Jump to content


Photo

Stalin: Good or Bad?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Amoeba

Amoeba

    To the window, to the wall!

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Location: Israel

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Amoeba
  • Nation Name:Elrine

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:23 AM - 070731

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? 


  • 0

#2 TankKiller

TankKiller

    Where are you?!

  • Forum Admin
  • 3,044 posts
  • IRC Nick:ayleid
  • Location: The Alps

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:TankKiller
  • Nation Name:Kortaenica

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:36 AM - 070732

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. ^^


  • 0

#3 Aloysius

Aloysius

    Onward Atlantica!!

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Aloysius
  • Nation Name:Halicarnassus

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:52 AM - 070733

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.


  • 0

#4 Amoeba

Amoeba

    To the window, to the wall!

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Location: Israel

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Amoeba
  • Nation Name:Elrine

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:05 PM - 070734

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?


  • 0

#5 legend

legend

    Secretary General Emeritus

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,310 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Legend
  • Nation Name:Legendria

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:26 PM - 070735

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.


  • 0

#6 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:22 PM - 070736

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. 


  • 0

#7 Amoeba

Amoeba

    To the window, to the wall!

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Location: Israel

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Amoeba
  • Nation Name:Elrine

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:31 PM - 070737

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.


  • 0

#8 legend

legend

    Secretary General Emeritus

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,310 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Legend
  • Nation Name:Legendria

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:32 AM - 070738

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.


  • 0

#9 bgorre1013

bgorre1013

    Should be government by now

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:bgorre1013
  • Nation Name:2nd try

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:44 AM - 070739

 

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.


  • 0

#10 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:12 AM - 0707310

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.


  • 0

#11 Mandystalin

Mandystalin

    TTK Patriarch

  • The Templar Knights
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 530 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Mandystalin
  • Nation Name:Lutonstan

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:55 AM - 0707311

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.


  • 0

#12 bgorre1013

bgorre1013

    Should be government by now

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:bgorre1013
  • Nation Name:2nd try

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:14 PM - 0707312

 

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.


  • 0

#13 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:10 PM - 0707313

 

 

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.  


  • 0

#14 bgorre1013

bgorre1013

    Should be government by now

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:bgorre1013
  • Nation Name:2nd try

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:44 PM - 0707314

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


  • 0

#15 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:46 PM - 0707315

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.


  • 0

#16 bgorre1013

bgorre1013

    Should be government by now

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:bgorre1013
  • Nation Name:2nd try

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:51 PM - 0707316

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.


  • 0

#17 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:55 PM - 0707317

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.


  • 0

#18 bgorre1013

bgorre1013

    Should be government by now

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:bgorre1013
  • Nation Name:2nd try

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:01 PM - 0707318

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


  • 0

#19 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:05 PM - 0707319

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.


  • 0

#20 bgorre1013

bgorre1013

    Should be government by now

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:bgorre1013
  • Nation Name:2nd try

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:08 PM - 0707320

US was only able to build 3 bombs at the time

1st: test bomb

2nd: Hiroshima

3rd: Nagasaki


  • 0