LogFAQs > #894041918

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
TopicWhy do the history books try to demonize Stalin?
streamofthesky
01/14/18 3:01:46 PM
#27:


Yes, Stalin was also a moron. Russia's hilariously pathetic showing in the Winter War (a war of conquest 100% the fault of Russia) is usually cited as encouraging hitler to think Russia would be easy to defeat and effectively hastened the two going into conflict.
Both were colossal idiots. They were charismatic and ruthlessly evil which helped them gain power, but shockingly...the tools that help one gain power aren't necessarily the best ones for using it wisely.

shadowsword87 posted...
streamofthesky posted...
and that Russia's "heroics" weren't intentional but a "hoist by his own petard" moment where Stalin had allied w/ hitler out of convenience and was betrayed and caught by surprise.


Minor correction, but nobody was surprised when Germany attacked Russia.
Stalin was using the treatise as a way to literally pick up the factories and move them beyond the Ural mountains, and needed all of the time possible. Which is why they had to have so much defensive fighting before the factories could kick into gear.

Them going into conflict wasn't surprising, and Stalin planned to attack Germany at some point, iirc. Just the timing of it, happening so soon, and hitler striking first caught Stalin by surprise. That's what I meant.

Kyuubi4269 posted...
streamofthesky posted...
Britain wouldn't have been able to halt the nazi advance on the western and African fronts w/o the weapons being sent from the U.S.

Sold, not sent. America's most successful period in history was off the back of extorting the allies with unreasonable cost for supplies.

In fact America joined the war because of Pearl Harbour, which was triggered by extorting Japan on oil prices to the degree that expansionism was a more financially viable strategy than dealing with America. Japan couldn't afford to be an American tributary so expanded regardless and took the first strike in the war America threatened if they refuse to subjugate themselves to them.

To be fair, the U.S. was trying to be coy and play semi-"neutral" and claim they're not involved in the war. Just selling arms for money like the good capitalists they were. If they straight up gave the British arms for free, that thin veneer would've dissolved quickly.
It's still a bit messed up and in the end wasn't fooling anybody, but a lot of Americans at the time were isolationist, so FDR had to perform his little rhetorical dance.

And yes, also aware that the Pearl Harbor attack was hardly "unprovoked," and it's a shame that part's seldom taught.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1