Jump to content
Forums upgraded! Read more... ×
cn-nadc.net | North Atlantic Defense Coalition
Amoeba

Stalin: Good or Bad?

Recommended Posts

Yea.. The dude murdered millions, but he was also the best thing that Russia could wish for.

Stalin rised in a state of cracks and ash, to die in a cultural, educated and advanced state.

 

And also, i want to hear who do you guys believe was the one who defeated Nazi Germany? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude murdered millions, so he was pretty much as bad as they come. He might have been a good leader/organiser/whatever, but that doesn't make him a good guy. Same with Hitler.

The Allies defeated Nazi Germany. ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanky is on the ball here.

 

Both were effective leaders, with similar total control and tactics of indoctrination/conditioning. However, they were still both bad.

 

Each built up what were essentially gutted nations into powerhouses, but each can also be seen as the catalysts for their eventual fall. Stalin was just lucky with his geography, while Hitler misstepped with his timing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell you something? I don't believe it's right to compare Hitler to Stalin. 

Hitler, had the intention to clean Germany from everything that is not perfect. It got a lot to do with racism, unlike Stalin.

And i am not trying to say "hey, they killed jews ;(". I don't really who he killed, the facted that he killed because someone was not good enough for his "standarts" makes me sick.

 

Stalin was a paranoid yes, but what made him to murder was not religion, race or gender.

Am i right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stalin was lucky that Russia was big. Simple as that. Hitler should never had invaded Russia before conquering the rest of Europe and the UK. The war was lost when he opened up the Russian front.

 

No one has invaded and subdued Russia successfully. Hitler, Napoleon, all great military commanders, and all failed. Its just too big and cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stalin was lucky that Russia was big. Simple as that. Hitler should never had invaded Russia before conquering the rest of Europe and the UK. The war was lost when he opened up the Russian front.

 

No one has invaded and subdued Russia successfully. Hitler, Napoleon, all great military commanders, and all failed. Its just too big and cold.

 I think Russia could have been won by the Germans. They just picked a stupid time to try and do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was silly for Hitler to think that he could conquer Russia in 3 months. That is what he thought, he actually invaded it in the fall.

But the Russian nature was extraordinary. You see, Russians cannot see their homeland being conquered, they would sacrifice their own homes to block the invader.

Not to mention partisans. I would like to state that you cannot win a partisan war. The partisans leave the soldiers hungry, tired, lacking moral. Namely helpless.

 

Stalin was shocked that Germany invaded Russia, and still i believe that his actions at that time were brilliant.

He moved all of his weapon factories, supplies and Etc. To Sibir, there he made a mass production of new weapons, ammunition and Etc.

When Russia got invaded, it was for fact, that all of Russia, not only the millitary, joined the war. 

And that is, a big-ass credit to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DW, "winning" Russia would have meant winning half a continent, traversing across Asia.

 

I highly doubt that Hitler could have done that with UK and the USA biting his ass on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stalin was lucky that Russia was big. Simple as that. Hitler should never had invaded Russia before conquering the rest of Europe and the UK. The war was lost when he opened up the Russian front.

 

No one has invaded and subdued Russia successfully. Hitler, Napoleon, all great military commanders, and all failed. Its just too big and cold.

 I think Russia could have been won by the Germans. They just picked a stupid time to try and do so. 

 

 

I agree with this, the reason operation Overlord or D-day happen was because, the Russians ask the allies to create a 2nd front for Germany to take pressure off Russian troop, which were poorly trained and equip compare to the Germans.

 

And legend taking russia means taking just the part in Europe since that's were all the factories and population are. More than half of Russia is Siberia which is just a frozen forest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DW, "winning" Russia would have meant winning half a continent, traversing across Asia.

 

I highly doubt that Hitler could have done that with UK and the USA biting his ass on the other side.

In all honesty, with the help of Japan, it could have been done. Japan would have split the force of Russia, and Japan really only fought a one theater war, leaving troops available to pull off such a feat. In all honesty, the United States would have had much more trouble with Japan had it not been for the atom bomb, which tells me that Japan was a greater force then they were used for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan didn't do terribly well against Russia in the 1930s or the 1940s. Any Japanese attack into Russia would have been the equivalent of the Italian attacks into France in 1940 - their only actual achievement was keeping the border forces busy (forces that would not have been moved elsewhere anyway).

 

 

Stalin in general was a marvellous politician but an awful human being.

 

WW2 was the best thing to happen for Soviet Russia, as the country was still rather fragmentary with the various areas (Ukraine, for example) still wanting independence, and the people as a whole still reeling from the harsh crackdowns that followed the revolution (which promised so much freedom).

The German invasion gifted Stalin with a common enemy for his peoples, and also gave him the excuse of 'it is necessary' to demand and get horrendous sacrifice, to further tighten his control, and to build up his personality cult.

 

Yes, Russia in the 1950s was a different place to Russia in the 1910s, but that was true of every country and change had begun in Russia before the Revolutions. It is likely that Russia would have been better off without Stalin - certainly the periodic purges did not help (check out how often scientific and/or designer types were purged and then rehabilitated once it became clear that they were actually needed).

 

To the charge that Stalin did not discriminate in his bloodshed...

 

1) Purges by political views (throughout)

2) Purges of Kulaks in the 1920s

3) Purge of the Orthodox Church in the 1920s-30s

4) Purge of Muslims in the 1930s

 

I'm sure there are more. It is also often stated that Stalin was planning to purge Jews before he died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

DW, "winning" Russia would have meant winning half a continent, traversing across Asia.

 

I highly doubt that Hitler could have done that with UK and the USA biting his ass on the other side.

In all honesty, with the help of Japan, it could have been done. Japan would have split the force of Russia, and Japan really only fought a one theater war, leaving troops available to pull off such a feat. In all honesty, the United States would have had much more trouble with Japan had it not been for the atom bomb, which tells me that Japan was a greater force then they were used for.

 

 

Japan was defeated by the time USA develop the Atomic bomb, but Japanese wont surrender because they consider their honor more important than their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

DW, "winning" Russia would have meant winning half a continent, traversing across Asia.

 

I highly doubt that Hitler could have done that with UK and the USA biting his ass on the other side.

In all honesty, with the help of Japan, it could have been done. Japan would have split the force of Russia, and Japan really only fought a one theater war, leaving troops available to pull off such a feat. In all honesty, the United States would have had much more trouble with Japan had it not been for the atom bomb, which tells me that Japan was a greater force then they were used for.

 

 

Japan was defeated by the time USA develop the Atomic bomb, but Japanese wont surrender because they consider their honor more important than their lives.

 

I would beg to differ. If the Japanese were imploding, then the United States would not have dropped the bomb.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reason the bomb was drop was because USA wanted to end the war with the least amount of casualties for both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they did it simply to save american lives, not Japanese. I am not saying that is wrong, but to say they did it to save Japanese lives is just wrong. The Japanese CERTAINLY lost more people with the dropping of the bombs then in the case of a military invasion. This shows the United States was still weary of the Japanese military power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A full scale invasion would have killed a lot more Japanese men than two bombs. Japanese men would rather commit suicide than surrender. Japan was out of resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, the bombs were dropped on civilians, which leads everybody to believe that it was an attempt to cripple morale. That to me speaks that the Japanese were still a force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bombs were drop on industrial cities, if civilians and moral was the target, it would have been Tokyo 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The third bomb was aimed at Tokyo, Japan surrendered before it was dropped. The first two were meant as warnings for the destruction that was going to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US was only able to build 3 bombs at the time

1st: test bomb

2nd: Hiroshima

3rd: Nagasaki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States government has stated that a third bomb was going to be dropped on Tokyo. They surrendered first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States government has stated that a third bomb was going to be dropped on Tokyo. They surrendered first.

 

That would have been inhuman, but it was necessary to end the war quickly.

General MacArthur was against dropping the bombs because he thought japan was ready to surrender. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that any were dropped either means that the United States is totally inhumane (im not ruling this out) or that there was a threat. Dropping on Tokyo would have certainly caused unneeded casualties. It would result in more harm then good, which leads me to believe that they did it because of Japan's military threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truman did it to end the war, He saw the bomb as another weapon nothing else. And don't forget Japan invaded Manchuria then attack Pearl. They asked for it, US citizens were very isolationist before the attack and also US rebuilt Japan to become an economic power after the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that Japan didn't warrant such use. I'm simply saying Truman DID do it to end the war. It would have cost many lives because Japan still had a viable armed forces, therefore, he took the easy way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×