children of war,right or wrong?

Well, here's a thought experiment. Let's assume that Stalin's objective is personal power. Hitler's objective is to wipe out the Jews and build a continental empire in Europe. The former did happen therefore there is no need to speculate. But what would Hitler do if he won?

Hitler wanted to achieve complete economic self-sufficiency including secure grain supply. We already know that this was impossible even if Russia was occupied, because Russian agricultural surplus, such as it was, needed to be diverted to Leningrad, Moscow and the other major cities. Logic follows that Hitler would need to destroy those cities if he pursued his historical goals with consistency.

Did Stalin need to wipe out Moscow or Leningrad in pursuit of his ultimate object, personal power?

You're right. Krushev didn't stop Stalin. He only had Stalin's heir apparent executed in a palace coup.

Trying to white wash Stalin's murderous proclivities? I don't know where did you get that impression. Here's what I said:

Hm. I called him an brute, egomaniac and ideologue of what I assume all forum goers here know to be a failed theory--and I am accused of white-washing Stalin?

 

lets simplify your arguments. What were german armies doing in russia ..lenningrad..stalingrad..moscow. where they on a coach trip . a sightseeing tour. reap the whirlwind .and consequences will result from invasion . dont like it? dont invade and cry wolf afterwards.

 

Are you sure about that?

Stalin certainly reneged on several agreements with the Western Allies postwar in Europe.

And the Soviet Japanese non-aggression treaty contained a clause that it would remain in effect for one year after either party denounced it. The Soviets did so in April, 1945, and attacked Japan just four months later in August. That, technically, would be a breach of the treaty.

Granted, the Japanese contemplated breaking it even earlier, and didn't get anything they didn't deserve from the Soviets.[/QUOTE]

Weren't we speaking of "before and during the war"? Stalin observed most (if not all) of his pacts and treaties, I don't know how that Winter War fits in or if he had treaties with Finland or what. Post-war he promised to pull his troops out of Persia (Iran), and he did. He promised to pull his troops out of North Korea, and he did so. He took much of Korea's industry with him, but the Red Army was out. I don't really dispute the "non-aggression" breach, but as I read it the pact would be invalid if either nation decided to NOT renew it. I think that is what Stalin did through Molotov, simple allowed it to expire, not "denounce it".

Post war his record is spotty at best, especially in eastern Europe, so I agree. Mostly in fact it is negative, his idea of "free elections" bore no resemblence to western interpretation of same, in any of the countries he occupied. Again, I'm not defending Stalin in any fashion.

He just was given more time to kill, massacre, imprision, starve, and mistreat his populace than Hitler. Hitler killed simply because of "who you were, your birthright", Stalin was a bit more discriminating, and his death-dealing took longer, he didn't kill on an industrial scale for killing alone. If Hitler had been given thirty years instead of twelve, I wonder how many he could have gotten rid of?

 

Say DA, I think you are mis-remembering the clause about the "year". It was an open period one year before the five year term was up in which either party could "denounce" the treaty. So that would be "on time", as in the year before it was up for renewal, it could be renounced or else it would be automatically "renewed" for another five years.

ARTICLE THREE​

The present Pact comes into force from the day of its ratification by both Contracting Parties and remains valid for five years. In case neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact one year before the expiration of the term, it will be considered automatically prolonged for the next five years. (emphasis mine)

SOVIET DENUNCIATION OF PACT WITH JAPAN​

(The Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 305, April 29, 1945)
The American Ambassador at Moscow transmitted to the Secretary of State, by a telegram dated April 5, 1945, the following statement, as received from the press section of the Foreign Office, regarding Soviet denunciation of the U.S.S.R.-Japanese neutrality pact:

" 'Today at 3 p.m. People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR Mr. V. M. Molotov, received the Japanese Ambassador, Mr. N. Sato, and made the following statement to him in the name of the Soviet Government:

" 'The neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan was concluded on April 13, 1941, that is, before the attack of Germany on the USSR and before the outbreak of war between Japan on the one hand and England and the United States on the other. Since that time the situation has been basically altered. Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR. Furthermore Japan is waging a war with the USA and England, which are allies of the Soviet Union.

" 'In these circumstances the neutrality pact between Japan and the USSR has lost its sense, and the prolongation of that pact has become impossible.

" 'On the strength of the above and in accordance with Article Three of the above mentioned pact, which envisaged the right of denunciation one year before the lapse of the five year period of operation of the pact, the Soviet Government hereby makes know to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941.' (emphasis mine)

" 'The Japanese Ambassador Mr. N. Sato, promised to inform the Japanese Government of the statement of the Soviet Government."

See:

SOVIET-JAPANESE NEUTRALITY AND DENUNCIATION

 

I don't know about "half the world" but British Colonialism has included the following nations,

North America (Canada alone is the second largest nation in the world in terms of size)
Asia (India, China, etc, I'm sure a few other nations as well)
Parts of Africa
I think their may have been some in South America but I am not 100% sure although I doubt it.
Germany (parts of Germany post war of course, I think Britain also had some say in the reunification process)

The conditions many of those nations were put under were not ideal, it's hard to compare the conditions between a Wehrmacht/S.S. occupied nation to that of a British colonial one since one of them only occupied for a few years while the other occupied for decades, even centuries.

I know little of German colonialism other than concentration camps similar to those used on the Boers for "somewhat similar" means were setup by the Germans to deal with the native population. I haven't had much time to research this topic though. When it comes to how much territory was owned, Germany didn't have anywhere near those of the British or even French!

Britain

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/The_British_Empire.png

Germany

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/German_colonial.PNG

France

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Empirecolonialfrançais.png

Spain

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Spanish_Empire_Anachronous_0.PNG

Apologizes to any colonial powers left out.

Given my heritage, my area of expertise so to speak is India, Pakistan, and maybe parts of China, but I don't want to open up a "fourth front" on this post!

Shortly after the war many nations who owned colonies began to give them up, some were given up long before the war, there are a few minor islands still under control but under very different circumstances.

Edit: "reap the whirlwind"? Those colonial powers must be tired after waiting all these years, but given the time and scale those seeds must take longer to mature. "Reap what you sow" and any variations of that are simply overblown attempts at justifying what had happened during the German retreat, I don't buy it.

Others

In regards to the Wehrmacht, it comprised of nearly 20 million people by the end of the war. While it is not a criminal organizations like the S.S. there were people within the unit who committed atrocities but not enough for the entire unit to be on the level of the S.S. for instance. Some Wehrmacht units were stationed in concentration camps under special conditions, if they were unfit for frontline service they would be transfered to a different job, one of these jobs was camp guard. While the Wehrmacht (more specifically, those that chose too) didn't perform S.A. style exterminations they did commit atrocities. It doesn't take a genius to realize such a huge force will have its fair share of individuals, especially during conscription when harsher recruitment policies aren't possible.

Sloniksp: I don't see how the "if they can do it why can't we?" justification excuse what the Red Army had done. Much like the Wehrmacht they are not a criminal organization but they had those among them who did commit atrocities. Homegrown propaganda (courtesy of Ilya Ehrenburg), what they had seen, etc were what caused them to do it among other things. The "why can't we" argument among other things was used by Hitler to justify rearmament and the world bought it.

When it came to "bringing flowers" the German Army did not although that does not mean everyone was treated badly, their have been cases where civillian populations were not heavily mistreated by stationed armies, I've heard this mostly happened in Ukraine but it could have happened in other areas as well.

The Partisans were some of the first to commit heinous mutilations to German soldiers they killed. Intestines, genitals, limbs, etc removed, wounded men rigged to exploded the moment someone came to help, men hanging by intestines, etc are some of the stories to come out of the Eastern Front and may also help explain why the army may not have been very trusting of certain civillian populations.

You are quick to claim the Germans were the only ones who destroyed villages or populations on their way to Germany. The Red Army was also responsible for such things with Nemmersdorf being the "poster child" informing every man, woman, and child in Germany that they had to escape the Red wave the moment they saw officials leave the office with a box of belongings. Wikipedia has a pretty decent list of these atrocities although it should be used as a starting point.

Soviet war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't get me wrong though, I don't blame all Germans, Russians, etc for war crimes committed by their nations, people, etc whether accidental or intentional. I believe their are plenty of good people who served during the war who shouldn't be criminalized. Infact, I always do my best to outline both sides of my viewpoint in my postings so one wouldn't walk away thinking only one side is right or wrong.

A friend of mine who isn't very knowledgeable about the war hence susceptible to the "black and white" view of the war had a funny story to share about him and a German war veteran (who came clear of his past early in their meeting) and a "Das Boot" (think Beerfest and not the movie Das Boot) competition at a German bar during his trip last August.

 

Complicity within the Wehrmacht is a complicated subject of what unit, where, when and how... some units were notoriously ideological and ruthless towards civilians and conceivably many were less so. Some of the Standard Operating Procedures prescribed in German military instructionals were very harsh in itself and illegal. I would imagine not every unit carried them out. The same apply to the Red Army. Beevor recorded that some German women found the spearhead troops well-disciplined, polite and very correct, and they also told them that they should lock their doors and be very careful when the follow up rabbles come to occupy ground. Some Allied units also had running feuds with German specific German units from whom they would take no prisoners.

 

The same thing as Stalin did, go on killing those he considered his enemies.

No, Stalin did not wipe out actual cities, just their equivalents in population. So how does that make Hitler "worse" than Stalin?

Yes, that's what I would call downplaying Stalin's crimes so that he appears somehow less of a tyrant and murderer than Hitler. There really is nothing to choose between the two

 

I will try to make my position clear.

1. Bascially, Stalin and Hitler squeezed the peasantry with equal vioence. To extract resources, both were willing to requisition farmers until they were barely self-substanence and to heck with them if they starved. In Stalin's system, however, the surplus went to feed metropolitan Russians. Hitler's system, in addition to killng roughly the same number of peasants, would also liquidate urban Russians. Hypothetically that would result in a higher death toll.

2. The former point, like all generalizations, is slightly inaccurate. At least in the case of German occupied Ukraine, where Stalin allegedly committed genocide through starvation, German economic policy actually increased the farmer's burden by requisitioning a greater quanity of grain than Stalin, while simutaneously ending public construction projects such as secondary roads for civilian use and demonlished schools. No further funds would be granted to the maintaince of existing public works, presumably including hospitals. This would lead to a higher mortality rate in the future which is most likely intentional.

3. Hitler had long term projects to send Volks Deutsche in colonies. This would displace the Russians already in place, who would most likely starve or froze to death in Siberia--as planned.

I found both loathsome beings. I don't think saying one of them is more black-hearted than the other mitigates the badness of the later in any shape or form. Were they equally bad morally? Maybe. Do I think Hitler was more dangerous? Yes, in my opinion, he was. Stalin was the lesser of two evils.

 

and then?? tell us this funny story, mehar!

 

Well it's not like they really cared about the people of those nations to begin with as they were always told they were the inferor race and the "white man" was superior hence could do no wrong. Depends where you look, I think some of the deaths contributed by colonialism were simply due to lack of care.

In the case of the Thuggee "cast", (the "cast" terminology when talking about the Thuggee has become controversial recently) it was British policy to "get rid" of them using any means possible because they were deemed unacceptable. Popular techniques used by the British government in India included jailing, killing, and exiling. No one from the Thuggee cast is around now, historians think if any are around they are simply living in secrecy. (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom uses this to build a plot) Popular theory (of the time at least) states the Thuggee were simply a band of murderers, "thugs" if you will or even highway men. This was of course how the British had seen them, in recent years (I think maybe since the 80s?) this evaluation has gone under criticism by historians who are finding information that conflicts with that analysis.

If anyone has seen George Steven's film "Gunga Din" it touches on the conflicts. There has also been recent controversies over how the Thuggee were handled by the British.

Ahh ok! Basically the veteran ordered these two drinks that came in this huge Soccer ball shaped glass (with all the detail) and they had a contest to see who could drink it the fastest, the vet downed it with no problem but my friend was having trouble.

 

That's all hypothetical reasoning. Stalin actually killed more than 20 million people through murder, overwork and starvation, not "allegedly", but in reality and that is more than Hitler killed. And while, the "surplus", as you put, it went to feed other people whom Stalin favored, Hitler's murderous plans were supposed to ultimately benefit the "Aryans" by providing a higher standard of living and preserving their "culture". The Soviets, of course, also "colonized" subject territories though didn't make a big deal of it like the Germans. Even today, nations like Lithuania have substantial numbers of Russian "citizens" as a result. I can discern no significant difference between Stalin and Hitler, whether through actual behavior, or hypothetical future plans.

I too find Hitler and Stalin and their respective ideologies equally repugnant. I think it is fruitless to argue that one of the other was the more dangerous; that assumes that inhuman torture and mass murder through overwork, starvation, and outright execution can somehow be quantified at an individual level; it can't. Stalin was not the lesser of two evils; he was merely the evil with which circumstances forced us to become temporarily allied. Both tyrants were eventually eliminated and their dogma rejected by saner individuals and for that we can be thankful.

 

"Big deal"? What do you mean by that?

 

It has to be a hypothetical discussion, since Hitler's career as a murdering thug was thankfully cut short.

Well, yes. By the lesser of the two evils I do mean an unpalatable choice that the circumstances had made necessary. I am not defending Stalin for anything. Allying with Stalin was the correct move, and it is my opinion that certain political factions during the inter-war period made a huge mistake in thinking National Socialism was a bulkwark against Bolshevism.

 

The term "big deal" is an American vernacular phrase denoting something significant, or in some way more of more importance than other possible issues.

In the context I used it, it means that the Soviets didn't attempt to offer an ideological argument, or justification, for their colonization programs, or indeed play them up at all.

 

Yes, fortunately!

But what I meant was that in reality, circumstances allowed Stalin to be far more lethal than Hitler ever managed to be. Maybe that was because Stalin was craftier than Hitler, or maybe it was just fate, but in any case, Stalin actually killed more people

I wonder, if we really had been faced with a choice between allying ourselves with Hitler or Stalin, and we were fully informed of all that both had done, and planned to do, which would we have chosen?

Of course, we had no such dilemma, and no such choice; it was Stalin by default, not because we could really convince ourselves he was the "lesser evil".

 

Try telling that to all those ethnic Germans expelled from their lands, during and after the war, the Historians who just weeks ago got a visit from KGB esque officials who stole their research and told them to shut up about their research in regards to the expulsions, the hundreds possibly thousands kidnapped in their sleep by the KGB and kept with the "promise" that they were war criminals who in reality were innocent. Or even the thousands of Germans sent to concentration camps solely because they had membership or some sort of affiliation with the Nazi Party? In some cases, membership was made up solely so people could be sent to concentration camps, Gulags, etc. When the party was still around pre war, businesses owners in places like Berlin were bullied into joining the party to help boost numbers, they may not have agreed with the party enough to join but if they wanted to continue running their business they had to.

Or people like Wilm Hosenfeld who were captured by the Soviets, incriminated with running death camps and sent to work in Gulags despite petitions from various groups arguing their innocence?

How about Poland who still has a "running feud" with Russia? Estonia is probably one of the places in the ex Soviet Union where anti Russian sentiment is at its highest. Finland, Romania, etc also come to mind. The Gulags under Stalin were at their worst, a huge chunk of those captured from these territories during and after the war did not make it home. The list goes on.

No side was right or "more saintly" in their treatment of people than the other when it came to the Eastern Front.

 

Devils Advocate,

Reasonable people can disagree. I am inclined to think Stalin killed more people simply because he was in power longer and ran a bigger empire. Had Hitler won, IMHO, he would be quite a bit worse but we have both made our arguments.

Mehar,

You might find Mazower's Dark Continent: Europe's 20th Century interesting reading. Greece and Turkey's "population exchange" was a forerunner for what would happen in Europe, though in my memory, Greece and Turkey negotiated the exchange as equals and the resettlement was therefore a lot more orderly than what happened in central and eastern Europe.

 

Good rant, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Soviets choose not to offer any ideological justification for their colonization programs, and more or less downplayed them. I am not making any moral judgment when I used the term "no big deal" for the Soviets, merely pointing out that, unlike the Germans, the Soviets did not consider their practice of colonization something they wanted to publicize by making it part of some official policy or plan.

 

Have you not heard of Stalinism or even Leninism before that? Stalinism played a big role in a post war world, they also had this thing called the Cold War shortly after World War 2 which was all about Soviet and Western ideologies/policies conflicting.

The Soviet Union also wanted to spread Communism, there were reports that at one point even Israel was a target considered by Stalin when it came to building a bigger Communist base outside of the union.

The Chinese Revolution
Cuba
Korean War
Vietnam War

And various other wars including guerilla movements the world over were because of this and backed by the U.S.S.R. in some way. COMECON, the Warsaw Pact, etc also come to mind.