To what extent is 1984 talking about Stalin's Russia?

[KonokoCosmicWha]

Hey there everyone,

I was developing on the subject and was looking at the points that

a) Big Brother looked like Stalin
b) He created a hatred feeling towards his nemesis, Goldstein (Trotsky)
c) The party is the ruler
d) They use torture for opposers

Are there any more things?
Also I now some say it is talking about fascism but I didn't quite understand why that is so.

Thank you!

[KonokoCosmicWha]

e) massive use of propaganda
f) lack of benefits for the working people (lack of consumer goods)

[bazarov]

People adore ruler, but they hate party.

[The Atheist]

You're not the first, and you won't be the last, to see a link between BB and Stalin.

Orwell had well and truly dealt with Russian totalitarianism in Animal Farm. If you want to look for similarities to BB/The Party/Ingsoc, there are any number of fascist/totalitarian states which fit the bill, from Hitler (BB) and the Jews (Goldstein) to Mao and Chiang Kai-Shek. Totalitarian states, by their very nature, tend to have similarities.

[King of Frogs]

Also the paradox of the system being supposedly classless, yet the existence of a very obvious and opressive class system. I'm really not sure just how far you could pursue the Jewish point, there really aren't that many references to anti-semitism in 1984 as racism seems to be somewhat (and surprisingly) absent from Ingsoc. It would probably be more profitable to explore the Goldstein - Trotsky connection as there is more substance on it.

[alan_simon]

Although it does seem that there is a strong connection between BB and Stalin (the show trials being one point that hasnt been brought up yet , and there is a direct quote to this in the book 'The German Nazis and Russian Communists came close to us...'Part 3, Chapter 3) there are also inconsistancies in the arguement, the main being that whilst Stalin was a very public person, whereas we do not even know whether BB really exists! Even so, it does seem that Orwell was at least trying to hint toward Hitler's and Stalin's regimes, or toward what the eventual outcome would have been

[barbara0207]

This one may be too late, but I'll post it nevertheless:
g) the use of language
Orwell invents "Newspeak" to show how language can be a powerful instrument of manipulation in totalitarian states (and not only there ...).
h) faking history (e.g. removal of Trotsky from photographs with other leaders)

[johnfsomers]

You're not the first, and you won't be the last, to see a link between BB and Stalin.

Orwell had well and truly dealt with Russian totalitarianism in Animal Farm. If you want to look for similarities to BB/The Party/Ingsoc, there are any number of fascist/totalitarian states which fit the bill, from Hitler (BB) and the Jews (Goldstein) to Mao and Chiang Kai-Shek. Totalitarian states, by their very nature, tend to have similarities.

I think that there is something to this. All totalitarian regimes are alike in that they are statist, that is, they all share in the assertion, actualized into a political programme, that the state is supreme above all else. The individual, in the statist's mind, does not actually exist. Or, if he does exist, his needs and desires are inconsequential as compared with the needs and desires of the state. The statist wishes to deny the natural rights of the individual while asserting the rights of state, usually in the name of the 'People.' This, of course, is absurd. For, insofar as the 'People' only exists as an aggregate of human persons, if an individual does not have rights neither can the 'People'.

John Somers

[The Atheist]

Bingo!








.

[Jbell152]

Well it can't be surprising if Orwell worte the book with the intentions of modeling the society after a Stalinist Russia due to the fact he had a obsession with it, if you've read Animal farm which im sure many of you have and know some history on Russia you'll easily see that theres a similarity in both.

[The Atheist]

I'll repeat it again, just for the uninitiated....



All totalitarian regimes are alike ....

[TomGr]

I wouldn't say that Orwell based Nineteen Eighty-four exclusively on Stalinist Russia, though certainly Stalinism provided him with an important model for his nightmare future society. But much of the novel's physical texture derives from Orwell's memories of wartime and postwar London: the chronic shortages, the rocket bombs, the poor food, the general dinginess and drabness of everything, etc. The mental atmosphere of Nineteen Eighty-four—the hierarchical caste system, Newspeak, doublethink, the mutability of the past, etc.—has several sources. One was Orwell's experience at prep school—see "Such, Such were the Joys. . ." Another was the Spanish Civil War, during which he personally experienced what it was like to live under a totalitarian regime. Another was his observation of much of the Western Left's willingness to swallow the Soviet line no matter how twisted its threads, e.g the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939.

The origins of many of the ideas and concepts of Nineteen Eighty-four can be found in Orwell's earlier writing. Though he died before the age of fifty, it appears that little was lost on him during his too-brief life.

[corticalaxon]

While the book is certainly applicable to a number of totalitarian regimes, it is applicable more so to people like Stalin (for sure), Mao (maybe), or Kim Jong-Il (maybe?) in the fact that if you look at them personally, they deep down really didn't give the slightest care for their people (except if at war). This corresponds to the deliberateness of the Inner Party, except when at war with Eur/Eastasia. Conversely, Hitler deep down was looking for lebensraum and all that other stuff to create a pseudo-peaceful society.

i) continuous revolution (industrialization/collectivization or cultural revolution) or the constant twisting of the public/stepping on humanity's face continuously - related to propaganda.

[raulv]

The closest "production" of "1984", in my opinion, was the Khmer Rouge Cambodia (1975-1978) - also by far the deadliest totalitarian regime, if we look at the casualty percentage of the "mass scenes" ...

[phoebelll25]

While the book is certainly applicable to a number of totalitarian regimes, it is applicable more so to people like Stalin (for sure), Mao (maybe), or Kim Jong-Il (maybe?) in the fact that if you look at them personally, they deep down really didn't give the slightest care for their people (except if at war).

Well,as a 16-year-old Chinese student, I would like to emphasize that Chairman Mao must never be counted as a totalitarian who didn't care for his people.He,together with his regimes,won several wars and saved China.

[The Atheist]

Well,as a 16-year-old Chinese student, I would like to emphasize that Chairman Mao must never be counted as a totalitarian who didn't care for his people.He,together with his regimes,won several wars and saved China.

Mao may indeed have been a great leader and the saviour of China, but you need to accept that some terrible things, costing millions of dead, happened during and after the cultural revolution, under Mao. There were many parts of Chinese society which were not cared for at all.

Compare Mao's "Great Leap Forward" to the one taking place in China right now.

[rabid reader]

Well,as a 16-year-old Chinese student, I would like to emphasize that Chairman Mao must never be counted as a totalitarian who didn't care for his people.He,together with his regimes,won several wars and saved China.

Statically speaking Mao is responcible for more deaths then Stalin and Hitler combined, somewhere in the 60 millions.

[bazarov]

Mao was a lunatic, and you have to accept that. Millions died just to assure his leadership, and copying Stalin's economy almost destroyed China. He had taken machiavellisam too seriously...
Instead of fighting against Japan, he fought with Kuonmintang. Does it reminds you on February Revolution? All Mao leadership is similar to Stalin's - same way of taking the lead, agricultural reformation, industrialization, collectivization, laogai replacing gulag, great funeral and soon, destroying of Mao cult, same what Hruschov did in 1956. when he became the leader of USSR.

Rabid, from where did you get those 60 millions? I think it was 20.
Stalin is also about 20, and Hitler somewhere between 11 and 14 millions. Comparing population between USSR and China, Stalin is obviously the greatest lunatic ever lived on planet Earth.

[phoebelll25]

Undoubtedly, there must be a great loss of people in the wars in China before,but the deaths were attributed to the fighting against Japan and the defense of China.After all,the whole "saving China issue" could not succeed without wars against the other countries which occupied the almost half of territory of China. It were these wars that caused the statistic loss,not Mao. And after these wars,he acted a series of controversial military actions.But after all, it was he who saved China, and his mistakes could be neglected in China.(I mean in Chinese people's hearts, but obviously not in others)

[bazarov]

What wars???
He fought against Chiang Kai Shek and that's actually his only war. Without Hiroshima's and Nagasaki's tragedies for Japan, and great help from Americans, Mao( if we can say Mao because Chiang was still in China) would never beat Japan( and USA was helping China mostly because of Chiang Kai Shek). There were no wars after WWII, and still, at least 20 millions died. For what??? So he can get an opportunity to say his famous quote (something like): ''China can easily live without those few people!''?? I can understand, although I disagree; when he kills or removes his direct enemies( like Stalin did with Trotsky or Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin...) but 20 millions?

Chinese people don't like Mao, same is with Stalin in Russia. There are few old-school communists who worships him, but mostly, they are all aware of terrors and tragedies of his regime.

[phoebelll25]

What wars???
He fought against Chiang Kai Shek and that's actually his only war. Without Hiroshima's and Nagasaki's tragedies for Japan, and great help from Americans, Mao( if we can say Mao because Chiang was still in China) would never beat Japan( and USA was helping China mostly because of Chiang Kai Shek). There were no wars after WWII, and still, at least 20 millions died. For what??? So he can get an opportunity to say his famous quote (something like): ''China can easily live without those few people!''?? I can understand, although I disagree; when he kills or removes his direct enemies( like Stalin did with Trotsky or Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin...) but 20 millions?

Chinese people don't like Mao, same is with Stalin in Russia. There are few old-school communists who worships him, but mostly, they are all aware of terrors and tragedies of his regime.


OMG,that is so not true. First, you are not a Chinese. I am. I know the truth far more than you do.




Chinese people don't like Mao, same is with Stalin in Russia. There are few old-school communists who worships him, but mostly, they are all aware of terrors and tragedies of his regime.

You say that Chinese people don't like Mao????????It is so shocking.Maybe some consider that he made soooooooooooooo many faults that degraded China to poverty.But it is so not true.Take me as an example;I am studying in the most significant high school in China,and tomorrow we will start a unit of which the conception is to learn the contribution and mistake that Chairman Mao had attributed.All students in Shanghai need to learn that unit and nobody even complains about it. Maybe few of them don't like the way that Mao treated his people, but they respect him, because it is he who saved China. Undoubtedly there was a great loss of Chinese soldiers, and citizens killed by other country in wars, but there were more saved.

And I'm sorry, the so-called famous quoto didn't exist.

[manolia]

Stalin is also about 20, and Hitler somewhere between 11 and 14 millions. Comparing population between USSR and China, Stalin is obviously the greatest lunatic ever lived on planet Earth.

Hitler only 11-14 millions??? What do you mean by that Baz? In concetration camps?

The WW2 had 72 million dead people. Here are interesting statistics in Wiki. Stalin's Soviet Union had over 23 million deaths! Look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

We must aknowledge one thing, at least to Stalin and his red army. They played a crucial part in winning the WW2.
As for the deaths attributed to Stalin, i'd be glad if you provide me with a link which clearly states that or other source. Thanx in advance

EDIT

I am not defending Stalin. I am just very sceptical towards what is said and writen

Here's what Wikipedia says



The total deaths shown by the declassified archives in the GULAG from 1931 to 1953 amount to about 1 million in "corrective labor camps." Another archival document contains the number of roughly 1.6 million deaths in both "corrective labor camps" and "corrective labor colonies" during the years 1930–56 (figures for colonies are included from 1935 onwards). These figures include deaths of political and common prisoners, but they do not include executions of camp inmates that occurred during various waves of terror. The majority of these deaths occurred during World War II when conditions in the USSR deteriorated due to the war with Germany. After the war, the death rate for prisoners dropped sharply.

The rest can be found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

[bazarov]

OMG,that is so not true. First, you are not a Chinese. I am. I know the truth far more than you do.

Then please, share your truth with us. Again, what wars?




Take me as an example;I am studying in the most significant high school in China,and tomorrow we will start a unit of which the conception is to learn the contribution and mistake that Chairman Mao had attributed.All students in Shanghai need to learn that unit and nobody even complains about it. Maybe few of them don't like the way that Mao treated his people, but they respect him, because it is he who saved China.


I congratulate you on your education.
Of course you're studying about Mao, otherwise you would neglect important part of your national history which would be a great great mistake. Germans learn about Hitler, Italians about Mussolini, ex-soviets about Stalin, Romanians about Ceausescu....but nobody is glorifying them.





And I'm sorry, the so-called famous quoto didn't exist.
How about:


It is estimated that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, perished in the violence of the Cultural Revolution. When Mao was informed of such losses, particularly that people had been driven to suicide, he blithely commented that China "could do with a few less people".






Hitler only 11-14 millions??? What do you mean by that Baz? In concetration camps?

Yes, without war casualties. When I'm talking about those deaths, I'm thinking only about camps and ghettos, I don't count to Hitler deaths of soldiers in North Africa, Stalingrad or something like that.


Between 1939 and 1945, the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, systematically killed somewhere between 11 and 14 million people, including about 6 million Jews, in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions, or through less systematic methods elsewhere



Also;


The WW2 had 72 million dead people. Here are interesting statistics in Wiki. Stalin's Soviet Union had over 23 million deaths!

To be honest, I don't believe in those numbers. 3 years ago, I was studying details of WWII for high school history competition and on several places and from our teachers we got number of 50 millions. Many countries, in order to get better position before post war conferences, were overreacting with their casualties. Stalin also put many of his victims in those 23 millions, so USSR casualties are about 10-12 millions. Same thing did Italy, Yugoslavia...

http://www.kilidavid.com/History/World%20War%20II.htm#HOLOCAUST
http://www.pasadenaisd.org/phs/holocaust/casulties_of_wwii.htm



We must aknowledge one thing, at least to Stalin and his red army. They played a crucial part in winning the WW2.

Well, I have one (maybe silly) theory about that ;)


As for the deaths attributed to Stalin, i'd be glad if you provide me with a link which clearly states that or other source. Thanx in advance

I didn't meant only on Gulag; I meant ''enemies'', collectivization, etc.

Some historians have also included the 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine. However including those who died in the famine is controversial, as historians differ as to whether the famine was a deliberate part of the campaign of repression against kulaks or simply an unintended consequence of the struggle over forced collectivization.
If those who died in the famine are included, a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) can attributable to the regime's policies, with a number of recent books suggesting a figure of around 20 million. Adding 6-8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a figure of between 15 and 17 million victims. Robert Conquest, meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million. Others, however, continue to maintain that their earlier much higher estimates are correct.



P.S. All quotes are from Wikipedia

[manolia]

Yes, without war casualties. When I'm talking about those deaths, I'm thinking only about camps and ghettos, I don't count to Hitler deaths of soldiers in North Africa, Stalingrad or something like that.

I see. But allow me to disagree ;) I attribute all the WW2 death's to Hitler and his nazi's. ;)



To be honest, I don't believe in those numbers. 3 years ago, I was studying details of WWII for high school history competition and on several places and from our teachers we got number of 50 millions. Many countries, in order to get better position before post war conferences, were overreacting with their casualties. Stalin also put many of his victims in those 23 millions, so USSR casualties are about 10-12 millions. Same thing did Italy, Yugoslavia...

http://www.kilidavid.com/History/World%20War%20II.htm#HOLOCAUST
http://www.pasadenaisd.org/phs/holocaust/casulties_of_wwii.htm


Thanx for the links :)
That's is why i am sceptical about all the numbers, all that is said and writen concerning Stalin ;) .I have read a few books and done a bit of an internet research and my sources don't agree..The number you mentioned astonished me. It is the first time i hear such a big number (20 millions) mentioned :eek2: I guess i have to check it out.
Anyway, i bear in mind that "history is writen by the winners" and it is obvious that Stalin lost, eventually ;)




Well, I have one (maybe silly) theory about that ;)

I'll be glad to hear it if you want to share :)
If you don't want to post it here send me a pm ;)

[bazarov]

I see. But allow me to disagree ;) I attribute all the WW2 death's to Hitler and his nazi's. ;)

I was talking about deaths in camps, mass executions...excluding deaths in battles. Common, you know what I mean. :)





The number you mentioned astonished me. It is the first time i hear such a big number (20 millions) mentioned :eek2: I guess i have to check it out.

I am confused with this quote :p



Anyway, i bear in mind that "history is writen by the winners" and it is obvious that Stalin lost, eventually ;)

Well, they divided Berlin, change some maps, created war courts for Nazi's, nobody answered for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden...Yes, they wrote history.



I'll be glad to hear it if you want to share :)
Well, we all know that winter stopped Hitler in Russia. Operation Barbarossa started on July 22nd, in the beginning of summer. Hitler's idea was to attack them in spring but it didn't happened. Why? On March 25th Yugoslavia allied with Germans and Italians, but military with help of Britain removed king and Germans had to react and they attacked Yugoslavia and one month later, Nazi 's ruler was controlling Yugoslavia. Hitler had to do that, because when he moved to east to Russia, it would be dangerous to leave southern part in hands of allies( his right wing, if you look to east). It prolonged his operation Barbarossa for 2 months, and 2 months would probably be enough for him to beat Russians and reach Moscow. So, Yugoslavia saved Europe :yawnb:
What do you think? Silly and pretentious?

[manolia]

I am confused with this quote :p

I mean that i have never read before that Stalin is accused of so many deaths..but i have never actually added the various sums up (the ones who died in gulags, from famine etc) :D



Well, we all know that winter stopped Hitler in Russia. Operation Barbarossa started on July 22nd, in the beginning of summer. Hitler's idea was to attack them in spring but it didn't happened. Why? On March 25th Yugoslavia allied with Germans and Italians, but military with help of Britain removed king and Germans had to react and they attacked Yugoslavia and one month later, Nazi 's ruler was controlling Yugoslavia. Hitler had to do that, because when he moved to east to Russia, it would be dangerous to leave southern part in hands of allies( his right wing, if you look to east). It prolonged his operation Barbarossa for 2 months, and 2 months would probably be enough for him to beat Russians and reach Moscow. So, Yugoslavia saved Europe :yawnb:
What do you think? Silly and pretentious?

I am not that read in history matters, but if my memory serves me well you are quite right in what you say. Indeed, Hitler was delayed in Yugoslavia so he had to face the dreadfull "Russian winter"..but allow me to add that this doesn't diminish the fact that the red army played a crucial part in wining the war..at least i think so ;)

[The Atheist]

So, Yugoslavia saved Europe :yawnb:
What do you think? Silly and pretentious?

Close to the mark, the delay certainly didn't help, but the weakness of planning was always the problem. Given the length of supply lines, the number of fronts Germany was active on and Stalin's lack of interest in human losses, the advance was always going to falter as it did.

20/20 hindisght would say that German and Japan should have attacked Russia simultaneously at opposite ends and conquered it before USA was attacked.


I mean that i have never read before that Stalin is accused of so many deaths..but i have never actually added the various sums up (the ones who died in gulags, from famine etc) :D

I think the weight of evidence lies with Baz - 20m is the most reliable historical estimate.


....but allow me to add that this doesn't diminish the fact that the red army played a crucial part in wining the war..at least i think so ;)

Certainly did, but only insofar as all of the Allied forces did. The Red Army wouldn't have lasted had it not had the Murmansk convoys, crewed by British sailors, in American lend-lease ships.

I think there's a huge danger in trying to tie any one country or action as being central to the Allied victory - again, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it was always going to happen as soon as the Battle of Britain was won. That meant no invasion of England, which meant that Hitler couldn't win, barring the invention of a super-weapon. How close he got, we'll probably never know, but the inability to land troops in England meant that Hitler was always playing "catch-up".


OMG,that is so not true. First, you are not a Chinese. I am. I know the truth far more than you do.

Yes, he was a great man, but whether he was the "saviour" of China is a point which is tenuously-made at best.

Whatever the issues are with the state of China's politics/censorship at the moment, one fact is clear - China's quasi-capitalism has had the most positive effect on China of any system or regime in the past several thousand years. Had it come 60 years earlier, who would say that China would not now be a power equal to, or greater, than USA? On current trends, that will happen in the future, so it would be wrong to insist that it couldn't have happened far sooner, a policy which may have saved 10-20 million lives.

It's really, really important when looking at historical figures to look at them objectively. That's an enormously difficult task from within the very system which has him as its figurehead. This is why the western world has things like freedom of speech and the press - to ensure try to ensure that all sides of issues are explored. Doesn't always work, but no better system has yet been devised.

[bazarov]

Saved is maybe too strong; helped really really a lot would be better.


Stalin's lack of interest in human losses
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


20/20 hindisght would say that German and Japan should have attacked Russia simultaneously at opposite ends and conquered it before USA was attacked.

Japan had no reason to attack USSR, they had no interests in their territory and surely they didn't need another front.





I think there's a huge danger in trying to tie any one country or action as being central to the Allied victory
Of course


it was always going to happen as soon as the Battle of Britain was won. That meant no invasion of England, which meant that Hitler couldn't win, barring the invention of a super-weapon. How close he got, we'll probably never know, but the inability to land troops in England meant that Hitler was always playing "catch-up".

Well, if he only used missiles and rockets in 1941 instead of 1944, who knows what would happen?

[manolia]

I think the weight of evidence lies with Baz - 20m is the most reliable historical estimate.

That's where my problem is. Like i said before, i have seen different numbers in different sources. If you watch a few posts back, i posted a link for Baz. The statistics in this link say that the deaths of WW2 were up to 72 millions. And it has an analysis for each country. Baz said that he is very sceptical towards these numbers. To his knowledge, the deaths were up to 50 millions. And he also thinks that some countries have exagerrated as to their loses. I appreciate his opinion (besides, i have heard of this before ;) ). So i am asking again..what facts?? Who should we trust?
I believe that what you choose to believe is a matter of..choice, it seems. The search for truth is a weary task.
Anyway, if you want my opinion, whether Stalin annihilated 2 millions or 20 millions, it doesn't change the fact that he did annihilate people. We are not discussing whether he oppressed and killed people. He did. No doubt about it. I just can't help but wonder about the numbers though. We all agree that we are talking about human lives and not statistics.



Certainly did, but only insofar as all of the Allied forces did.

We agree 100%
For my part i know about my country's contribution. (You saw that coming, didn't you? :lol: ).On a side note: my grandpa faught in the Albanian field (trying to delay the enemy forces and drive them off). He came back to Athens on foot!! And believe me it is a long distance ;) . Even my grandma fought in the battle of Crete (her weapon was a shovel!)



The Battle of Crete was unique in three respects: it was the first-ever mainly airborne invasion; it was the first time the Allies made significant use of intelligence from the deciphered German Enigma code; and it was the first time invading German troops encountered mass resistance from a civilian population. In light of the heavy casualties suffered by the parachutists, Adolf Hitler forbade further large scale airborne operations. However, the Allies were impressed by the potential of paratroopers, and started to build their own airborne divisions.

the rest of it, can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crete

I believe that you have interesting stories to share :)



I think there's a huge danger in trying to tie any one country or action as being central to the Allied victory

Of course. I hope you understand that nobody said or even implied that :)





Japan had no reason to attack USSR, they had no interests in their territory and surely they didn't need another front.

I agree

Guys it is a very interesting conversation. Perhaps the most interesting i had here in the forums :)

[The Atheist]

Even my grandma fought in the battle of Crete (her weapon was a shovel!)

Ah yes, we know all about Crete - many New Zealanders were involved in that campaign.


Japan had no reason to attack USSR, they had no interests in their territory and surely they didn't need another front.

I'm using hindsight here and it would have made sense for the Axis to agree to attack on two fronts simultaneously, so as to split Stalin's troops. The lack of threat from Japan allowed him to concentrate on Germany's attack.

Given the disastrous attack on Pearl Harbour, Japan would have been far better to open that front than bring the US military machine in against it.

Always fun to play "what if" with historical actions.

[bazarov]

Like i said before, i have So i am asking again..what facts?? Who should we trust?
I believe that what you choose to believe is a matter of..choice, it seems. The search for truth is a weary task.

Well, yes, truth is very sensitive question. I guess, as more time goes, new evidences appear and people are more objective, they won't hurt or offend someone. About Stalin, they are mostly agreeable about 20 millions.


We all agree that we are talking about human lives and not statistics.
We do. That reminds me on very famous Stalin's quote: ''Death of one man is a tragedy, death of millions is just a statistical value.'' Scary in one hand, and true in another.


On a side note: my grandpa faught in the Albanian field (trying to delay the enemy forces and drive them off). He came back to Athens on foot!! And believe me it is a long distance ;) .
And filled with rocks and mountains :lol: Battle for Crete; another situation showing Hitler's terrible choice of choosing incompetent Italians for allies. Italians barely won war against Ethiopians, and that's end of all their victories.



Guys it is a very interesting conversation. Perhaps the most interesting i had here in the forums :)
I really don't remember when did I last time check LitNet for 20 times a day :)






I'm using hindsight here and it would have made sense for the Axis to agree to attack on two fronts simultaneously, so as to split Stalin's troops. The lack of threat from Japan allowed him to concentrate on Germany's attack.

Given the disastrous attack on Pearl Harbour, Japan would have been far better to open that front than bring the US military machine in against it.



Yes, but Japan needed Hawaii, and not Kamchatka or Chukotka. Because of Monroe's isolationistic doctrine, nobody actually knew real strength of USA army. They were ''outside'' in WWI, and never confronted with anyone so they were actually a mystery to everyone. Japan probably thought that they will win that easily. Destroying Pearl Harbor, taking control over Hawaii; that's all Japan needed from USA.


Always fun to play "what if" with historical actions.
Sometimes I would really like to have a time machine, to change something and see what would happen:D

[manolia]

Ah yes, we know all about Crete - many New Zealanders were involved in that campaign.

You are a New Zealander? This summer i visited the nautical museum in Chania, Crete. They have a great tribute to New Zealander soldiers who fought and died there. Many pictures, various paraphernalia they were carrying (from articles of their costume to weapons etc). They have their names engraved on the wall next to their pictures. They have a whole wing dedicated to them. I was really moved seeing that all these people from the other side of the globe died to defend the island.



We do. That reminds me on very famous Stalin's quote: ''Death of one man is a tragedy, death of millions is just a statistical value.'' Scary in one hand, and true in another.

Oh my!! Yes he said that..i remember the quote.



And filled with rocks and mountains :lol: Battle for Crete; another situation showing Hitler's terrible choice of choosing incompetent Italians for allies. Italians barely won war against Ethiopians, and that's end of all their victories.


:lol:

[The Atheist]

And filled with rocks and mountains :lol: Battle for Crete; another situation showing Hitler's terrible choice of choosing incompetent Italians for allies. Italians barely won war against Ethiopians, and that's end of all their victories.

Given the state of Ethiopia's materiel at the time, there weren't too many bragging rights for that anyway!


Sometimes I would really like to have a time machine, to change something and see what would happen:D

You'd need to make sure you had an "undo" button handy.

People often suggest killing Hitler as a child would be a good idea, but I'm not so sure.

If Hitler didn't sweep to power and start WWII, there would have been little impetus for the Manhattan Project and USSR may have built them first. That scenario could turn out far worse.

[bazarov]

Given the state of Ethiopia's materiel at the time, there weren't too many bragging rights for that anyway!


Crazy idea of rebuilding The Roman Empire, although I don't see how did Ethiopia get in that story? Far far away from Northern Africa...


You'd need to make sure you had an "undo" button handy.
Yes, but just from curiosity...just to see; like in Back to the future!


People often suggest killing Hitler as a child would be a good idea, but I'm not so sure.
Killing one to save a millions reminds me on Jesus and Pontius Pilat, and Hitler was nothing like Jesus :lol: I don't think that would change something too much. Hitler didn't create Nazism, he just ''took the flag''. If there wasn't Crazy Adolf, someone else would do probably the same thing.


If Hitler didn't sweep to power and start WWII, there would have been little impetus for the Manhattan Project and USSR may have built them first. That scenario could turn out far worse.
Who knows, they were too weak to start any war, but nobody touched them because of great potentials in fighting endless battle (Stalin didn't care for casualties, like Atheist beautifully said :lol: ). Every great civilization ruined herself from inside, and the same thing was happening to USSR. With fighting with his inter enemies, Stalin would have no time to search for other enemies, I guess.

[Emil_Huseynov]

I wanna offer you to compare The Inner Party with the USSR's nomenclature. You will find a striking resemblance.

[rogerroger]

My first point is:
This attitude by a Chinese student is a great example of thought control in totalitarian regimes.

OMG,that is so not true. First, you are not a Chinese. I am. I know the truth far more than you do.


This is wrong:


Of course you're studying about Mao, otherwise you would neglect important part of your national history which would be a great great mistake. Germans learn about Hitler, Italians about Mussolini, ex-soviets about Stalin, Romanians about Ceausescu....but nobody is glorifying them.
The difference between these is that China is the only one who was successful and still operating today, it is still under the same Orwellian controls that it was in 1949. That is why the chinese students attitude is how it is.