Stalin's Contributions

Yeah.

 

This indicates different levels of population loyalty. Almost intact archives of Regensburg Nazi police reveal that Gestapo was very efficient with only few officials because a lions share of work was done by informants. Even children denounced own parents to Gestapo. In DDR every citizen needed his own secret policeman.

In seventies I've been talking to young lady from DDR who was on holidays at Adriatic sea with her young son. Her husband had to stay home with other child as a guarantee that she would return back to DDR!

But, they were the first who produced plastic cars - Trabie!

BTW: Dear comrades and friends I send you my sincere greetings and best wishes on the occasion of the first of May the International Labor Day, a symbol of solidarity of the proletariat.

 

The peoples flag....
Is deepest red...

Or....

The working class can go to helllll
I've got the foremans job at last...

To be sung to Oh xmas tree for our American cousins...

But back to work...Only one tea break on the line please comrades..

Stalin..Whatever he did contribute...he certainly contributed controversy on this forum.
If it was not Stalin we would be discussing another comrade who would have done no different in charge of Russia.

 

I'm not so sure. Might make an interesting what if though.

 

I hope you've noticed a smiley in my previous post. The First may is just one month after the First April.

... but there is yet another contribution which deserves to be mentioned: Stalin's contribution to geography of Europe: he shifted Poland westwards in cooperation with Churchil and Roosewelt, Czechs got rid of Sudeten Germans under the red umbrella, Russia got Kaliningrad. There were some other changes in geography and ethnic composition in many regions. That's all significant and stil has impact on relationships in Europe. We must admit: Stalin's contributions weren't marginal at all.

 

One thing is certain: Stalin was loved by the US and Britain during WWII. And one might argue the same in vice versa.

 

Loved as in how? By the masses or the politico's? Love or allied to....?

Would you say that Britian and America loved Saudi Arabia...or put up with them as allies for a specific reason?

Churhill certainly had no love for Stalin. And his profound hatred of the communist Russian system was never hidden from anyone in fact he pushed the white army war against Soviets after ww1.

The masses in UK in ww2 certainly respected the Russian fight and why wouldn't they? They saw an invaded folk fighting a joint enemy and indeed giving them a black eye in the process. So the masses in UK would cheer for the Russian as a friend and Allie...They would have cheered for Satan himself if he rose and cast down the Nazis. But love? The British loved what was left
of their empire and commonwealth brothers..and had a newfound respect for American boys and girls...But love? Britain loved and loves no one but Britain...Don't ever confuse us with anyone or anything else.

I won't talk for America...My own view is that the American masses never fell for Soviets or Stalins regime..They probably never knew that much about it, apart from they were fighting the Germans too..Why should they. As for FDR, he may in my own view have been naieve on occasions..and may have thought he had the upper hand over old Uncle Joe...a mistake at times..but FDR would not have said he or the American people had any love for Russia.

An alliance was all it ever was...there was no great love fest but there was respect from the publics...And knowing what they did not know...who on earth can blame them. Its a case of transference of today's morals on our forebeares...It does not work.

 

The question is: the person Stalin was decisive for the war's outcome? There historians such as Geoffrey Roberts who say that it would be realistic to say that he could have been.

 

That is a little too simple thing to say in my opinion. If you did not have the US "Europe first" strategy there would not have been the invasion 1944 and Stalin might have to search for other ways to survive the war than try to beat Germany if things start looking like war´s gonna last for years on.

 

That requires a bit more defintion. Certainly events could have been considerably different if Stalin were not in charge of the USSR. WWII might not even have occured or if it did when and how it started would likely have changed. I don't see Germany winning if it becomes a world war. "decisive for the war's outcome" though depends on just how you define that. Is it a very general Axis loss? In which case Stalin's personal impact in the origin of the war is likely most critical. If you mean Soviet troops in Berlin on a particular date remove Stalin anytime up to a few days prior and the date is likely to change.

 

Part of an interview with Geoffrey Roberts:


"Hitler was intent on war in any event. In reality, Stalin did a deal with Hitler in the form of the Nazi-Soviet pact, keeping the USSR out of the war for a couple of years, because he didn’t believe British and French promises that if the Soviets were to ally with them they’d fully and wholeheartedly fight the Germans should Hitler attack Poland. When Germany invaded Poland in September 1939 Britain and France declared war but indeed did little to help the Poles. Had the Soviet Union allied itself with Britain and France the brunt of the war with Germany would have fallen on the Red Army from the beginning. Indeed, that’s what happened after the Germans invaded Russia in June 1941. Some people argue that the Soviets should have taken a stand in 1939, irrespective of their suspicions of Britain and France. I’m not sure this would have been a wise course of action."
http://hnn.us/articles/russias-architect-victory-interview-geoffrey-roberts-georgy-zhukov

 

Had the Soviets let Hitler conquer Poland, he subsequentely could have attacked the USSR. Then, the West could have attacked Germany after she defeated the USSR and kill two rabbits in one shot. So, indeed the Soviets had justification to be fearful of the intentions of the West.

As for the importance of Stalin as a person, according to Geoffery Roberts, he undertaked many roles in the war that lacked substitutes. Roberts provides evidence in his works of personal from foreign governments making this obvervations from Stalin, as well as similar evidence being presented from Soviet sources (critics of Roberts critics saying that he relies too much in the latter). I didn't read Roberts books yet, but I'm skeptical of some of his conclusions. Roberts says that Stalin "saved Europe" from Nazism. I have the impression that if the Soviet Union collapsed after mid-1942, the West would have a realistic chance of defeat Germany. It also would depends of how a Soviet collapse would occur. For example, if the Soviets sabotated their oil fields in mid-1942, and took the Germans until mid 1943 to start to benefit from Soviet oil, would the LW be able to defeat the combined bombing campaign? I'm skeptical. Also, like lwd pointed out, simply not having Stalin could have many other consequences, from the war being avoided to be lost.

Since I have the impression that the West had a realistic chance of deal with Germany if the Soviets were defeated after 1942, Stalin's role would be likely critical by just one year (and he also would left an operandis legacy if died suddentely in 1942 for example. This could have been either good or bad. Good in the sense that perhaps the system learned enough with Stalin and now can be run without him. Bad in the opposite). Would a single person be able to make a difference between a likely victory and a much greater chance of defeat by just one year? This question that makes me skeptical of claims that Stalin was likely vital for the survival of the Soviet state during the war. But even if Roberts is correct, he says that Stalin was "likely" decisive, not indispensably decisive.

 

Indeed, there was certain kind of affection for Uncle Joe during the war, but that wasn't love. That was, let me express that in Italian language: il matrimonio senza amore.

Joseph Stalin, Man of the Year | Jan. 4, 1943

 

Tamino, "love" is this:

It’s a pity Snyder’s work has become associated with the recent revival of Cold War ideological polemics in which Hitler and Stalin and the Soviet and Nazi systems are depicted as being equivalent and as bad as each other. During the war, when the battlefields were soaked with the blood of millions of Soviet soldiers, it was a different story. The Red Army was credited in the West with saving European civilization and Stalin was hailed as a hero and a great war leader. As I argued in Stalin’s Warsand again in Stalin’s General, it was (ironically) Stalin and the Soviets who helped saved liberal democracy, as well as the communist system, from the Nazis. After the war, central and eastern Europe found itself part of an authoritarian communist bloc, but the region was not exactly a showcase for democracy before World War II -- and don’t forget that Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Hungary, Rumania and Slovakia all fought alongside Germany, while many citizens of the Baltic states were active collaborators in Hitler’s projects.

http://hnn.us/articles/russias-architect-victory-interview-geoffrey-roberts-georgy-zhukov

 

"The Commie Plague" (in general) was/is definitely the worst one without a doubt.

Whether Stalinism killed more or less than Hitlerism is an open question, since the partly open soviet/Russian sources cannot be outrightly trusted. The article by Timothy Snyder you linked was interesting but I could immediately see some likely errors.

E.g. the number of German POW's (363.000) who died in the soviet custody was from the soviet sources and cannot be trusted.
"Rüdiger Overmans writes "It seems entirely plausible, while not provable,that one half of the 1.5 million missing on the eastern front were killed in action, the other half (700,000) however in fact died in Soviet custody".

The same surely goes with the POW's of all other nationalities too - at least it does with the Finnish POW's (of the Continuation War). The soviet number for killed Finnish POW's is 400. In reality the figure is 1.500. The difference is 1:3,7...!

The civilians of Leningrad were deliberately NOT evacuated before or during the (not complete) siege, so the responsibility of their deaths is also of the soviet regime.

Since there are several outright errors in the article it is difficult to trust other numbers in it either. Some possible calculation mistakes:

The soviet sources often put 500.000 killed soviet drafted reservists as "civilians", because they were not listed in 1941 before getting KIA. The killed nationals of the Baltic countries (and others) are often counted as the "victims of the Germans", although they were actually often killed by the soviets etc.

 

If "wishes to terminate" are counted, then surely there are more candidates to the "worst" list since the dawn of times.

E.g. Stalin wanted to get rid of the Finns too. The chosen ones to Katyn and like (conveniantly freed of the Poles...) and the rest to Siberia (estimated death ratio 50 %). That's an extra 100.000-200.000 + 1.800.000 to the Stalin's numbers... This is of course only what if, but still.

If the actual killings are counted then the soviets are at least even. One should also remember that most of the German atrocities happened during the war time. Even "the Final Solution" was not finally decided until early 1942. Before the war there were plans to move the jews to Madagascar, South America etc, not to kill them all. We do not know what the German rule during the peace time would have really been like, since it did not happen.

We do know however, that the most of the soviet atrocities happened during the peace time, which in my books is worse.

In reality there were no real possibilities of the German world conquest. On the other hand there was a very real threat of the communist world dominance, which the USSR and her allies tried very hard, creating multitude of wars for decades all around the world. All those wars were very much (at least indirect) results of Stalinism - as is even today North Korea !

 

I agree with you and totally understand your point of view. That's why it's even harder to understand those few who still sometimes try to question the Finland's desperate (only) choice to fight with the Germans (in the Continuation War) against the mutual enemy.

 

And why do you think all those countries did fight with the Germans...?

 

Karjala, I think history and folk in general understand Finlands options and the reasons why things happened the way they did. On a froum like this though we are more into the specifics and so it may seem that there is questioning on things that most accept in the outside world. But thats just the nature of a forum that has ww2 as its raison detre...Finland has and always will be gently treated by history. Some will disagree of course...some still disagree in the allied quarter of going to Britians aid in ww2...some of our best friends..but thats life. I for one do not and never have place Finland in the same region..both in my head or politically as the Baltic states, who have more questions to answer, especially since some regail in their part...To this day...

Finland has never been in that area.

 

Karjala, I agree that the Soviets were cynical during the war. They and their supporters claim that the MR Pact was just for the Soviet security. I won't buy that one. Have you already imaginated the scandal that would be Britain and France signing a document with Htiler dividing Europe in "spheres of influence", and providing critical raw materials to Germany fight the USSR? Well, this was just what Stalin did with Hitler in 1939, but directed to the West and Eastern European states. I also won't buy the idea that the Red Army was unable to deal with a German invasion, and so Stalin "had" to sign the MR Pact. It was this same Red Army that since the 1920s was preparing to deal with an invasion from the "capitalist states". If the Red Army was not prepared for a war in 1939, it was due to it's incompetance and incompetence of Stalin, and was not a justification for what the USSR did. Of course that in practice the countries use realpolitk as they felt necessary. But in terms of moral, there's no justification for what Stalin did. Also, I have a book called The Red Army and the Wehrmacht: How the Soviets Militarized Germany 1922-33 and Paved the Way for Facism, by Yuri Dyakov and Tatyana Bushuyeva. The books presents a good quantity of evidence of evidence that the Soviets provided the Reichswehr with access to military research facilities in the USSR, tank and flight schools, and other things violating the Versailles Treaty. At least in the conclusion of the authors, had the Soviets not have provided the Germans with such a help, Hitler either would have a much better chance to be defeated earlier, or perhaps would not launch the war at all. Of course that perhaps the Germans would find other place to broke the treaty, like Italy, but the fact remains that the Soviets were totally aware that the "cooperation" with the Reichswehr, which was to give them military know-how, was in direct violating of a treaty that Germany accepted and was just to eliminate the risk of the German military rise again as an agressor force.

Even so, I would not put the guilt of Hitler's agression (which ultimately belongs to him) just in the Soviets. The fact is that all Allied countries contributed to let the situation went out of control.