Stalin's Contributions

As for which dictator was "worst", frankly, I don't like from this kind of comparison. All countries are more or less cynical, and for me there's no much sense in say "this is worse". For me, this is just question of the people see what the countries really do and draw their own conclusions.

Nazism planned to exterminate and enslave most of the Slavs, as well as the European Jews. Communism did not do this. But could the world adapted itself to Nazism? I would risk to say that perhaps. There would be the United States, which would defeat Japan anyway. There would be a China (a Communist China would be an adversary of Nazi Germany). There would be South America, and perhaps there would be Britain as well. And there would also be nuclear weapons. And the idea that Germany had techonology to surpass the whole world is a myth. The US would have the B-36 in operation by the mid-1940s if necessary, and by carrying nukes it posed a real treat to Germany. Also, if Britain survived, Britain also would have nukes. I think there would be a possibility of the world adapt itself to the new situation, as it adapted itself in endless other ocassions. Also, there's critism to the German economy. Would it run really like Hitler planned to make "Germania" the greatest Empire ever? Also, what if Hitler died? Like Communist China had Mao as a Butcher, perhaps the Nazis also could change. The European Confederation proposed by Ribbentrop in 1943 was perhaps an example. Nothing is rigid in the world, and Karjala is correct when talking about the danger of Communism. If the Communist ideal was allowed manifest itself as the proponenets want to, there would be a world revolution, and therefore a Communist takeover in all countries. In theory, Communism was extremely dangeours to anyone who opposes it (and in practice it proved so in many cases).

One of the most interesting things that I already read about regimes like the Marxism and Fascism:


Current researchers investigating racial differences, who argue that those differences are biological, are often accused of racism and that their research may harm society. Steven Pinker has stated that it is "a conventional wisdom among left-leaning academics that genes imply genocide." He has responded to this "conventional wisdom" by comparing the history of Marxism, which had the opposite position on genes to that of Nazism:

But the 20th century suffered "two" ideologies that led to genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn't believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it's not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It's the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tbs/media_articles/2002_10_30_upi.html

 

At that time the Molotov-Ribentrop pact was the best decision, for a reasonable statesman. Why should he got involved into other people's war, prematurely? Smply, Stalin was pragmatic but he failed to realize that Hitler's offer was deception.

 

Stalin feared that the Germans could attack the USSR by the baltic states, and by making the defense pact with Poland the West might be pushing Hitler into that direction. While this was realistic to considerate, there's also the consideration that the Soviets could have resisted and counter-attacked Germany, and so the Red Army could have advanced towards Germany. The world was just recovering from the Great Depression, and one of the reasons for the failure of Collective Security was just the economic crisis. Would the West be willing to risk a war with the USSR because the latter could have tried to occupy Germany? I'm skeptical, and this could not been unknow to Stalin at the time. Anyway, there's sense in his actions,but they were not what you can call "morally correct". And actually, given the Sovietization of the areas conquered by the Soviets, it's clear that they were not just entering in the territories for national defense, because they did not get out of them in the post-war (not without making them satellite states). Anyway, as I said earlier: I want that someone tell me of a country that didn't used realpolitk. =P

 

Other aspect of Stalin is that he wanted to dismantle Germany in the post war, what the West didn't accepted. This contributed to the Cold War.

As can be seen, there was a mutual distrust between the West and the Soviets. It seems that today this is still happening between Russia and the West.,,

 

The law of power governs the world even today, but do we really have a choice? Do you see any viable alternative which wouldn't lead into the chaos? We live in relative peace almost for 70 years at the price of reduced freedom of choice! That's not bad at all.

 

When big interests are in game and governments can hide an immoral or even criminal action, generally they would do it. While for some governments like the Axis in WWII, it's not necessary to be much discret.

 

Which is why some of us recognise and realise Perfidious Albion. But at the same time...We all have occasions to look on our govt and civil services running of any plans and commitments as dire, or we support them..there is no all encompassing support or all encompassing critique of their actions. Some are necessary for the perceived way of life and freedoms of their people..some for the way of life of our/their leaders and parties. That I am afraid is life. I understand your point. But sometimes its necessary to ride with the devil...the admittance afterwards I'll give you is important. Its not always forthcoming for reasons that themselves may be perfidious.

 

uqh, I'm just doing the work of Machiavelli here. "I'm not saying how it should work, but how it works". Karjala is defending that Finland needed to ally with Germany to survive. While others here are defending that Stalin needed to sign the pact with Hitler after Munich and the uncertainty of the Western position from the Soviet perspective. I think no one is "wrong".

As for more contemporany events, the US government admitted the use of torture and "black sites" in the last 10 years. This is not any surprise. Far from conspiracy theory, people have to be really naive to not belive that governments of countries such as the US, UK and Russia do not conduct torture. Actually, even the countries which are popularily considerated to be example of morality have their exceptions. For example, I read recently that the Swiss government was simpatic to the Military Dictatorship in my country (Brazil).

To conclude this post, I just would like to let clear that I'm not suggesting to everyone cross the arms to the "evil" governamental actions. Rather than that, I'm simply saying that we always should have an ample view of the world, because the dirtiness is in everywhere. In some places more, in others less.

 

I think most do realise mate. Some would like it not to be so. The machinations of govt and miltaries around the world is not good in the whole...Today's machinations cannot be so easily explained away as those of ww2. I really believe that.

,Americans in general, and I'm not trying to be insulting...Will defend the office.

 

In democracies, not always the head of state and the representatives of the people are aware of what some government agencies are doing, like the intelligence ones.

As for what you say of the ordinary Americans, sociologically speaking, it's natural for them to do this. Their country is currently the sole superpower in the world, and they are just defending their image. But this it's not only with them. See the case of today's Russia and WWII. Every time that some country tries to challange the conventional wisdom of Russia in WWII with subjects such as the Red Army commiting crimes and occupying Eastern Europe, there's an earthquake in the country.

 

But that article is from Mark Weber :monster1: - The Professional Holocaust Denier! Isn't this again of-topic and isn't this promoting the Holocaust Denial Web Site?

@Jenisch: Is it possible to compare the Wehrmacht with other armies when we correctly take into account the participation of Wehrmacht in the Holocaust?

 

I didn't know who the author was. Anyway, I will let the link because there's no mention to the Holocaust.

 

That's exactly the problem: for him there was NO Holocaust.

BTW, I'm a bit puzzled now: you appear to be very informed but somehow you don't know who the Mark Weber is although you obviously know very well what is he talking about.

EDIT: In your post you've left the link to the Holocaust Denial Site even though you know now that it is the Class A Holocaust Denial Site. Why?

 

Thanks LRusso216,

I've read that Article. It is insulting the US Army, it is insulting American people it is insulting victims of Holocaust it is simply insulting.

 

I ignore anything put out by the IHR, regardless of content. Its a Holocaust denial organization, and as such has absolutely no credibility. No "if" "ands" or "buts". There's a few other sites like this out there, and many of them are very cleverly disguised so as to appear legitimate.

Its very important to thoroughly vet your sources, especially if you're trying to argue a point's that ambigious or regarded as incorrect by the majority of historians. In the case of the latter, there's usually a reason why these sites tend to float to the top of the google search results -- because there is simply no better source!

Just my 2 cents...

 

@ Tamino

Holocaust Denial Site even though you know now that it is the Class A Holocaust Denial Site. Why?[/quote]

Because there's no Holocaust Denial in that link. If I posted a link with information coming form a Commie site, nobody would say nothing. The hipocrisy starts...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUpCsO3pI08

This was not an "insult" to the Japanese people?

 

George Patton, what I'm saying here? I'm saying that the idea of the "good world" where the Nazis were the bad guys and the Allies are the knights of justice is simply a lie. And this sort of thing happened before WWII, during WWII, and after WWII to this very day. This is unconfortable to some people read, but I don't give a damn to them, since I don't have a political agenda. For example, I considerate the Allied civilian bombing as terrorism (even if it also had military purposes), and the fact that is was not a war crime at the time did not change this. Just a matter of see the bodies of the civilian victmins from the "good war": http://incogman.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/gif__01__Dresden_Bomb_Victims_cu83A6.jpg

e

 

Yes you do have your political agenda which equals to that of Mark Weber. Now I understand your of-topic discussion in this tread which drags already over several pages. By accusing Americans for committing "crimes" before, during and after the WW2 you equalize them with the Nazis to justify the Nazi crimes. By your theory all sides are the same and if all others were the good guys then Mengele is a good guy too. What you are telling us already for several pages is re-iteration of Mark Weber's claims.

Of course during the combat there were sporadic, individual unfortunate events at all sides, but you cannot compare them with the Nazi planned, deliberate, well premeditated monstrous crimes; organized by the Nazi state and supported by the most of the population during 1933-1945.

And finally: Are you aware that you are insulting here many Americans by reiterating Mark Weber's "theories"?

Here, our conversation ends. I wish you a good riddance.

 

The simple fact that Democracies and Communism were not the dream regimes their supporters claim, hurts. The things I'm claiming here are not disputable. The US intervention in Latin America being a good example. When I pointed those things, how members like you and lwd reply? Basically in the following manner: "yeah... it happened, but look, the Axis and Soviets were much worst!".

I'm not disputing the numbers, this is too obvious. The Generalplan Ost and the Holocaust would have killed much more people than any foreign or internal intervention by the US and Soviet governments. What I'm saying is that by claiming that "the other side did more", there's a feeling of almost no guilt by the supporters of the governments who "did less". I notice this with people when discussing politics, and I notice this with some members here.