Poll of the Day > Why do the history books try to demonize Stalin?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If it weren't for him the Nazis would have never been defeated and he did an overall good job running Russia. The Soviet Union didn't go to shit until he died and people who didn't know what they were doing started running it.

Almost like most of them were written during the Cold War!

Didn't he let his own citizens starve to death?
---

Muscles posted...

Didn't he let his own citizens starve to death?

No, CIA and Kremlin documents show that he was actively trying to stop the famine that plagued Russia.

Also doesn't America let their citizens starve?

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

Muscles posted...

Didn't he let his own citizens starve to death?

No, CIA and Kremlin documents show that he was actively trying to stop the famine that plagued Russia.

Also doesn't America let their citizens starve?

Dont they give out food stamps and shit to people?
---

Why do the history books try to demonize Stalin?

Because the man was a monster?

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

If it weren't for him the Nazis would have never been defeated

Uh no, they would have been defeated regardless. And, while they helped to keep the Nazis occupied, ultimately it was the US-led Allied forces which won the day.

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

he did an overall good job running Russia.

>_>

Not even sure what metrics you're using to make that argument.

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

Also doesn't America let their citizens starve?

No, they don't. And that's not even close to being the same issue because Russia's problem was widescale food shortages due to, among other things, poor management and preferential treatment. The US has massive amounts of affordable (often heavily subsidized) food and even gives a countless amount away through social programs, but more importantly it's there for people to buy if they work.
---

cuz the authors are American?
---

This is the second topic where you empathize with or support Communism...
---

MannerSaurus posted...

This is the second topic where you empathize with or support Communism...

Where did he do that in this topic? Stalin isn't communism, he was a leader.

All I know is that Lenin was horrible. The guy murdered the tsar and his family.
---

Stalin's body count actually dwarfs Hitler's, but you don't care about that, because you're a leftist.
---

Maybe because he killed tens of millions of people? For some reason, historians tend to frown on that sort of behaviour.

Zeus posted...

And, while they helped to keep the Nazis occupied, ultimately it was the US-led Allied forces which won the day.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the war. No, the Soviets did not "keep the Nazis occupied" while America saved the day, the Soviets did the majority of the work in actually defeating the Nazis while America showed up late and decided to take all the credit. Consider that the Eastern front - where the USSR fought almost unsupported against Germany and Japan - was larger than all other fronts of the war (Western, Pacific, and African) combined. The Soviets had more casualties in the war than America had troops. Moreover, even after having suffered one of the highest body counts of any nation in the war, the Soviets still had enough gas in the tank afterwards to grow into a global superpower to rival the US in strength. It is not an exaggeration to say that Hitler lost the war as soon as he decided to invade the Soviet Union.

By contrast, the US showed up two years late to the actual conflict (and even then, only after being attacked) and by the time they actually joined the fighting in earnest, battles like Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain had already stalled the Nazi advance to the West, while the ongoing invasion of the USSR was quickly turning into a disaster for Germany in the East. America certainly played a significant role in bringing the war to a close when it did, but by the time they actually entered the war the Axis defeat was already a foregone conclusion.

American history books like to lionize the American contribution, downplay the role of the other Allies, and almost completely excise the significant contributions.of the USSR (due to many of them having been written during the Cold War), but the reality is that while no single Ally is responsible for the victory over the Axis powers, the USSR almost unarguably was the one who was the greatest contributor to the cause.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Maybe because he killed tens of millions of people? For some reason, historians tend to frown on that sort of behaviour.

Zeus posted...

And, while they helped to keep the Nazis occupied, ultimately it was the US-led Allied forces which won the day.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the war. No, the Soviets did not "keep the Nazis occupied" while America saved the day, the Soviets did the majority of the work in actually defeating the Nazis while America showed up late and decided to take all the credit. Consider that the Eastern front - where the USSR fought almost unsupported against Germany and Japan - was larger than all other fronts of the war (Western, Pacific, and African) combined. The Soviets had more casualties in the war than America had troops. Moreover, even after having suffered one of the highest body counts of any nation in the war, the Soviets still had enough gas in the tank afterwards to grow into a global superpower to rival the US in strength. It is not an exaggeration to say that Hitler lost the war as soon as he decided to invade the Soviet Union.

By contrast, the US showed up two years late to the actual conflict (and even then, only after being attacked) and by the time they actually joined the fighting in earnest, battles like Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain had already stalled the Nazi advance to the West, while the ongoing invasion of the USSR was quickly turning into a disaster for Germany in the East. America certainly played a significant role in bringing the war to a close when it did, but by the time they actually entered the war the Axis defeat was already a foregone conclusion.

American history books like to lionize the American contribution, downplay the role of the other Allies, and almost completely excise the significant contributions.of the USSR (due to many of them having been written during the Cold War), but the reality is that while no single Ally is responsible for the victory over the Axis powers, the USSR almost unarguably was the one who was the greatest contributor to the cause.

With two quick notes that 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. (but supplying arms is several tiers below actually doing the fighting, of course) 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.
But yeah, U.S. involvement helped end the war sooner, but Russia was already on a course to eventually defeat them and by far took the brunt of the fighting and casualties (pretty sure they were the country w/ the most losses, and by a staggering amount over the others...though again partly their own fault for the purge Stalin did on his military before the war and simply not even having as many weapons as soldiers).

I'm glad the U.S. did enter the war and help end it sooner. But Russia sacrificed and contributed more than any other country, albeit not by choice.

streamofthesky posted...

With two quick notes that 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. (but supplying arms is several tiers below actually doing the fighting, of course) 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.
But yeah, U.S. involvement helped end the war sooner, but Russia was already on a course to eventually defeat them and by far took the brunt of the fighting and casualties (pretty sure they were the country w/ the most losses, and by a staggering amount over the others...though again partly their own fault for the purge Stalin did on his military before the war and simply not even having as many weapons as soldiers).

I'm glad the U.S. did enter the war and help end it sooner. But Russia sacrificed and contributed more than any other country, albeit not by choice.

No disagreements here.

It's just a pet peeve of mine when people don't realise the significant contributions of the non-American allies (USSR in particular) and/or overestimate exactly how much impact America had on the war. While certainly far from a non-entity, the US was not the one-country game-winner American historians like to paint it as.
---

He killed more people than Hitler, but it was a free for all instead of prejudicial, so nobody cares. Irony.
---

darkknight109 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

With two quick notes that 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. (but supplying arms is several tiers below actually doing the fighting, of course) 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.
But yeah, U.S. involvement helped end the war sooner, but Russia was already on a course to eventually defeat them and by far took the brunt of the fighting and casualties (pretty sure they were the country w/ the most losses, and by a staggering amount over the others...though again partly their own fault for the purge Stalin did on his military before the war and simply not even having as many weapons as soldiers).

I'm glad the U.S. did enter the war and help end it sooner. But Russia sacrificed and contributed more than any other country, albeit not by choice.

No disagreements here.

It's just a pet peeve of mine when people don't realise the significant contributions of the non-American allies (USSR in particular) and/or overestimate exactly how much impact America had on the war. While certainly far from a non-entity, the US was not the one-country game-winner American historians like to paint it as.

I mean they're not wrong. They were key to a faster victory. Who knows how long the war would have been without America's assistance.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

He killed more people than Hitler, but it was a free for all instead of prejudicial, so nobody cares. Irony.

1) Over a much longer period of time, because he really wasn't as bad as hitler (still very evil, just saying not as bad) and was thus tolerated and allowed to stay in power for life. Presumably if hitler was able to reign as long as Stalin did, his death toll would've continued climbing.

2) It was his own people along w/ not targeting any specific group. Which still should have gotten intervention from other countries but is inherently less objectionable than conquering a bunch of other countries and then systematically murdering their people along w/ his own.

3) I'm always dubious of the claim he killed more, anyway. Depends how you assign blame. Considering the nazis were the aggressor towards nearly every country they went to war with, you could quite reasonably blame them for all the war deaths of Britain, France, Russia, etc... on top of the Holocaust. (Poland, the most-screwed over country of WW2, gets its deaths split between Germany and Russia b/c again, Russia were also evil and in cahoots w/ the nazis for a while)

Germany could have easily won that war hitler was an idiot
statlin didn't even know what artillery was like 10million soldiers just cut off with no food or anything running up against machine guns with no medics nothing
hitlers army invaded stalingrad and they would have taken it had they brought some winter gear
also everyone in ukraine was still pissed at statlin when the nazi's arrive so what do they do? they start purging the populace of foreigners turning ukraines allegience back to russia not to mention all of their hard laborers they could have fed instead of starved
nazism actually killed Germany not the other way around... though they did kill a lot of people too
---

RoboXgp89 posted...

Germany could have easily won that war hitler was an idiot
statlin didn't even know what artillery was like 10million soldiers just cut off with no food or anything running up against machine guns with no medics nothing
hitlers army invaded stalingrad and they would have taken it had they brought some winter gear
also everyone in ukraine was still pissed at statlin when the nazi's arrive so what do they do? they start purging the populace of foreigners turning ukraines allegience back to russia not to mention all of their hard laborers they could have fed instead of starved
nazism actually killed Germany not the other way around... though they did kill a lot of people too

Oh, no doubt.
hitler was a moron of historical proportions and too few realize this.
Just read about his command structure and how twisted and confusing it was to the point that it bogged down any military decision-making.
Or the fact that he invaded Russia in the first place b/c of his racist view of Slavs and hatred of communism, when if he simply focused on the Western front, he could've overpowered Britain before U.S. could even get involved.

He was a complete fucking moron, but because he had a powerful German war machine (here's a tip: Germany was a dominant military power for the past 100 years or so by that point, they didn't just suddenly become so strong) and some talented generals, he's often thought of as some sort of evil genius or great conquerer. It's disturbing and sad.

Stalin's so-called "economic miracle" was riddled with structural defects, mismanagement and waste. It's significant that colossal, slave labour-based construction projects, like the Salekhard-Igarka railroad and the tunnel to Sakhalin, got cancelled within days of his death because the authorities knew only too well Stalin's track record of being obsessed with pointless and wasteful pet projects. (One Gulag inspection report carried out in 1951 showed that an entire 83km of far northern railway track, constructed at great expense and at the cost of many lives, had not been used for 3 years. Another 370km of similarly costly highway had not been used for 18 months. In 1953, another inspection, carried out on the orders of the Central Committee, showed that the cost of maintaining the camps of the Gulag far exceeded any profits made from prison labour.)

Stalin's meddling in the Soviet economy in the 1930s hamstrung the state's capacity to meet the industrial challenges of preparing for a major war. The needs of the First Five-Year Plan required the hiring of skilled foreign labour; consequently, craftsmen and engineers were recruited from abroad on short-term contracts. They were predominantly German; although they totalled barely 1% of the workforce (23,000 by 1933), their skills were critical in the electro-technical industry. But the slashing of wages for German foreign workers in 1930-31, combined with chronic bad conditions, meant that in 1932 there was an outflow of skilled labour as disillusioned workers returned to Germany, and production suffered accordingly. The average Soviet worker in 1933 spent only five and a half hours of his working day actually working.

Then there was the damage done by the waves of arrests, expulsions and executions during the purges. Around 858 out of 5,000-6,000 skilled German foreign workers were kicked out of the USSR between November 1937-January 1940, and an unknown number simply 'disappeared' -- presumably shot. Additionally, under NKVD Order 00439, all Soviet citizens of German nationality working in defence-critical industries were arrested in a massive, all-Union operation between August 1937-November 1938. Out of the 55,005 who were sentenced, 41,898 were shot and 13,107 were sent to the Gulag.

During the Russo-German war and particularly the earlier phase, the Soviet industrial manpower shortage grew critical and the Gulag workforce was a potentially invaluable source of labour: nearly 14% of the total Soviet workforce in 1942. But between the crucial months of October 1941-January 1942, on average nearly a quarter of the Gulag population (23.4%) was unable to work because of the appalling conditions in the camps -- in which roughly 250 men in every thousand died during 1942-1943.

The Stalinist purges decapitated the Red Army just as the Soviet military was undergoing critical reform and expansion. Professional military leadership was sent to the slave camps and execution pits, and by 1941 officers were too paralysed by terror to make decisions that could have blunted the German advance. If Stalin had been a paid agent of Hitler, he couldn't have done a better job of sabotaging the defence of the USSR ahead of the invasion.

If you view Stalin as a genius, fine. I mean, youre a lunatic, but fine. I view the system over which he presided as wasteful and inefficient, and which accomplished its goals only because it had the cheapest form of raw material available to it: human lives, which could be treated like paper cups -- use once, then throw away. If instead of using one man to screw in a light bulb, you can afford to use twenty and let half of them die doing the job, who needs rational management?
---

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.

streamofthesky posted...

hitler was a moron of historical proportions and too few realize this.

Indeed. I get fed up reading about Hitler's "economic miracle" between 1933-38. Hitler was shrewd enough in his early years of government to leave certain affairs in the hands of the professionals instead of trying to micromanage them himself, yet he unaccountably gets lauded for any of the successes for which the regime took credit as if he was some kind of genius instead of simply a delegator. Germany's wartime record reflects that as soon as the former corporal began to delude himself that he was a strategic commander of godlike wisdom and tinkered compulsively in military matters, things started to go off the rails for the Wehrmacht.

Nazi economic performance during the recovery looked spectacular only when compared against the very low baseline of the Depression years. By 1935 German GDP in real terms had recovered to roughly the same level it had stood at in 1928 -- and in terms of the rate of growth, this wasn't as strong as the rebound from the Weimar Republic's first serious recession over the winter of 192627, when the twelve-month growth rate was higher than at any time during the Third Reich.
---

chaosbowser posted...

I mean they're not wrong. They were key to a faster victory. Who knows how long the war would have been without America's assistance.

Yes, but so was literally every other ally. America is not unique in this regard.

RoboXgp89 posted...

Germany could have easily won that war hitler was an idiot

Hitler and Stalin both did some spectacularly stupid things, so that logic cuts both ways. Neither of them were military geniuses by any stretch of the imagination.

Funkdamental posted...

Germany's wartime record reflects that as soon as the former corporal began to delude himself that he was a strategic commander of godlike wisdom and tinkered compulsively in military matters, things started to go off the rails for the Wehrmacht.

I always like to mention whenever I come across someone labouring under the delusion that Hitler had more than two brain cells to bang together when it came to military strategy that when the British SOE began Operation Foxley with the intent of assassinating Hitler, one of the first serious discussions they had is whether they were better off leaving him where he was, since killing him ran the risk of the Nazis turning him into a martyr and replacing him with someone that was actually competent.
---

It's hard to say that Stalin killed more people than Hitler when people frequently add the number of nazis that his military killed to that number to inflate it.

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.
---

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

It's hard to say that Stalin killed more people than Hitler when people frequently add the number of nazis that his military killed to that number to inflate it.

Not hard to say at all. In terms of non-combatants, the Nazis killed roughly 12 million people and Stalin's communists killed almost twice as many. Conservative estimates put the number of non-combatants killed by the Soviets under Stalin as roughly 20 million, though there are estimates that are more than double that.

Put it this way - before WW2 even started, the Soviet population dropped by 10 million people, largely because of Stalin's various purges.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

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

Gonna call BS on this one. America gave sweetheart deals to the Allies - Britain in particular - for war materiel, selling at a steep discount or sometimes flat-out giving it away. Look up the Destroyers for Bases Agreement and the Lend-Lease Policy for more info on that.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

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, America throttling oil and other supplies to Japan was due to Japan's expansionism into southeast Asia.
---

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.

darkknight109 posted...

To be fair, America throttling oil and other supplies to Japan was due to Japan's expansionism into southeast Asia.

The expansionism happened because of the oil in the first place, restricting oil further merely backed them further in to a corner. If somebody is warring to get stuff, they're not going to stop when the need is even greater.
---

the japanese were pissed off americans were in hawaii too
they identified hawaiins as descendents of asia i was told...

as far as asia I heard the CIA was running drugs back and forth in east asia
but japan and china are always fighting over islands, japan doesn't have many natural resources
I think they were actually pissed we were helping out china with oil too
---

darkknight109 posted...

Maybe because he killed tens of millions of people? For some reason, historians tend to frown on that sort of behaviour.

Zeus posted...

And, while they helped to keep the Nazis occupied, ultimately it was the US-led Allied forces which won the day.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the war. No, the Soviets did not "keep the Nazis occupied" while America saved the day, the Soviets did the majority of the work in actually defeating the Nazis while America showed up late and decided to take all the credit. Consider that the Eastern front - where the USSR fought almost unsupported against Germany and Japan - was larger than all other fronts of the war (Western, Pacific, and African) combined. The Soviets had more casualties in the war than America had troops. Moreover, even after having suffered one of the highest body counts of any nation in the war, the Soviets still had enough gas in the tank afterwards to grow into a global superpower to rival the US in strength. It is not an exaggeration to say that Hitler lost the war as soon as he decided to invade the Soviet Union.

By contrast, the US showed up two years late to the actual conflict (and even then, only after being attacked) and by the time they actually joined the fighting in earnest, battles like Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain had already stalled the Nazi advance to the West, while the ongoing invasion of the USSR was quickly turning into a disaster for Germany in the East. America certainly played a significant role in bringing the war to a close when it did, but by the time they actually entered the war the Axis defeat was already a foregone conclusion.

American history books like to lionize the American contribution, downplay the role of the other Allies, and almost completely excise the significant contributions.of the USSR (due to many of them having been written during the Cold War), but the reality is that while no single Ally is responsible for the victory over the Axis powers, the USSR almost unarguably was the one who was the greatest contributor to the cause.

more like they couldn't finish the war by themselves until the US joined the Allies
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

more like they couldn't finish the war by themselves until the US joined the Allies

Except not like that at all, but if it makes you feel better, feel free to cling to your fantasy.
---

france surrendered withen weeks
spain was helping nazi germany thanks to ww1

the western front was just britain and the supplies it was getting
the russians invaded and captured berlin
to do that they had to go through poland
a lot more fighting took place which is why people called it the meat grinder
you can go there today and find miles and miles of fields riddled with bones
---

RoboXgp89 posted...

Germany could have easily won that war hitler was an idiot

Being a drug addict and having all sorts of bullshit about your army doing well tends to do that to you. None of his generals or commanders wanted to disappoint him and were always fearful of even waking him with bad news.

darkknight109 posted...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

more like they couldn't finish the war by themselves until the US joined the Allies

Except not like that at all, but if it makes you feel better, feel free to cling to your fantasy.

This. Stalin was more than willing to throw every last Russian soul at the Germans till victory was achieved.

He commited a genocide of his own people and killed millions most likely more than the concentration camps.
---

Oh, the ignorance in this topic astounds me.
---