Stalin's Contributions

I'm saying that Stalin was the biggest warmonger - Hitler a close second. His actions were to extend the soviet empire.

Of course the defeat of the Nazism was a good thing, but the defeat of the Communism would have been even better one. The best one would have been the destruction of both. Unfortunately but understandably the West could only focus on defeating the Nazism (and the Japanese). That choice caused huge sufferings to the hole world for half a century.

 

I'm sure you are right. However I don't think Hitler thought so in 1939.

You praise him for his determined resistance in the war, which he himself was co-starting...

 

Maybe you should use the plural "Stalinists", as it seems there are more than one of them here...

 

"Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin to negotiate the terms for the Soviet Union to join the Axis and potentially enjoy the spoils of the pact.[55] Molotov spent much of the trip to Berlin searching his rail car for listening devices.[56] Molotov's train arrived at 11:05 a.m. on November 12.[57][58] It was a bad omen for success that von Schulenberg, the architect of the meeting, was excluded.[43] Molotov was greeted by Ribbentrop at the train station decorated with Soviet and Nazi flags above a large basket of flowers, with a band playing The Internationale for the first time since 1933.[59] After a brief breakfast, the talks started immediately that day at the Schloss Bellevue Hotel.[57] After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a Moscow journal published certain selected correspondence revealing that Stalin was closely supervising Molotov's talks via telegram, but some of those telegrams remain unpublished.[60]
At the outset, Ribbentrop stated, "England is beaten and it is only a question of time when she will admit her defeat.... The beginning of the end has now arrived for the British empire."[58] He further stated that "the entry of the United States into the war is of no consequence at all for Germany. Germany and Italy will never again allow an Anglo-Saxon to land on the European Continent.... This is no military problem at all.... The Axis Powers are, therefore, not considering how they can win the war, but rather how rapidly they can end the war which is already won."[58] He further stated that Germany and the Soviet Union had together "done some good business."[58]
Accordingly, Ribbentrop concluded that the time had come for the four powers (Germany, the Soviet Union, Italy and Japan) to define their "spheres of interest."[58][61] He stated that Hitler had concluded that all four countries would naturally expand "in a southerly direction."[58] Ribbentrop said he wondered if the Soviets might turn southward toward the sea, and when Molotov inquired "which sea?", Ribbentrop stated that "in the long run the most advantageous access to the sea for Russia could be found in the direction of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea."[58][61]
Regarding the division of the world into four spheres of influence, Molotov stated the new idea was "very interesting" and worthy of a discussion in Moscow with Ribbentrop participating.[62] Stalin became annoyed with a telegram to him from Molotov stating that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was "exhausted" with the exception of the Finnish issue, with Stalin stating that any future agreements would merely be added to it because it served as a fundamental basis for Soviet-German relations.[62]
In the afternoon, Molotov visited Hitler at the Reichskanzlei.[57][58] Hitler also spoke of striking that "final blow against England." Hitler stated that "it is time to think about division of the world after our victory."[57] Regarding the "problem of America" he stated that it could not "endanger the freedom of other nations before 1970 or 1980."[58] He and Molotov agreed that the United States had no business in Europe, Africa or Asia.[58] Hitler stated that there were no fundamental differences between the two countries in their pursuit of aspiring for "access to the ocean."[58] Molotov expressed his agreement with Hitler about the role of America and Britain and Soviet participation in the Axis Pact in principle but only if the Soviets could participate as an active partner.[62][63] That same day, Germany also postponed until the following year its plans to invade Britain because of failures in the air campaign against Britain.[42]
Molotov agreed with Hitler that there were no unresolved problems between the countries, except about Finland.[62] When Molotov returned to his hotel, he stated that he was "relieved at Hitler's amiability."[54] In a telegram to Molotov that night, Stalin insisted that the security of the USSR cannot be ensured "without securing tranquility in the area of the Straits", referring the Bosporus straits for entry into the Black Sea.[64] That was linked directly with the Soviet-Bulgarian agreement for passage of Soviet troops for "the defense of entry into the Black Sea."[64] Stalin added that "this question still bears current importance and does not allow any procrastination."[64]

http://en.wikipedia....viet_Axis_talks

If this is truth, then the Soviet position in the war indeed needs a major popular re-understanding.

 

I can understand why you think so. I, and millions of other Europeans, do not agree with that.

Yes, Hitler was evil. So was Stalin, and maybe even more so.

 

Am not sure what you are asking. This is not anything new.

Did the USSR and Germany do co-operation? Yes.
Did they have an alliance? Yes.
Did the USSR and Germany split countries for occupation zones? Yes.
Did Molotov go to Germany in November 1940 for negotiations? Yes.
Did Molotov ask for permission to finish Finland? Yes.
Did Hitler give that permission? No.

and so on...

 

I'm talking about the negociations for a Soviet entry in the Axis. This apparently "justifies" Stalin being cautious with Hitler as for warnings of the invasion. With the Soviets in the Axis, it would be difficult for the US to enter in the war against Germany. Also, Japan was improving it's relations with the USSR, with the objective of put the Soviets in the Axis and be free to conquer the European colonies in the Pacific without US intervention. In this manner, the Axis could have forced Britain to sign peace with Germany and therefore free the Germans of the naval blockade and Soviet dependance in imports. The problem is: could the Soviets live between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? While the Soviets definately they were not prepared to attack Germany in 1941, God knows if they would not do it later. From the Realist perspective, Stalin would "have" to attack at least Germany, because the Axis would become too powerful and hence a treat to the USSR.

 

Carefully dear urqh, Karjala might accuse you of being a Stalinist too!

 

If there is a choice...I'll take Stalin over Hitler...Simple.

 

Great discussion, All. Difficult topic and I see why the passions run high on each side. I think people who were subjected to the Communist Bloc Rule in Eastern Europe have their beliefs and to them they are well founded and without dispute. This includes the Finns who saw, up close and personal, during the Russo - Finnish Wars (1917-1944 on and off), exactly what lay in store for any countries that fell under Soviet domination. That said, I wish both of those sods would have had their craniums piked, sorry, just saying. Oh, and lets add Mao to the list too, Cultural Revolution my arse, Great Leap Forward - right - o.

 

If you were a Soviet Pole in the late 30s or part of any group that Stalin persecuted in determined times, you would not say this. But of course, I understand your point and I agree with it. I just wouldn't agree if you ask me if there was moral in the Western alliance with Stalin, and in the West letting him rule people against their will after the war. Someone will ask me: "what you would do if you were a Western leader?". I don't think I would do nothing different than historically. I'm just saying that countries are cynical (Western colonialism being an example), and instead of say that determined actions countries take were "better", the correct is say that determined actions were "less worse". The governments of those powerful nations such as the US, UK, USSR and China all have their hands soaked with innocent blood, and a list of serious immoral actions in their credits. This is why they cannot criticize the Nazis in absolute terms, because they would be hypocrite. And actually, this is how the world always worked. We are all skeptical if will change in the future.

BTW, I recommend watch this interview with John Mearsheimer about the Realism school of tought of foreign relations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKFamUu6dGw

 

If one compares Hitler's Generalplan Ost with the historical outcome the difference between Hitler and Stalin becomes apparent.

Had Hitler won the war in the East the following was intended for the conquered peoples,

Polish population: 80 to 85% to be exterminated, 15 to 20% to be "assimilated" into the Reich at the cost of their language and customs. Effectively eliminating the Polish people.

Russian Population: 50 to 60% to be exterminated, 15% to be "transported" to Siberia (presumably as slave labor), the remaining 25 to 35% to be assimilated into the Reich.

Belorussian Population: 75% to be exterminated, 25% to be assimilated.

Ukrainian Population: 65% to be exterminated, 35% to be assimilated.

Lithuanian Population: 85% to be exterminated, 15% to be assimilated.

Latvian and Estonian Population: 50% to be exterminated, 50% to be assimilated.

Czech Population: 50% to be exterminated, 50% to be assimilated.

As with the Poles "Assimilated" into the Reich, each ethnic group would lose their language, customs and identity. Worse, they would be forced to leave their homes to be "resettled" further east, thus further disconnecting them from their heritage. Effectively eliminating each group over the 25 to 30 year period it was thought to take.

The Soviet Union had control of Eastern Europe for the same period, yet though dominated politically, militarily and economically, the ethnic races survived and most currently are the masters of their own future.

Please note that Hitlers allies in the Baltic States would suffer the same eventual fate as Hitler's intended victims. Though I can not prove it, it is not unreasonable to suppose that at some point Hitler's other allies might just suffer the same fate.

 

There's no doubt that Hitler was worse than Stalin.You are not claiming this, but I will say that this is not a justification for what the USSR did. It would be like if because I saved a women, I want to have the right to beaten her. This is what the Soviets did in Eastern Europe. Less serious, but still to be worried about. The EU is apparentely doing well in terms of take lessons from the past, giving emphasis to what it's member states suffered under both the Soviet and Nazi rule (but definately there's have to be a distinction between the nature of both regimes)

 

As for not being occupied so not having the if you like experience...Britons have long known and lots at the time knew of Alfred Six and his plans for my family and therefor me....Now ask me who I prefer...Hitler or Stalin.

 

I know about the plan for deportation of the British workforce to Germany.

There's no doubt about the decisive Soviet contribution for victory in WWII and the nature of Soviet and Nazi regimes. Those who try to compare Hitler with Stalin, usually have a political agenda. The Stalin of the post-war had less power than the one until WWII. And anyway, Stalin did not live much after the war. As for Liberal Democracies and Socialist countries not being "perfect", everyone certainly agrees they were not. However, a country like Nazi Germany did not have a simiar in history. To have an idea, the Nazis did not rule out the future possibility of enter in confilict with their Japanese allies, again in racial grounds.

 

Thanks Belasar for a great post, again. What you wrote is what I was thinking today. Do you have a psychic capabilities too?

Poles had no options and had no freedom of choice too. Among two powerful neighbors they were too weak to decide their own future. Victory of Nazism meant a certain death to a vast majority of Poles or survival by assimilation for the lucky minority. Under the trend attained during 1939-1945, there wouldn't have been any Poland and Poles today, only the former Polish territories populated by the Germans. Victory of the Soviets was another bitter outcome but, at least, the Soviet victory meant survival of a nation. After the war Stalin took from Poles the territories he wanted and compensated Polish losses with the German territories. Quite frankly, that was a good deal for Poles. Too god regarding their weak position at that time. They had no right to ask the Western Allies to fight for them for their imaginary eastern frontier after the war was essentially concluded. Why should American and British boys bleed for the Greater Poland? And quite frankly now: the pre-war poland wasn't really a glaring sample of democracy. Furthermore, with the Nazi cover, they have succeeded to make Poland “Judenfrei”.

After the victory the Soviets left and the Polish communists took the control over the Polish state. It was the Polish Communist Party who ruled the state in a harsh communist manner, not the Russians. The Polish communists ruled the communist Poland. Our Ludwig was a communist too and he supported suffering of Polish people under the region of the Polish Communist Party. He was a communist then and is an anti-communist now. How convenient. He was a communist when a membership was significant advantage over others, the only way to get free scholarship in France and he became an anti-communist when he needed better life after the escape to the West. He wrote a never-published-book “Diaries of the Former Communist”. It isn't funny but can you imagine a book entitled “Diaries of the Former Whore”. Once a whore, whore forever. Once a communist, communist forever. Communism is an ideological prostitution.

I could write a lot about the communists, I knew them, they were my neighbours, some of them were even my friends. I observed them from some decent distance then and I still regard them in the same manner. But no, I don't hate them, they don't deserve my emotional engagement.

 

Great post, Tamino.

Perhaps the only salvation for Poland would be if France didn't fell in 1940. But even if the Anglo-French occupied Germany by '42 or '43, the Soviets would probably occupy the rest of Poland as the Allies would be fighting in German soil. Even in this scenario, I doubt if the West would be willing to fight a war against Stalin because Poland.

BTW, the scenario mentioned above raises a question: Britain, France and the US together had very strong armed forces, and had far superior industrial output than Germany. The capitalist states destroying themselfs sounds more appropriated for the conditions of WWI than WWII. Therefore, I'm skeptical if Stalin was really searching for this.

 

I have been reading this thread with interest and hesitate to enter at such a late stage.

My only contribution is through my reading, although I did visit Poland once when the Communists were in power (which for me was real eye-opener since I had been left wing in my youth).

But on the subject of Stalin - I think he was a very cautious and a very frightened man, totally paranoid and murdered his real and imaginary enemies without pity. After all, he was the only war leader who had not been elected and had no mandate - it is his contribution that he was sufficiently flexible (and scared) to genuinely get the support of the Russian people and the Russian Generals and Scientists.

Frankly I don't see him as an empire builder in the conventional way - all his expansion of the USSR placed more buffers in the way of an aggressor and in any case all the countries he absorbed came about due to Hitler.

Moreover, once given, he kept his word, whether this was with Hitler, Roosevelt or Churchill. He could have remained in Austria, taken Yugoslavia and Greece but did not. And what ever trouble he caused in Finland he did not occupy it after the War.

In fact of all the warleaders I think he was the least ideologically driven (and I include Roosevelt and Churchill).

In Asia he backed Chang at the expense of Mao until the last minute and even in Korea committed practically nothing.

Supporting the creation of Israel was typical of his mind set.

Just my pennyworth

 

I think thats half the problem...You don't have to support the guy to understand his methodolgy and reasoning...Any defence of his actions is taken by some even on here to be support for what was just another tyranical dictator..But I don't see what anyone wanted the guy to do. We must recognise he was a thoroughly rotten chap...And I don't think anyone on here is naive enough to realise what he was about. But that does not, should not bring into any argument on who was worse who was best..neither were best is all I'd say..But I'd also realise that his choices were rather limited by the western powers and the Nazi regime. He could of course have not made any pact with Nazism..It would have not stopped invasion of Russia either way...

The one thing I will not support here though is Nazi Germany being given any advantage, being given any moral equivelance, being looked on as not as bad as we thought...They were as bad as we thought, they needed wiping off the face of the earth..they hopefully were...And that was done with the aid of Comrade Stalin whether we like it or not.

 

There's a lot of documents about the Soviets helping Germany to break the Versailles Treaty. Some historians like the Russians Yuri Dyakov and Tatyana Bushuyeva, authors of The Red Army and the Wehrmacht: How the Soviets Militarized Germany ,1922-33, and Paved the Way for Facism, argue that if not for this secret Soviet support, Hitler either would not launch WWII or the Allies would have a significantly greater chance of stop him earlier. The book mentioned has the majority of it's pages devoted to secret Soviet and German documents of the period, showing that the Soviets helped the Reichswehr to set up things like military research facilities, and tank and flight schools in the USSR.

Then, there's the MR Pact and those Axis proposals for the USSR which I found in Wik. I don't if they are true, and if the Soviets really wanted to participate in the Axis. Because if they did, and if Stalin was thinking in some long-term co-existence with the Axis, then it would approriated to say that until June 1941 Hitler "had" to be defeated only by the Western opinion. From the Soviet perspective, see Britain and France defeated would be see as an avenge, since those states and the US collaborated to the attempt of destroy the USSR right after it's creation. Of course, again the problem is: the "alternatives" were probably worse.