Was Stalin really that evil?

[Ned]

Ah, come on. Stalin was a lot more evil than Hitler. He killed tens of millions of his own people, while Hitler managed to kill only 6-9 million Jews, Gypsies and communists. Stalin was hated and feared by his own people and by everyone else for that matter. Hitler was adored by his people and hated by everyone else.

Had Hitler not existed, Stalin would have gone down in history as its worst killer-tyrant ever.

[Alexander's Horse]

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/denisovich/

[Sikander]

Propoganda reminds me of the good old days, just the sort of sick commie apologist we were trained to kill without remorse. I miss the Cold War!

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
A great tragedy of World War 1 was that Russia was rapidly industrialising and modernising in 1914. It probably would have achieved super power status anyway without all the terrible bloodshed of the communist years. Its tottering feudal social and political structure simply could not withstand the shock of war. There was no October revolution, the Bolsheviks simply walked in and filled the power vacuum. It was more like a palace coup.

Its sobering to look at Russian society in 1914. Whole classes of people were wiped out over the next 70 years, particularly the first 30 years of communist rule. People were killed just for being from the wrong class, an aristocrat, bourgeois, kulak. Ethnic groups were mercilessly persecuted, the Ukrainians suffered terribly for example. Whole communities were liquidated. So much tragedy and destruction, so much human potential lost forever. Stalin was right at the centre of all this carnage. Lenin wasn't much better.

Look at Russia today - it really makes anyone who loves the country want to weep.

The great tragedy here is this post.

Russia in 1914 was poor, backward and not anywhere close to European standard. Russia's industry(whatever there actually was) was heavily reliant on foreign capital and investments. Conditions in the factories were horrid, the supposed reforms that would bring in quality in the workplaces were not even working, with inspections only happening a few times a year. The same could be said for the agarian sector, largely relaint on feudal tools. Conditions were equally bad there, with the only possitive being good ammounts of bread and meat. The workforce, both industrial and agarian, was illeterate, as well, not able to afford education at higher levels, mostly reserved for the gentry.

The fact is, had Russia continued it's reliance on foreign capital and not done something "magic" anytime soon, it would have let to a crisis(which it did). Had any of European contries had so much as coughed, Russia's "industrial growth" would have been swept back away, with Russia itself being brought back to the stone age.

As for the rest of your post -

[Alexander's Horse]

You really need to read more widely.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
But you should be more understanding of people like serb and vagabond who have to live in russia today.

Or how about my father, who can barely afford a roof over his head and clothes to wear?

Russia is so wonderful under "democracy", isn't it?

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
You really need to read more widely.

The point still stands, whether war or no war, Kerensky or the Tsar, the whole structure would have crumbled.

[Alexander's Horse]

Yes - and communism was one of the very worst options. It will take Russia many years to recover from the communist period. Some precious things that were lost will never be recovered, so many lives.

Going back to communism is not the answer.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Anybody read Solzhenitsyn?

He'd agree with you, AH.

Since when is Solzhenitsyn a ****ing reliable source?

It's funny, but when I see people complain about the length of my posts, I think and ask, "How is it that you allow yourselves to read long books by Solzhenitsyn and Conquest, but can't be bothered to read a few posts that disporve them?"

Does it clash with your accepted paradigm? That must be it.

I guess I'll have to agree with Serb here. It's impossible to change one's mind when it's already been made up.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Propaganda


Or how about my father, who can barely afford a roof over his head and clothes to wear?

Your point is an interesting one. In addition to many victims there were also many beneficiaries of Stalinism. It is often these people who want a return to the "good old days".

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Yes - and communism was one of the very worst options. It will take Russia many years to recover from the communist period. Some precious things that were lost will never be recovered, so many lives.

Going back to communism is not the answer.

Yes, lives were lost, No one here is denying that. The only problem I have is seeing the blame being put on Stalin alone and fully on his collectivization and industrialization policies.

People mysteriously forget that epidemics, poor harvest conditions at that time, and class war of had a major effect on agriculture. Not to mention that organization was nearly non-existent, because of the struggle waged, both between the bureaucracy, and the peasants.

Theft and sabotage were commonplace, which also increased the problems.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Your point is an interesting one. In addition to many victims there were also many beneficiaries of Stalinism. It is often these people who want a return to the "good old days".

What are you implying when you say, "these people"?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander
Propoganda reminds me of the good old days, just the sort of sick commie apologist we were trained to kill without remorse. I miss the Cold War!

So funny, yet SO TRUE. He is like out of a movie.

I can just see a stone faced Ivan Drago saying, "If he dies, he dies."


But back on topic, Stalin wasn't really a bad guy, just misunderstood. Those 20 million people he killed had it coming.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Propaganda

What are you implying when you say, "these people"?

Nothing really - many ordinary people enjoyed a better standard of living, promotion, social mobility. For example, the many purges created promotion opportunities for many people. Of course millions died to create these opportunities for the lucky ones. Its these people who are mostly nostalgic about communism.

[Propaganda]

I find it hilarious that Americans and Euros find the audacity to wave numbers and talk about "bad guys," while they live in countries whose "righteous leaders" over the centuries have murdered hundreds of millions in the name of capital.