Russians still love Stalin?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-06-20 05:02am

REVILED DICTATOR OR RUSSIA'S HERO?

THE moustache is similar, the nose identical. Most of all, the steady, piercing gaze is a chilling reminder of Yevgeny Dzhugashvili's notorious ancestor.

A striking resemblance to your grandfather is not usually considered an affliction, unless, perhaps, when that grandfather was Joseph Stalin, one of the most reviled dictators in world history.

But Mr Dzhugashvili, 67, is not complaining. In fact, like millions across the former Soviet Union, he idolises his relation. As the 50th anniversary of the death of the former leader of the USSR approaches, Stalin remains a hero in Georgia, the republic where he was born.

"He was a genius," says Mr Dzhugashvili, who is known to Georgians as "Stalin shvilishvili", or "Stalin's son's son." A former Red Army colonel, he has plastered his home in a tatty block of flats in Tbilisi with images of the premier.

"My grandfather did everything he could to preserve the empire that was left from the tsarist period," he said.

Without Stalin, the Soviet empire would have imploded, he insists. "He industrialised it, strengthened it. And he left it owning a single shirt and two jackets. Compared to today's leaders, with their Swiss bank accounts, he was something like Jesus Christ."

Many are inclined to agree. With corruption rife, unemployment at 25 per cent in Tbilisi and late payments on pensions of GBP 5 a month, older Georgians in particular yearn for the stability of the Soviet era.

In Russia, a recent opinion poll found more than half of those surveyed viewed Stalin with ambivalence or as a positive force. Communist politicians, the biggest group in the Russian Duma, openly praise the former leader, claiming the mass arrests and executions under his rule have been hugely exaggerated. Western historians estimate between ten and 20 million people died as a result of Stalin's three decades of rule. Others suggest even higher figures.

"It's all lies," says Mr Dzhugashvili, whose father, Yakov, was Stalin's eldest son.

"Until the late 1930s, my grandfather was surrounded by Trotskyist Jews who were manipulating his every move. It was them that sent people to the Gulag, and it only stopped when he had them killed."

Finding anyone in Georgia who will dispute such claims is an uphill struggle. Gori, the small town where Stalin grew up, is a paean of praise to its most famous son.

The one-room cottage where he was born Joseph Dzhugashvili in 1879 (he changed his name to Stalin or "man of steel" more than 30 years later) is protected by a colonnaded structure that resembles a temple.

Badri Razmadze, a history professor at Gori University, says: "I teach my students that Stalin was a Marxist and a defender of the working people. He was not the cruel person that western media have made him out to be."

Stalin modernised Russia and saved mankind by crippling Nazism, Mr Razmadze argues. Did he have any faults at all? "None," the professor says.

Not everyone here, however, is warmed by memories of "Uncle Joe." Near Gori, priests gathering for a meal after blessing a block of flats talked of Stalin's persecution of Georgian intellectuals and religious leaders.

"We should not forget that he was a dictator," said Archbishop Serafim of Borjomi, whose father had a relative who died in exile in Siberia.

Someone with a more ambivalent viewpoint is Stalin's great-grandson, Yakov, 30. A cheerful young man, he spent three years in the 1990s studying at Glasgow School of Art, calling himself Jacob and keeping his ancestry secret.

Nevertheless, he is now proud of his roots. He said: "I'm comfortable with who I am. I'm a Dzhugashvili, it's in my blood."

He was named after his grandfather, Stalin's son, who was shot in a German prisoner-of-war camp after Stalin refused to exchange him for Field Marshal Von Paulus, a Nazi captured at Stalingrad.

Preserving the family name has become something of an obsession for Yevgeny Dzhugashvili. He has used names connected with his grandfather - whom he never met - for male descendants.

When the family gathers to commemorate the anniversary of Stalin's death on 5 March, one of the youngest members will command the most attention. Traditionally, Russian children's middle names are taken from their father. By naming his eldest son Vissarion, Yevgeny ensured his first grandson would be an exact namesake of Stalin: Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili.

"I spent nearly all my life in Russia," he said, as he bounced Joseph on his knee. "I wanted to return the name of Stalin to his homeland so it will live here forever."

Thoughts, opinions?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-20 05:08am

In the very long run Stalin was beneficial to Russia, the infrastructure and industry he built where key to the nation becoming a real world power. There was just the little side effect of killing 25 million people to do so.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-06-20 05:12am

Yeah, without him, Russia probably would have been over-run by the Nazis. Then we would have all been screwed.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-20 05:16am

Gandalf wrote:Yeah, without him, Russia probably would have been over-run by the Nazis. Then we would have all been screwed.

No, then we see the US demonstrate how to nuke your way to victory though 1947, assuming worst case in which Russia and Britain are lost before the US enters the war.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-06-20 05:36am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Yeah, without him, Russia probably would have been over-run by the Nazis. Then we would have all been screwed.
No, then we see the US demonstrate how to nuke your way to victory though 1947, assuming worst case in which Russia and Britain are lost before the US enters the war.

Then what would US losses have been?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-20 06:11am

Gandalf wrote:
Then what would US losses have been?

Could be another 100,000 plus, but on the other hand they might be many less. There would be no Mediterranean campaign of significant, and that would cut US losses considerably. Instead we'd see a massive buildup with bombing of Germany via B-36, constant attacks by fleet carriers and eventually an invasion of Britain. Opposition wouldn't be that strong, Germany could never completely crush the Russians and most of their army would be stuck on garrison duty.

The loss of the Britain combine with repeated nuclear attacks, by 1947 the US could have built 9 bombs per month, would likely lead to a collapse as Nazi Germany without a ground invasion. And if it did come to that, it was well within the US's capabilities to do so. Think about how many M26's we could build in three years, with no need to worry about replacing Sherman losses.

Off topic we have gone..

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-06-20 06:47am

Sea Skimmer wrote:In the very long run Stalin was beneficial to Russia, the infrastructure and industry he built where key to the nation becoming a real world power. There was just the little side effect of killing 25 million people to do so.

I think you can industrialize a country without deliberately inflicting famine upon its citizens.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-20 07:28am

Not suprised. According to many rightwingers, because I'm to the left of them politically, I must have posters of Joe Stalin on the ceiling above my bed, because anyone more liberal than time much be a Communist (note the capital C).

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-06-20 07:39am

*jaw drops about 10 feet, getting splinters in it* OWWW!

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-20 09:33am

Gil Hamilton wrote:Not suprised. According to many rightwingers, because I'm to the left of them politically, I must have posters of Joe Stalin on the ceiling above my bed, because anyone more liberal than time much be a Communist (note the capital C).

Well, now you know that people like that really exist, Gil!

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-20 01:26pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Then what would US losses have been?
Could be another 100,000 plus, but on the other hand they might be many less. There would be no Mediterranean campaign of significant, and that would cut US losses considerably. Instead we'd see a massive buildup with bombing of Germany via B-36, constant attacks by fleet carriers and eventually an invasion of Britain. Opposition wouldn't be that strong, Germany could never completely crush the Russians and most of their army would be stuck on garrison duty.

The loss of the Britain combine with repeated nuclear attacks, by 1947 the US could have built 9 bombs per month, would likely lead to a collapse as Nazi Germany without a ground invasion. And if it did come to that, it was well within the US's capabilities to do so. Think about how many M26's we could build in three years, with no need to worry about replacing Sherman losses.

Off topic we have gone..

If Germany didn't fail in Russia, I don't think the US would be able to beat them so easily. They'd get all the resources they'd need and their scientists could work away in peace with Britain out of the way. I bet they'd develop the atomic bomb around the same time as the US, but unlike the US they'd probably be able to launch nukes over great distances. If it weren't for Russia, Germany probably could have ended up winning WWII.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2003-06-20 02:10pm

They wouldn't develop the bomb hobot. Hitler was convinced of his superiority and without russia or britain why would he need the bomb? Also the U.S. would bomb the shit outta all the bomb making plants and research facilities destroying precious research and pushing them behind. Plus, by 44 the germans still didn't even have any good ideas how to make the bomb while the U.S. was plugging away with ours like it was noones business.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-20 02:26pm

USAF had air superiority by the end of the war, right?

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-20 02:30pm

Dark Hellion wrote:They wouldn't develop the bomb hobot. Hitler was convinced of his superiority and without russia or britain why would he need the bomb? Also the U.S. would bomb the shit outta all the bomb making plants and research facilities destroying precious research and pushing them behind. Plus, by 44 the germans still didn't even have any good ideas how to make the bomb while the U.S. was plugging away with ours like it was noones business.

But where would the US fly from without Britain's air bases?

I don't think it would have mattered how superior Hitler thought himself, his generals and scientists would probably keep working away. They would work behind his back and use misleading names when working on things Hitler wouldn't approve of, like the German assault rifle (MP44).

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-20 03:39pm

The B-36 could have flown out of bases on the east coast and hit cities in Germany. The German nuclear program was a joke. They were behind the Soviets, for Chrissakes. Even if they started a crash program, they wouldn't have had a functional device until the mid-1950s.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-06-20 03:55pm

Hobot wrote:If Germany didn't fail in Russia, I don't think the US would be able to beat them so easily. They'd get all the resources they'd need and their scientists could work away in peace with Britain out of the way.

Yes, because they have the massive electrical power generation systems of the TVA...oh wait. There's a reason Oak Ridge is where it is. Nevermind the lack of heavy water production (which may very well be taken out before the UK capitulates) or the limited resources the Third Reich has in comparison to the American economic titan.

I bet they'd develop the atomic bomb around the same time as the US, but unlike the US they'd probably be able to launch nukes over great distances. If it weren't for Russia, Germany probably could have ended up winning WWII.

Launch with what? The A9? That thing would have had a huge CEP even if Germany could get a workable nuclear device that could fit on it - and the inaccuracy would be so huge that it wouldn't really be worth it. At any rate, Germany couldn't get nukes until the mid-1950s or so, while the Americans can start dropping nukes on them with B-36s in the 1940s.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-06-20 04:04pm

Germany developing nukes the same time as the US? ROFL! Maybe they'll stick em on their balistic missles that can hit Washington! And forget about air superiority when they start mass producing their supersonic jet fighters with guided missles!

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-06-20 04:06pm

HemlockGrey wrote:USAF had air superiority by the end of the war, right?

Before Normandy.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-20 05:07pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Well, now you know that people like that really exist, Gil!

People who think I'm a Communist for being somewhat liberal or people who masturbate to Joesph Stalin?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-20 05:17pm

Hobot wrote:
If Germany didn't fail in Russia, I don't think the US would be able to beat them so easily. They'd get all the resources they'd need and their scientists could work away in peace with Britain out of the way.

Except most of those resources must go right back into paying for the massive occupation forces. Germany would need several hundred divisions to garrison everything and look out for what's left of Russia armies along the Urals. As for research, the fact that they have relative peace is going to slow down work, not accelerate it. Most German late war projects like various rockets, the V-1 and especially air defence equipment will not be developed. Hitler will also be pouring vast resources into a surface fleet, which will be mere fodder against the USN.

I bet they'd develop the atomic bomb around the same time as the US, but unlike the US they'd probably be able to launch nukes over great distances.

Germany was a decade behind the US and working in the wrong direction. They had nothing that could deliver an atomic bomb at all, while the uS had the B-36 which could haul several from North America to Germany and back.

If it weren't for Russia, Germany probably could have ended up winning WWII.

Nope. Nukes, crippling garrison costs and US industry crush them. The US was never fully mobilized WW2 and it still out produced everyone.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-20 05:32pm

HemlockGrey wrote:USAF had air superiority by the end of the war, right?

Overwhelmingly so with a vast fleet of P-51's making a habit of destroying German fighters as they took off. Even without fighter bases in England, the US can field a vast number of carriers to win air supremacy over a wide area prior to an invasion. By 1947 when the nukes start really raining down the USN could field over thirty fleet carriers and a hundred escort carriers with five thousand aircraft on there decks. Such a forces escorts could pass the thousand mark, and the whole force could strike basically at will from the North Cape to Sicily.

Mind you the Luftwaffe peak wartime strength was only around 4,500 planes. For comparison the US's peak wartime strength gave it over 100,000 aircraft.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-06-20 05:50pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:In the very long run Stalin was beneficial to Russia, the infrastructure and industry he built where key to the nation becoming a real world power. There was just the little side effect of killing 25 million people to do so.

I disagree. Lenin's NEP economy would have yeilded far better results on the economic front than forced industralization and collectivization. In fact, all the subsequent leaders of the USSR have been trying to reduce the inefficiencies of the system that were created by Stalin.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-20 06:03pm

fgalkin wrote: I disagree. Lenin's NEP economy would have yeilded far better results on the economic front than forced industralization and collectivization. In fact, all the subsequent leaders of the USSR have been trying to reduce the inefficiencies of the system that were created by Stalin.

Of course there would have been better alternatives. But Stalin's what we have and he did shave decades off Russia slow pace of industrialization.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-06-20 06:09pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
fgalkin wrote: I disagree. Lenin's NEP economy would have yeilded far better results on the economic front than forced industralization and collectivization. In fact, all the subsequent leaders of the USSR have been trying to reduce the inefficiencies of the system that were created by Stalin.

Of course there would have been better alternatives. But Stalin's what we have and he did shave decades off Russia slow pace of industrialization.

He also created the economic system that eventually caused the downfall of the Soviet Union. That is in addition to decimating the Red Army, the beurocreacy, and essentially wiping out the inteligentcia class.

Hell, my great-grandfather was the deputy Minister of Finance under the Lenin government. Stalin had him killed, and sent his son (my grandmother's brother) into the Gulags for keeping his portrait (he was "an enemy of the people").

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-20 06:39pm

phongn wrote:
Hobot wrote:If Germany didn't fail in Russia, I don't think the US would be able to beat them so easily. They'd get all the resources they'd need and their scientists could work away in peace with Britain out of the way.
Yes, because they have the massive electrical power generation systems of the TVA...oh wait. There's a reason Oak Ridge is where it is. Nevermind the lack of heavy water production (which may very well be taken out before the UK capitulates) or the limited resources the Third Reich has in comparison to the American economic titan.

I bet they'd develop the atomic bomb around the same time as the US, but unlike the US they'd probably be able to launch nukes over great distances. If it weren't for Russia, Germany probably could have ended up winning WWII.
Launch with what? The A9? That thing would have had a huge CEP even if Germany could get a workable nuclear device that could fit on it - and the inaccuracy would be so huge that it wouldn't really be worth it. At any rate, Germany couldn't get nukes until the mid-1950s or so, while the Americans can start dropping nukes on them with B-36s in the 1940s.

German scientists led the world since the turn of the century in nuclear physics. It's true they failed in their nuclear program, but with Russia and Britain under their control they'd have an even greater scientific advantage over the US.

German scientists were also very far along in rocketry. If they could have launched rockets from ships they probably could have got close enough to hit the US coast.