Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin

[Mr. Vandemar]

What do you think about Lenin and his intentions? From what I've read by psychoanalysts such as Slavoj Zizek or other copies of his translated writings I see nothing as corrupt as Stalin. Is this the truth or is it masked? Do you think that if Lenin had not died quite so early things would have turned out differently? Or, what if Stalin had been outsmarted by Trotsky and HE had been the one banished and then assassinated? Do you think that the Soviet Russia we think of was due to Stalin, or was it inevitable regardless of which cunning wolf had manipulated his way to the top? I am especially looking forward to The Atheist's and Barazov's responses to this.

[The Atheist]

Thanks! I suspect Baz will have a more interesting take than me as his knowledge is far greater than mine on the three. (amongst other things! :D )

Great topic, by the way, there are few things more gratifying than playing "what if" with dead historical figures. I've sent Baz a message - I see he hasn't posted for a couple of months.

To start off, I think we're always going to be hampered by the reputations of the three having been somewhat set in stone by history, which has raised Trotsky to almost martyr status alongside Stalin's demonic one and Lenin's rather less-severe, but still bad-guy.

Looking at the three individually, the general knowledge tends to reiterate this view:

Stalin. No question that he deserves his place as one of the three great despots of the 20th century, alongside Hitler & Mao. Stalin was responsible for tens of millions of deaths outside of WWII and the revolution.

Lenin. Painted in a less-evil light, but whether that is due to him I'm not so sure. He was responsible for purges and he was instrumental - if not the instigator - of starting up the Cheka, the original secret police which ultimately became the KGB. Lenin also appointed the hideous Felix Dzerzhinsky to the leadership role of Cheka, so must bear the blood of that organisation. Note that Orwell, who considered Lenin a boyhood hero, failed to allocate these sins to Old Major, leaving all the sinful work to Napoleon, thus putting it all on Stalin's shoulders. Had Lenin not died, I doubt history would have been much different. The big difference between them seems to have been Stalin's anti-semitism and Lenin's rejection of it.

Trotsky. Had Trotsky gained power, I'm quite sure that history would read vastly differently, if for no other reason than trotsky being Jewish. He was publicly opposed to Stalin to the extent that he was assassinated by the Soviets, even many years after any serious opposition would have mattered. I think it's unlikely that the same purges would have occurred under Trotsky, but I often come back to Lord Acton's [often mis-used] words:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We have seen the truth of this premise over the past 100 years - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc, and even right now, North Korea and Zimbabwe are still confirming it. Accordingly, I suspect that had Trotsky somehow gained power Russia's overall history might not be much different. Not that I think Trotsky would have been a despot, but I feel that his power base would have had him toppled for not being hard enough.

Let's suppose though, that Trotsky was able to take over and bring into being Marxism as some hybrid form where the communist tenets were implemented and purges weren't necessary. What shape would the world be today?

I have a strong suspicion that if that had happened, we'd all be drinking steins of beer or cups of sake, wearing lederhosen and driving Japanese cars. (Wait, we all do drive Japanese cars! ;) )

There is little doubt that the campaign against Russia crippled the Axis forces during WWII, causing the eventual failure of Hitler's goals. Russia beat Germany primarily because Stalin had no compunction about sending millions of troops to certain death to hold up German advances. Would Trotsky have done the same? His attitude towards other people's lives suggests he would not, which would have handed Germany an easy victory, giving Hitler the resources he needed and allowing the troops to shift to other battlefields.

Given the extreme difficulty with which the Allies ultimately triumphed and the weapons of war which Germany was frantically working on, it could well be that the difference might have led to a German/Japanese victory. D-Day would not have happened in the form it did, and I think it's highly likely that England would have fallen in 1942 or 43, faced with the entire might of Germany's army and air force.

[Mr. Vandemar]

But the USSR was not the only industrial giant at the time. You forget to mention that when the Americans declared war on the japanese they ONLY declared war on the JAPANESE! Hitler chose to declare war on the Americans the next day. Although the Americans had been helping the allies the entire time, an upfront war with the two most powerful nations (industrially and militarily) was his ultimate downfall. I doubt that if Trotsky had been more careful with the loss of life there would be any different of an outcome. I think that the Americans, due to the congressional opposition to the war, only put in a fraction of their resources. You can see how the two major powers who came in late in the war came out on top in the end. Britain and France (especially France) were in shambles after the war. If America had spent as much of its might against the Germans as did the British or the French, don't you think they'd have still come out on top?

Speaking of Trotsky's death: that guy was one tough mother. He gets part of his skull ripped off with an ice pick and still manages to escape at the age of 60! How many 60 year olds do you know who can fend off an assassin with a chunk out of their head and still make it to hospital?

Back on track. If Trotsky were the leader of the USSR during WWII, he certainly would not have let Hitler walk all over him. It was common knowledge that Hitler hated the jews at the time, wouldn't Trotsky be cautious of him? Of course Trotsky would not allow Hitler to march all over his lands just because of his views of humans as less expendable as Stalin's. We can be sure that Hitler would have attacked the USSR and not have even bothered meeting with Trotsky like he did with Stalin. Not only did he hate jews, but he hated communists. The two nations could never have survived side by side. I think it was inevitable that they get into war, regardless of the leader. I also think that the might of the Russians cannot only be attributed to Stalin's ruthlessness. The Russians absolutely crushed the Germans. Don't you think with Trotsky they would have simply done it more efficiently and maybe taken more time to plan it out?

I enjoy this conversation very much.

[The Atheist]

But the USSR was not the only industrial giant at the time. You forget to mention that when the Americans declared war on the japanese they ONLY declared war on the JAPANESE! Hitler chose to declare war on the Americans the next day. Although the Americans had been helping the allies the entire time, an upfront war with the two most powerful nations (industrially and militarily) was his ultimate downfall. I doubt that if Trotsky had been more careful with the loss of life there would be any different of an outcome. I think that the Americans, due to the congressional opposition to the war, only put in a fraction of their resources. You can see how the two major powers who came in late in the war came out on top in the end. Britain and France (especially France) were in shambles after the war. If America had spent as much of its might against the Germans as did the British or the French, don't you think they'd have still come out on top?

Certainly USA had an enormous impact on the war, but they would have been unable to contribute more than shipping had Britain been overcome, which I think would have resulted from an easy victory in Germany.


Speaking of Trotsky's death: that guy was one tough mother. He gets part of his skull ripped off with an ice pick and still manages to escape at the age of 60! How many 60 year olds do you know who can fend off an assassin with a chunk out of their head and still make it to hospital?

Yeah, tough cookie!


Back on track. If Trotsky were the leader of the USSR during WWII, he certainly would not have let Hitler walk all over him. It was common knowledge that Hitler hated the jews at the time, wouldn't Trotsky be cautious of him? Of course Trotsky would not allow Hitler to march all over his lands just because of his views of humans as less expendable as Stalin's. We can be sure that Hitler would have attacked the USSR and not have even bothered meeting with Trotsky like he did with Stalin. Not only did he hate jews, but he hated communists. The two nations could never have survived side by side. I think it was inevitable that they get into war, regardless of the leader. I also think that the might of the Russians cannot only be attributed to Stalin's ruthlessness. The Russians absolutely crushed the Germans. Don't you think with Trotsky they would have simply done it more efficiently and maybe taken more time to plan it out?

I agree that Germany would still have attacked Russia, I'm just not sure that trotsky would have made the same sacrifices. While the Russians did ultimately crush the Germans, most of that was due to tying the Germans up for the winter. You could be right, Trotsky might have been smart enough not to have needed to massacre his own men to slow them.

Good to see a young fella with good knowledge of WWII!

[Mr. Vandemar]

Certainly USA had an enormous impact on the war, but they would have been unable to contribute more than shipping had Britain been overcome, which I think would have resulted from an easy victory in Germany.

I still think that the fall of Britain would be impossible. The attack on Normandy and D-Day was difficult enough (remember Dieppe?) and I think that on a much smaller island (like Britain) sieges are relatively easier to defend. It's almost like pressure, the smaller the area and the larger the force; the higher the pressure. Britain's defenses were much more concentrated and secure than Hitler's defense of France. Besides, they'd had much more time building barricades and setting up in case of an invasion than the Germans did.

Hmmm. Had Europe (not just the mainland) fallen entirely, I don't know how easily the Americans could have liberated it. The two continents are very isolated. On the other hand, the Americans had by far the greatest Air Force and Navy at the time, and I'm sure after the inevitable defeat of the Japanese the Americans could have concentrated a large portion of their immense navy on the reclaiming of Europe. Although the Germans did well in defending attack from the English Channel, I doubt that their mines could have spanned the length of Europe in the Atlantic Ocean. The Americans are resourceful.



I agree that Germany would still have attacked Russia, I'm just not sure that trotsky would have made the same sacrifices. While the Russians did ultimately crush the Germans, most of that was due to tying the Germans up for the winter. You could be right, Trotsky might have been smart enough not to have needed to massacre his own men to slow them.

I don't know as much about Trotsky as I should. I think I will look into his politics and try to find some "ethics" that he might have tried to instill in the Bolshevik party. Maybe I will find a clue...



Good to see a young fella with good knowledge of WWII


Thanks, I really enjoy history, especially "modern" history. My favourite epochs and settings to study are the Classical (Greek & Roman), The Crusades & Jerusalem (From "Roman" hands to Ottoman hands), Napoleonic, and the 19th and 20th centuries.

Speaking of the middle ages, "Robin of Sherwood" for television (1980s) would be for you if you like history. Excellent acting, direction, music, costumes, plotlines, historical accuracy, etc...all that I can say I disagree with is the slightly stylized hair.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Remember: this is all fantasy. "The letter always arrives at its destination". Let us keep that in mind, and then go back to our imagination!

I posted this in a seperate reply to highlight it from the other. I think it is most important.

[The Atheist]

I still think that the fall of Britain would be impossible.

Check out some detail on the Battle of Britain. It was another of Hitelr's enormous mistakes - without air supremacy, Britain was a dead duck. Her ships wouldn't have been able to prevent Germany from just crossing the channel. Germany was so close to crippling Britain during the major air battles, but they failed to destroy the aircraft factories.


The attack on Normandy and D-Day was difficult enough (remember Dieppe?) and I think that on a much smaller island (like Britain) sieges are relatively easier to defend. It's almost like pressure, the smaller the area and the larger the force; the higher the pressure. Britain's defenses were much more concentrated and secure than Hitler's defense of France. Besides, they'd had much more time building barricades and setting up in case of an invasion than the Germans did.

In terms of frontal attack - definitely, but as an island, Britain needed to import all of its supplies. Had they lost North Africa - which might well have have been the case had Bermany had a walkover in Russia - Britain would have ground to a halt in months.


Hmmm. Had Europe (not just the mainland) fallen entirely, I don't know how easily the Americans could have liberated it. The two continents are very isolated.

Agree. Without the stepping stone of Britain, no invasion could have been made - you can't take LSTs across the Atlantic! Quite what would have happened if Britain had fallen is interesting. I think it probably ends in a stalemate as the distances are just too great and a US landing in Asia to conquer the entire Euro-Asian land mass would have been a neat trick. It might have come down to whichever side invented ICBMs first, which wouldn't necessarily have been our side taking into account where Germany was with that kind of technology.


Speaking of the middle ages, "Robin of Sherwood" for television (1980s) would be for you if you like history. Excellent acting, direction, music, costumes, plotlines, historical accuracy, etc...all that I can say I disagree with is the slightly stylized hair.

Yeah, that one wasn't bad - I've seen so many versions of Robin it's hard to pick one. Errol Flynn was magnificent in a 1938 film; he came across as the consumate Englishman, which is a great effort for an Aussie. Sean Connery & Audrey Hepburn had a film in the 1970s - Robin & Marian - which covered their life well after the book. Robin had been on the Crusades (seeing as how you go that way) and had returned to find Marian in a nunnery. Great film. Bugs Bunny has a pretty good one too! :D

[bazarov]

http://www.lrbshop.co.uk/images/P/071399309x.jpg

Great book I am reading now parallel with Shakespeare...I am weird, I know.

Hi Mr. Vandemar, glad to see someone really smart here, I enjoy discussions like this one; big hello to the Official.:)

[bazarov]

What do you think about Lenin and his intentions? From what I've read by psychoanalysts such as Slavoj Zizek or other copies of his translated writings I see nothing as corrupt as Stalin. Is this the truth or is it masked? Do you think that if Lenin had not died quite so early things would have turned out differently? Or, what if Stalin had been outsmarted by Trotsky and HE had been the one banished and then assassinated? Do you think that the Soviet Russia we think of was due to Stalin, or was it inevitable regardless of which cunning wolf had manipulated his way to the top? I am especially looking forward to The Atheist's and Barazov's responses to this.

Slavoj Žižek? Funny Slovenian!
Lenin is still adored in Russia, he made the Revolution. After Civil war, he survived assassination in 1922 and then his leadership started to fall apart. He had different ideas than Stalin ( it means steal on Russian), and he also did see Stalin as a very bad men and politician. He wrote a letter to Central Biro where he stated that Trotsky should be new leader, but Kamenyev and Zinovyev thought they could control Stalin better than Trotsky so they ruled it out and Stalin became the leader. Of course, Kamenyev and Zinovyev were removed and killed in first big ''chistka'' (process of removing ''dangerous enemies'' from The Party). Trotsky wanted to industrialize Russia but allowing personal property, and Stalin made it totally opposite and destroyed Soviet industry. Whole state was victim of the greatest lunatic Earth has ever seen, even Mao made lesser damage. Comparing to them, Hitler was OK; especially considering what he made for German proles.





Looking at the three individually, the general knowledge tends to reiterate this view:

Stalin. No question that he deserves his place as one of the three great despots of the 20th century, alongside Hitler & Mao. Stalin was responsible for tens of millions of deaths outside of WWII and the revolution.

If you compare number of victims and population, Stalin is the man.


Lenin. Painted in a less-evil light, but whether that is due to him I'm not so sure. He was responsible for purges and he was instrumental - if not the instigator - of starting up the Cheka, the original secret police which ultimately became the KGB. Lenin also appointed the hideous Felix Dzerzhinsky to the leadership role of Cheka, so must bear the blood of that organisation. Note that Orwell, who considered Lenin a boyhood hero, failed to allocate these sins to Old Major, leaving all the sinful work to Napoleon, thus putting it all on Stalin's shoulders.

Yes, I never realized why people like him so much... After first revolution, did he really need second one? Like he didn't want to liberate peasants, he wanted the power - four years of another horrible war and great hunger that killed more then 10 million people. And NEP was his idea, not Stalin's.
Old Major - I often think that Old Major is Marx, not Lenin; but this isn't thread for that :)



There is little doubt that the campaign against Russia crippled the Axis forces during WWII, causing the eventual failure of Hitler's goals. Russia beat Germany primarily because Stalin had no compunction about sending millions of troops to certain death to hold up German advances. Would Trotsky have done the same? His attitude towards other people's lives suggests he would not, which would have handed Germany an easy victory, giving Hitler the resources he needed and allowing the troops to shift to other battlefields.

Agree, Soviets could always put new forces in front of Germans, no matter of victims but I think Trotsky would done the same - if country is under massive attack then all victims are justified.
Stalin thought that Germans would never attack them, especially after Molotov - Von Ribbentrop treaty in August of 1939, before war started. Secret services got numerous pictures and information about German movements but Stalin refused to believe it.

Given the extreme difficulty with which the Allies ultimately triumphed and the weapons of war which Germany was frantically working on, it could well be that the difference might have led to a German/Japanese victory. D-Day would not have happened in the form it did, and I think it's highly likely that England would have fallen in 1942 or 43, faced with the entire might of Germany's army and air force.
There are no connections between Barbarossa and D-Day. (scroll down to see more :D )
If Russia did failed, Europe would fail quickly also; actually Great Britain was all that remained.



But the USSR was not the only industrial giant at the time. You forget to mention that when the Americans declared war on the japanese they ONLY declared war on the JAPANESE! Hitler chose to declare war on the Americans the next day. Although the Americans had been helping the allies the entire time, an upfront war with the two most powerful nations (industrially and militarily) was his ultimate downfall.

Exactly. Monroe's doctrine made Americans ruled out of any wars made in Europe. Why would they care of Russia or France - they don't give a damn about them?! Here, in my opinion Hitler made huge mistake - he declared war to USA as a result of USA's war on Japan and on that way he included USA in war in Europe. USA could fight against Japan without sending troops to Europe and normally, they would have numerously lesser victims. That's way Barbarossa
and D-Day aren't connected. 6th and 7th December 1941 made D-Day; without that D-Day would never happen, there was no need for that.

Also, I think that that's the reason why is USA today world super cop. Europe draw them in to that, and after that there was actually no back for them, UN, NATO, ...they had to stay in whether they like it or not. Like in mafia; you can't just quit:lol:




The two nations could never have survived side by side. I think it was inevitable that they get into war, regardless of the leader. I also think that the might of the Russians cannot only be attributed to Stalin's ruthlessness. The Russians absolutely crushed the Germans. Don't you think with Trotsky they would have simply done it more efficiently and maybe taken more time to plan it out?

Well, if Trotsky was a leader they would still be communists, but probably industrial giant and in my opinion they weren't a giant, Stalin knew that so he was afraid of war.
I don't think Russians crushed Germans - winter did.



I enjoy this conversation very much.:thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up



P.S. I am not finished, I'll be back!, some some other ideas too.

[The Atheist]

Slavoj Žižek? Funny Slovenian!

Must have a talk about him at some stage. I don't rate him at all.


Whole state was victim of the greatest lunatic Earth has ever seen, even Mao made lesser damage. Comparing to them, Hitler was OK; especially considering what he made for German proles.

I'll start a thread in philosophy - which of them was the greatest despot? We could have a good discussion on that, because....


If you compare number of victims and population, Stalin is the man.

I'd say that homour is Mao's.


Yes, I never realized why people like him so much... After first revolution, did he really need second one? Like he didn't want to liberate peasants, he wanted the power - four years of another horrible war and great hunger that killed more then 10 million people. And NEP was his idea, not Stalin's.
Old Major - I often think that Old Major is Marx, not Lenin; but this isn't thread for that :)

Yeah, I think we'd agreed that Napoleon was more Marx than Lenin, but I figure that either of them ought to have a little blame attached to them. I'd certainly go back in time and shoot Marx rather than Lenin!


Agree, Soviets could always put new forces in front of Germans, no matter of victims but I think Trotsky would done the same - if country is under massive attack then all victims are justified.

From that perpective you're probably right, but there are a few things to take into consideration:

The relationship between Russia and the Allies, given that it would have been vastly different with Trotsky in charge.

Would Trotsky have been able to come up with something more subtle than "Make 'em climb over the dead bodies?" Always seemed to me that more use could/should have been made of stretching the supply lines even further than they had been. Time was always going to be on Russia's side.


Stalin thought that Germans would never attack them, especially after Molotov - Von Ribbentrop treaty in August of 1939, before war started. Secret services got numerous pictures and information about German movements but Stalin refused to believe it.

Yeah, Hitler was clearly aware of what a fool and coward Stalin was. Poland had shown him how little stomach Stalin had for confrontation.


There are no connections between Barbarossa and D-Day. (scroll down to see more :D )

No, I'm not saying they are connected - just that the success in Russia would have altered the course of the war and made D Day a different proposition. You're right, though, declaring war on USA was a no-win situation for Germany. That's megalomania for you.

[QUOTE=bazarov;607923]Also, I think that that's the reason why is USA today world super cop. Europe draw them in to that, and after that there was actually no back for them, UN, NATO, ...they had to stay in whether they like it or not. Like in mafia; you can't just quit:lol:

Haha! That's an excellent analogy. All those European blondes....


P.S. I am not finished, I'll be back!, some some other ideas too.

Excellent.

[bazarov]

I still think that the fall of Britain would be impossible. The attack on Normandy and D-Day was difficult enough (remember Dieppe?) and I think that on a much smaller island (like Britain) sieges are relatively easier to defend. It's almost like pressure, the smaller the area and the larger the force; the higher the pressure. Britain's defenses were much more concentrated and secure than Hitler's defense of France. Besides, they'd had much more time building barricades and setting up in case of an invasion than the Germans did.

Why would it be impossible? Because Sea Lion failed? Eventually, Germans would destroy RAF and factories with missiles like they started in April of 1944 because RAF was the one who won battle against Luftwaffe because ships could hardly do something on Britain coasts. Massive invasion would be quick win, i think. Isolation and civilians would be too big effort for Britains, in my opinion.







I'd say that homour is Mao's.


Mao's victims are estimated on approximately 60 millions ( wiki says ...the deaths of 44.5 to 72 million people... and census in 1953 gave number of 582 million people, it was 700 millions in 1963.
Stalin's victims are generally considered on 20 millions, Solzhenitsyn says 60 millions( impossible in my opinion) and some Soviet historians about 40 million victims. Population was 290 million in 1991 ( I couldn't find number for Stalin days, sorry).

Now, if we compare victims and populations, then Stalin is The Devil.




Posted by Mr. Vandemar
Hmmm. Had Europe (not just the mainland) fallen entirely, I don't know how easily the Americans could have liberated it. The two continents are very isolated.

I see both of you are considering how hard an would it possible for Americans to liberate Europe. My question is why would America even try to liberate Europe?

[The Atheist]

I see both of you are considering how hard an would it possible for Americans to liberate Europe. My question is why would America even try to liberate Europe?

I think Germany would have ultimately declared war on USA either way. If Britain and Russia had fallen, it would have left only the Americas as not Axis-controlled. Given that Germany already had a stake in several South American countries, it had to only be a matter of time before USA was engaged.

Had that scenario arisen, I think the invasion of Europe would have been from the other end - via Asia. It would have simply come down to whether USA could have manufactured enough atomic weapons before Germany cracked the problem.

[bazarov]

Invasion and any kind of attack on America could be made from sea or air, slightly possible from ground from south from Central America.
Attack from air wasn't possible because of long distance and it would take numerous battle ships, planes and aircraft carriers for attack from sea, and Germans didn't have that; as a continental state, they had no need for that. Of course, they could make it, but America was too far away, even if conquered hard to control, was politicaly isolated and military very powerful... It would be very irrational to attack them. But Hitler was irrational so... Yes, invasion would probably happen, but not from sea; it would be easier from Asia over Bering's passage and Alaska - solid and safe background is always welcomed and Germans were used to fight on land, and treaty with Japan would be big plus.
American's in Europe could only be taking war to enemies field, like Sun Tzu always wanted:D , not an act of liberation Europe from Hitler.

Damn...it wasn't that far from that scenario as it looks now.

[The Atheist]

Damn...it wasn't that far from that scenario as it looks now.

:D

Quite right!

[Etienne]

Mao's victims are estimated on approximately 60 millions ( wiki says ...the deaths of 44.5 to 72 million people... and census in 1953 gave number of 582 million people, it was 700 millions in 1963.
Stalin's victims are generally considered on 20 millions, Solzhenitsyn says 60 millions( impossible in my opinion) and some Soviet historians about 40 million victims. Population was 290 million in 1991 ( I couldn't find number for Stalin days, sorry).

Now, if we compare victims and populations, then Stalin is The Devil.

Nope, if you want to do such number crunching, then Pol Pot is the devil: his toll is about 20% of the population of Cambodia depending on the estimates.

[bazarov]

We were discussing about WWII.

[Etienne]

Neither Stalin's or Mao's victims are attributed to the war (at least directly). And what does Mao has to do with WWII that Pol Pot hasn't?

[bazarov]

During WWII Mao fought with Kuomintang for leadership of China; Pol Pot was playing in a sandbox.

[Remarkable]

This is a very interesting disscution, but allow me to brief you with some more information.

First of all,Trocky would have been a much worse dictator than Stalin.Yes,it IS hard to believe,but it is true.His policies were much more stiff and his ideas much more radical.I believe you have noticed a tendency to idealise all dead and powerless people.Take the example of Che Guevara,that,regardless of how much me&many more youths like,has been but half-a-terrorist,thirsty for blood and EXPANDED power.

Asfor Stalin and WWII,it is his UNDENIABLE merit for the allies winning the war.As far as I can remember,France and England had signed peace treaties with Hitler,also allowing him to invade neighbour countries.Yes,it is true Stalin had signed a peace treaty himself,but Hitler decided to betray the russians.France and England fought against Hitler only because their interests started being touched.And so did The United States,for that matter.Perhaps Stalin's actions were also out of interest,but in this light,whose weren't?

You cannot blame Stalin for people killed at war:war is designed to kill people.You can blame him for what he did earlier and later,which were the true horrors of the regime.Also,I think you cannot say Stalin was worse that Hitler and I will not argument that,since it's more than common sense.

In the end all the love and cheering is an effecto of crowd psychology.In Russia,the same people that cried Stalin,cheered for Hrushov.In all over Eastern Europe,the ones that screamed out of joy for dictators or out of despair for their deaths,were the ones that pulled down The Wall,busts and communist buildings...

[The Atheist]

First of all,Trocky would have been a much worse dictator than Stalin.Yes,it IS hard to believe,but it is true.His policies were much more stiff and his ideas much more radical.I believe you have noticed a tendency to idealise all dead and powerless people.Take the example of Che Guevara,that,regardless of how much me&many more youths like,has been but half-a-terrorist,thirsty for blood and EXPANDED power.

Simple function of human beings - when faced with a monster, we look to think of ways the monstrousness might have been reduced.

In reality, who knows? What if Hitler had been assassinated? It might have led to a Himmler takeover followed by use of poison gas.

It's why we talk about history - nobody can be right or wrong.


You cannot blame Stalin for people killed at war:war is designed to kill people.

I don't think anyone does. They did win, after all and any tactic's a good tactic if it works.

The problem people have with Stalin is everything else, the millions who were killed for ideological reasons.


Also,I think you cannot say Stalin was worse that Hitler and I will not argument that,since it's more than common sense.

Nope, it just depends on how you count the numbers. As you say, war is war, so we can ignore the millions killed in Hitler's war. The Holocaust of !10,000,000 pales into insignificance against Stalin's pogroms.


In the end all the love and cheering is an effecto of crowd psychology.

Ah, the good old sheep.

[Etienne]

During WWII Mao fought with Kuomintang for leadership of China; Pol Pot was playing in a sandbox.

And your point is?


First of all,Trocky would have been a much worse dictator than Stalin.Yes,it IS hard to believe,but it is true.His policies were much more stiff and his ideas much more radical.I believe you have noticed a tendency to idealise all dead and powerless people.

Sources?


Asfor Stalin and WWII,it is his UNDENIABLE merit for the allies winning the war.

Erm, no. If the Germans had not been caught in winter thanks to bad strategy, Russia would most probably have fallen. Also, without American intervention, I'm not sure if Russia would have been able to get to Berlin either. But that's to be verified. Your claim, without sources, strikes me at being naive at best.


As far as I can remember,France and England had signed peace treaties with Hitler,also allowing him to invade neighbour countries.Yes,it is true Stalin had signed a peace treaty himself,but Hitler decided to betray the russians.France and England fought against Hitler only because their interests started being touched.And so did The United States,for that matter.Perhaps Stalin's actions were also out of interest,but in this light,whose weren't?

I'm not sure I see any point in this. So you are saying Stalin was better because he didn't fight Hitler until he was himself attacked?
France and England entered war with Hitler because Hitler had broken the peace treaty. And everyone's interest in Europe was threatened by Hitler's imperialist and non-respect of treaties.