a cheap euphemism! I will never buy that. Governments, specially superpowers, are cynical. The US is as criminal as the USSR in Eastern Europe for having let the Latin American people die in the hands of dictatorships in it's region (which the US itself helped to set!). Damn the scale of the deaths of those dictatorships compared to other regimes, it's impossible that a normal person cannot see that this is cynism!

Anyone can disagree with the Realist theory. I'm not trying to persuade people to belive in the Realist theory. Rather than that, I'm saying that for many occasions in the past, the Realist theory was proved correct. Would it be in the future? Matter of opinion.

Since I started my participation this discussion, I made a point, which there's not argument to be countered due to being a fact, and this point is simple: the West and the Soviet/Russian governments have innocent blood in their hands,! And this blood cannot be washed with the blood of victmins of other governments!

 

Let's get back to history of WW2.

It isn't so easy to talk about purely Stalin's contributions, but rather about contributions of the Russian, or more precisely, the Soviet people. Stalin was just a Russian icon of mid twentieth century. Russian contruibution to the defeat of Nazism is signifficant and undeniable. Purges were before, the Cold War came later but the victory against the Nazism has deeper signifficance and long lasting implications. That's the real contribution.

May I propose to watch together this short but informative video: "Defeat of the Nazis" by Laurence Rees

 

Stalin contributed to this...minute 10:34 to 11:00 of this You Tube...is really all that mattered. And Stalin helped it happen.

http://youtu.be/aCWVM5bUZmE

 

My impression is that Stalin should not be underestimated or overestimated. The same thing as Hitler.

 

You, of all people, are criticizing me of my choices of words...

Ok, point taken. Of course I do not know for sure what people really thought or wanted in their minds. Nobody ever does. Nor am I a psychic.
Naturally what I meant was that when knowing the situations, what the people said, wrote and did it is not overwhelmingly difficult to make educated guesses of their thoughts.

Do we really have to go through again Stalin's speeches, his actions etc.? That all is very well known to history - as a science.