stalin

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-11 03:11pm

was russia better for him?
was the blood he spilt neccessary for industrilization?
and if he had not acted, would the reich have overrun it?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-11 03:15pm

Question 1 and 3 don't make sense, or at least cannot be answered. You need to be more specific. The answer to 2 is no. Russia could have developed in the 1920's and 30's with far less bloodshed. Indeed it would have done better without the collective farms and other inefficient crap. In addition to killing people there was also vast environmental damage.

In one area of Kazakhstan nomads who graze animals where force to settle, while producing several times as many animals. The result was the grassland turned to desert and remains that way to this day.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-11 03:40pm

Commies wanted to surpass the Americans so fast they totaly screwed-up

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-03-12 10:58am

From what I know about Joseph Stalin, he might have been the most evil man who ever lived.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-03-12 02:52pm

Stalin is one of the major reasons that the Germans got as close as they did in WWII.

His little purge of the army gave the Germans a tremendous advantage, and let's face it, when Barbarossa started, the Russians had technological superiority for the most part on the ground. The only thing that the Germans had going for them in the start was better officers. Stalin had replaced almost all of his officer corp with the inexperienced but politically reliable lackeys. How else can anyone explain why the Germans managed to pull off one envelopment maneuver after another against a numerically superior Russian force in the first few months of Barbarossa.

In terms of evil, he ranks on the same level at Hitler, although what he did was not as well publicized at the time, and nobody decided to launch a war to stop him.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-12 02:59pm

Stalin was easily as bad as Hitler. Worse from a purely quantitative standpoint. He was just the scumbag that the allies chose to deal with.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-03-13 08:42am

0.1 wrote:In terms of evil, he ranks on the same level at Hitler, although what he did was not as well publicized at the time, and nobody decided to launch a war to stop him.

That is an understatement. Stalin was so malevolent that he make most comic book villains look angelic in comparison. For example, he deliberately inflicted famine upon Ukraine, for no apparent reason.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-13 08:54am

Simon H.Johansen wrote: That is an understatement. Stalin was so malevolent that he make most comic book villains look angelic in comparison. For example, he deliberately inflicted famine upon Ukraine, for no apparent reason.

Actually, he inflicted famine on the Ukraine as a byproduct of his purge
against the Kulaks (small farm owning families), who produced something
like 60% of the USSR's food grown, even though they only had 2% of
the land or some small number.

He killed off everyone who actually farmed worth shit, and then the famine
happened.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-13 09:07am

was russia better for him?

that's like asking if Germany was better under Hitler. If you were pure German and it was between 1935 and 1942, yeah it was pretty good for you. but look at the means (brutal murderous oppression) and look at the ultimate end. (suffering and death)

The same is true for Stalin. If you were a loyal member of the communist party and you didn't piss him off or get in the way of his plans, during the the time before the system failed, life was relatively good fro you. But again look at the means (brutal murderous oppression) and the ultimate end (suffering and death from the complete failure of the marxist-lenninist system)

so the answer is yes, sort of...but ultimately no.

was the blood he spilt neccessary for industrilization?

generally speaking you have to crack a few eggs to make an omlette, but fuck! Stalin burned down the whole goddamn chicken coop. so i would say no.

if he had not acted, would the reich have overrun it?

his actions contributed to the red army's early failures. Taking Hitler for his word....culling the 'disloyal' from the army. If anyone deserves credit for saving stalingrad, it was Kruschev.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-03-14 12:03pm

MKSheppard wrote: He killed off everyone who actually farmed worth shit, and then the famine
happened.

That means that Stalin wasn't just diabolical, he was also an idiot.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

stalin

stalin

Re: stalin