Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin

[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.