Stalin monument to be built??

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
Do you think we were there by force or because we wanted to be there.

I don't care. It's irrelevent to the fact of whether or not they were there. I'm not discussing the reason they were there, merely the fact that they were there.

[Pekka]

Ah ok. So you're not saying whose fault is what. Ok that seems to have been the lock.

OK then we can proceed. If it wasn't our fault, then how is it in our responsibility?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ah ok. So you're not saying whose fault is what. Ok that seems to have been the lock.

I don't know why it was a lock, since I repeated it multiple times.

If it wasn't our fault, then how is it in our responsibility?

Who's talking about responsibility? Not me. I stated a simple fact, the Finns, along with the Germans, cut off Leningrad, and as a reult, 670,000 people died of starvation.

If we're talking fault, I'd say fault lies, ultimately, with the Nazis, since it was their threat that prompted Stalin to attack Finland in both the Winter War and the Continuation War (the former because the Soviets were afraid the Nazis might use Finland as a base and the later because the Nazis did use Finland as a base). The Soviets had no legitimate cause to attack you the first time, but they did have a legitimate cause to attack you the second time, though it was stupid to do so when they couldn't handle you.

[Pekka]

Ah.. I thought you were saying it was our responsibility. Why didn't you say you are not claiming it? I said several times, that you are saying our troops are partially held responsible for it. This was my main problem. Why didn't you say against this?

Now, if it wasn't our responsibility, then it wasn't our fault, yes? Pretty much the same thing in this case.

Now, since this is the case, then why do you keep on saying Finns starved Leningrad? if you are not responsible or at fault, then how the hell do you do it, since our interests were different. The fact that some lines went through our zones really don't count us active sieging, because those would have been used and as been used against us. So this is why it wasn't our fault that they were not able to use them, since the whole mess started us being invaded.

[Pekka]

" but they did have a legitimate cause to attack you the second time, though it was stupid to do so when they couldn't handle you."

Legit, it was continuation from the first one. Nazis or no Nazis, SU would have attacked. They just didn't bother to attack Nazis in here. Kind of.. beats the purpose now doesn't it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ah.. I thought you were saying it was our responsibility. Why didn't you say you are not claiming it? I said several times, that you are saying our troops are partially held responsible for it. This was my main problem. Why didn't you say against this?

Because I kept telling you, oever and over again, that wasn't part of my argument. I can't help it if you're blind. The reason why I say the Finns starved the city is because, regardless of where the ultimate blaim lies, your troops did the deed.

[Pekka]

And that's where I differ. I look the responsibility. I blame Stalin and Hitler for that mess. I say Stalin was responsible for our troops being where they were. BEcause that was our only option and we were forced to be there. It was a strategic f up, made by Stalin. And thus, STALIN starved Leningrad together with Hitler.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
" but they did have a legitimate cause to attack you the second time, though it was stupid to do so when they couldn't handle you."

Legit, it was continuation from the first one. Nazis or no Nazis, SU would have attacked. They just didn't bother to attack Nazis in here. Kind of.. beats the purpose now doesn't it.

Well, it's nice to have that kind of hindsight, but considering how much pressure the Soviets were under in '41 and '42, it's exceedingly unlikely to be true. If they could have been assured of a secure northern front, I'm sure they would have pulled troops off your border in order to move them to Leningrad and/or Moscow. Instead that had to guard that long, and very important coridor, since it was their lifeline from Murmansk. Course, we can't know one way or the other. It's also possible that the Soviets would have invaded Lapland to strike into Sweden to cut off Germany's iron supplies.

[Pekka]

Well it's anyones guess but Stalin didn't take our word. We never threatened to attack SU. We didn't say we will let Hitler use our lands. What we said is no one uses our lands for nothing. Stalin didn't trust this. Either we could let them in, under pressure, or Nazis could take it by force. Do you think this kind of thinking would have changed after the Winter War? Why woudl he change his mind?

Well anyway this wasn't the debate.

Anyway, I'm not denying the fact that we were close Leningrad. I deny, that it was the fault of our troops that we were there. I deny that it was someone elses fault than Stalin's. And that being so, I say it was Stalin who starved Leningrad.

If not, then why don't you add other countries who have had indirect effect to the siege of Leningrad? Why don't you say IBM is also part of the siege of Leningrad?

SU was under pressure, but Stalin didn't have any problems deviding Europe with Hitler before it all went to crappers. I'm not sorry that his plans failed. Unfortunately SU citizens paid the price for Stalin's mistakes and crazyness. His doubts were legit. His actions weren't.

[Jon Miller]

I have a hard time placing Stalin

for one thing, he beat the nazies from a worse position

but from another, he was a monster from the darkages as far as his totalitarrianism is conserned

he was the epitomy of the wrong direction of russian communism, and for that I hate him

but I have to give hima llittle respect for beating the nazis

so I understand having a statue of him, but I thnk that the true story should be told, of his evil and authoritarinism

Jon Miller

[laurentius]

ta daa!

[Gangerolf]

stalin
nazis
finland

case closed

[Saras]

Gangerolf

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Death_toll

It is generally agreed by historians that if famines, prison and labour camp mortality, and state terrorism (deportations and political purges) are taken into account, Stalin and his colleagues were directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions. How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million. Comparison of the 1926-39 census results suggests 5-10 million deaths in excess of what would be normal in the period, mostly through famine in 1931-34. The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million while the 1939 census at 162 million. (Another census from 1937 is known as the "wrecker's census"; its figures were suppressed.) The highest death estimates are 50 million from the 1920s to 1950s, but they are probably greatly exaggerated.

As you you, Fez, you support capitalism, which is responsible for the deaths of more then ten million people every year. In any given decade, your favored economic system kills more than one hundred million people from war, starvation, pollution, inadequate health care, etc., all problems caused by or allowed to happen because of, the profit motive. Even if I was a Stalinist and supported everything Stalin did, I'd still have far less blood on my hands than you.

I have to say that your defence of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and friends is entertaining.

Who was it who taught you the tactic of the big lie?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's not really true. The Finns didn't bombard Leningrad, but they took part in the seige simply by cutting it off. You don't have to assault or bomb a city to lay siege. You can simply starve it into submission.

They could have cut the lake road in a heartbeat.