Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Stalin's Place in New Russian History.

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 6
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 May 2010, 19:58
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 07 May 2010, 20:12
I. V. Stalin is still an acting political figure in Russia.
I suppose, the only date that unites Russian people is the 9th of May, when, as you of course know, the world celebrates the 65th Anniversary of the victory over Nazism.

However, Russian society is divided into two groups:

"There is no modern leader who would gather as many advocates and critics as Stalin. There is no other person in the Russian Federation who would gather many thousand meetings and disputes in TV-channel studios, or to whose activity so many books and articles would be dedicated. There is an obvious example: the most expensive Russian film ever “Burnt by the Sun 2” by Nikita Mikhalkov also depicts Stalin as one of the main characters."

Big scandals happen every year. I need not tell you Stalin is the toughest point in almost any histocal discussion. The attitude to Stalin characterizes one once and forever.

What I want to suggest to you is to demonstrate your knowledge and express your opinion on the subject:

  • what are the reasons and arguments of "advocates and critics"?
  • what are the causes of such disunity?
  • what tendencies are seen?
  • what is awaited to happen there next?

Here you can read an article by the author cited above.

Seems to be quite an objective statement. So - do you agree with the guy?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 447
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2004, 23:50
Komsomol
Post 11 May 2010, 08:56
This sounds like I would be answering someones school project. I'll throw in 1/2 a cent and speculate that "
"the reasons and arguments of "advocates and critics"?" Stems from advocates believing that without the radical changes and actions by Stalin to modernize Russia would of been devastating for defending against the German invasion. The Critics would cross examine with "Russian people are strong and brave they would of defeated the Germans without the tyrannical acts of Josef Stalin." I tend to advocate Stalin as a positive figure for the Russian people and its history. If I were to briefly examine the critics motivation I would simply ask a critic this: "If the Russian people are so capable of defeating the Germans while following bad leadership what is the Russians people excuse for the Loss of 1917 against the German invaders?" I am going to stop here before I go much further into detail. Revolution aside for the Loss in 1917 the Russian People need good Russian Leadership plain and simple. Josef Stalin was that leadership as hard, cold, and terrible as he was, it was necessary to prepare Russia for the struggles ahead within such a short time frame.
Using the hammer to forge the sickle everyday,

"When we hang the Capitalists, they'll sell us the rope we'll use. "
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 11 May 2010, 20:17
"That is why the Americans thoroughly keep memory of all their forty three presidents and try to follow their genealogy to the lost descents of Israel."

What proportion of the American people is attempting to trace the genealogy of Millard Fillmore back to the days of Moses?
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 16
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Feb 2011, 14:18
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 11 Feb 2011, 11:23
Stalin is a main symbol of victorys of soviet epoche. That's why modern russian authority very try to erase any good memory about Stalin.
Also, many falsifications and full power of mass-media for blackening personality of Stalin.
My English is very bad. Sorry.
I am former Soviet, now Russian.
Can answer the questions
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4779
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 May 2010, 07:43
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 11 Feb 2011, 16:59
I was under the impression that the current Russian government is more concerned with detaching Stalin from Communism and more concerned with using him and the Great Patriotic War for nationalist propaganda reasons?

I seem to recall reading that in Russian textbooks, they have made changed some depictions of Stalin, and say Stalin was a good leader in the war, but do not make a lot of mention of Communism. There were some plans to include images of Stalin in the parade for the 65th anniversary of Victory Day, but that didn't happen.
“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals” - Mark Twain
Soviet cogitations: 16
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Feb 2011, 14:18
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 12 Feb 2011, 21:46
In situation with Stalin now is very interesting. On the one hand, in mass of regular people Stalin now it's a symbol of good life and honesty. On the other hand authorities very want to erase all good remember about Stalin because they stupid greedy idiots on its background. But authorities fear do it quick and strong, because they realy fear lost the ratings in body of electors.
And so we has a fun situation: in the morning our president speak "Stalin killed 10000000 people in time of repression", in the evening he's speak "but Stalin make a strong rich country"
My English is very bad. Sorry.
I am former Soviet, now Russian.
Can answer the questions
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2870
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 19 May 2011, 12:00
I had read recently on Russia Today that there were plans to put pictures of Stalin on buses in Moscow in St. Petersburg, but the plan was scrapped in the last minute due to the controversial nature of it.

Either way, it seems to me that the current Russian government can't say anything bad about Stalin because (1) almost everyone who was alive during Stalin's time seems to have a good opinion of him, (2) he led the country through the GPW, and (3) given the levels of corruption, injustice, inequality, and hardship in the present day, Stalin's leadership is perceived as non-corrupt and just. It is evident to many in Russia that Stalin took a firm stand against imperialism, Nazi or Western, which is especially poignant given Russia's allowing the US have its way with the Middle East and Central Asia.

The Kremlin is fully aware that capitalism hasn't been a great experience for people, so to preserve a semblance of legitimacy, they are forced to tone down th negative narrative of Stalin, just as they encourage the CPRF to remain a large presence in the Duma as a "loyal opposition".
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 17 Jul 2014, 14:15
As much as stalinists tend to point stalin purges as something inherently needed by the socialist system, i believe the purges were one of the major reasons for Soviet failures during Finish war and the start Great Patriot war.

If you compare GDPs, German GDP was higher. But GDP figures include superfluous areas.

Soviet heavy industry was potentially larger than german one.

Soviet Tanks were decidedly superior to german ones.

(T-34 vs Pz IV, BT-7 vs Pz-III etc).

Soviet thought at the time was similar if not superior to german one (The concept of Deep war, the formation of Tank armies etc).

The purgues weakened the army, to the point that it became headless.

At the same time, the forced industrialization and colectivization was the only possible way for the Soviet to survive the german onslaught.

Soviet industry, tanks etc, were superior to germans, and they could absorb more damage, as a consequence of Stalin.

So, basically, you lose from something and get from something else.

History has no "if".

Stalinists will tell that the purges were needed to root out the reactionary and trotskysts elements from the army and state.

I will tell that every ruling class creates ideology, and one fundamental part of an ideology is to make people believe that the ideals and needs of the ruling class are similar and one together with the ideals and needs of the people.

So, instead of removing elements that could weaken or remove Stalin from power (and that would show Stalin as an egoistical person that killed people to save his own interest to keep power) oficial ideology tells that they people killed were traitors, and elements that could subvert the state itself and the people.

One element that we can use to showcase the brutality of Stalin power is the time he spent in power and the fact that he only lost power by dieing.

Marxist thought attaches no special significance to a single person. Burgeoise history is marked by the concept of special men. People that "decide" the future as if by free will.

Dialetical materialism shows that long before such "special men" could influence history, their possible choices, the correct outcome etc, is embedded into the material reality itself. And the material reality is made by simple people, working their lives.

So, Stalin is itself a symptom and a cause. He is a symptom of soviet deviation from marxist thought because he became a "superman" of the proletariat. If the masses of a socialist country cannot detect that they are themselves the authors of history, intead believing that a single man (or a single class of people) are the authors, them that country failed to attaim one of the basic pillars of a socialist country. On the other side, Stalin actively killed old guard socialists, positioned people of his confidence into power spots and made conections in order to keep his power. So, he capitalized into the masses ignorance. Kept them dependent on a strong figure.

Stalin is, them, not only a person, but a modus operandi, the worst side of bolchevism.

Thats what you get when you believe that a caste of professional revolutionaries can lead the proletariat into socialism.

But, was it without value ?

Of course not, Soviet experience modernized the former Soviet Union. They done in years what would took centuries under burgeoise leadership.

They stood in the front line of the fight against nazism (the worse form of fascism).

They took people out of abject poverty. They created written languages to people that lived in conditions similar to the neolitic (in siberia) etc.

Stalin is history as it happened. There are no ifs. We cannot know what would happen in an alternate universe without Stalin.

What we can do is learn the mistakes of the past and actualize that knowledge to our own advantage.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 23 Aug 2014, 21:45
Quote:
i believe the purges were one of the major reasons for Soviet failures during Finish war and the start Great Patriot war.

How could you know that considering the number of actual traitors that still existed amongst the Red Army in 1941?

Do you ignore that the USSR made important reforms in its army after the Winter War?

Only one thing is sure: the NKVD and border guards were the most trained troops of the Red Army and their resistance in 1941 saved the USSR.

Quote:
The purgues weakened the army, to the point that it became headless.

Yes, the Red Army was so headless that it won a glorious battle at Khalkhin Gol in 1939!
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 24 Aug 2014, 01:15
Quote:
How could you know that considering the number of actual traitors that still existed amongst the Red Army in 1941?


The "traitors" are just ordinary people that oposed Stalin's rule. One trait of all ideologies is that it makes it look like the interests of a small group of people are the interests of all people. So, the Stalin's group interest was to stay in power. Those who oposed him were a treat to that interest. When this political situation is transformed into a official ideology, it turns Stalin as the saviour of Russia and his oponents into traitors of Russia. Because that transformation, from the simple struggle of power among groups of people who happen to vie for power, into a fight between good and evil, is the nature of the ideology in its porpuse of legitimizing power. Its no surprise they were labeled traitors. History is told by victors, not by the losers. But it's scientifically ridiculous to believe that most old guard bolcheviques turned traitors and only Stalin was the true marxist of the bunch. And thats the consequence (to believe that) if you take official party history as gospel.

Quote:
Do you ignore that the USSR made important reforms in its army after the Winter War?


Russia was materally utterly superior to Finland in the winter war. Had no purge take place, Red army would wipe the floor with the finish.

Quote:
Only one thing is sure: the NKVD and border guards were the most trained troops of the Red Army and their resistance in 1941 saved the USSR.


I dont believe such propagada. This kind of appraisal for certain units and groups cannot be scientifically measured. Its just plain opinion. Fact is that you cant account the victory on a four years war, involving millions of troops, to a single arm, weapon or battle. Thats unscientficall.

Quote:
Yes, the Red Army was so headless that it won a glorious battle at Khalkhin Gol in 1939!


Zukhov used defense in depth there. A strategy that was refrained upon by the group known as "group of seargents" that formed around Voroshilov. This group of agitprops with no formal military training and only a basic understanding of tatics, won support from Stalin because of their loyalty to him and not becouse of their intellectual achievements. During the civil war, in the city of Tsaritsyn (which later became Stalingrad) this group won some battles. Nothing out of ordinary. But, they rose in the army ranks under Stalin. Battle for Tsaritsyn was claimed as a great battle etc.

Stalin's preference for this group lead to the dismissal of ideas comming from the old guard Red Army generals and from people with true military background. Voroshilov was the head of that group and reached the position of minister of defense. He reverted most work done by people like Triandafilov and Tukhachevsky in deep battles. The groups of armored units (experimental units with high mobility and big concentration of tanks and vehicles) was dispersed. Tanks were distributed among infantry units to be used as a support weapon. This all due to Voroshilov and Stalin's belief in a repetition of world war one. This is one reason why the superior Russian forces were easily defeated by german army. I insist that Russia was materially and militarely superior to Germany right at the start of the war. Russian lack of leadership and inferior tatics (due to bad leadership) was the root cause of the early defeats. Stalin's insistence in the "westernmost defense" of Russia (concentrating all units at russian borders) put the red army in the worst position possible to defend from a blitzkrieg style defense (And the early great encirclements is the result of that policy). Having tanks dispersed was another consequence of Stalin's errors. To counterattack blitzkrieg you need tanks concentrated as a single unit, with follow on mechanized infantry, in order to quickly react to changing frontline conditions. Modern war needs modern tatics, its not a matter of simply pointing a rifle towards the enemy and firing, and the purges interfered with conscript training.

All those things can be directly linked to Stalin's rise to power and its struggle against his real and perceived opositors. By placing trusted people (trusted by him, Stalin) at key positions in Russia's military and civil leadership, competent people where taken away from their posts. Good measures where reverted and replaced by ideas from people like Lyssenko. Loyalty to Stalin was praised above professional competence, with the consequent fall of quality.

You cite Khalkhin Gol, a minor battle, done by the most qualified troops of URSS, in an army that was far away from Moscow, so less subject to the purges and Stalin's meddling. Khalkin Gol was conducted in a blitzkrieg style by Zhukhov, probably the single most able general of URSS. Sometimes competence and loyalty to the ditactor can happen at the same person, but its harder and less easily found. At Khalkhin Gol Russia faced a much less mechanized and less qualified japanese army. But Japan is hardly Germany. Having 1/10 of USA GDP, they could hardly mechanize their army. Their tanks where inferiour even to those from Italy throughout the whole war. They believed in headon tatics (banzai charges), and a bunch of other beliefs that where more mythological than scientifical. Most of their victories came from suprising their enemies more than from military skill. They had good generals to find and exploit weak targets in an area were the colonial powers could not concentrate military equipment and troops. You cannot compare war in Asia with war in Europe. War in China was an infantry affair. Its not surprising that the most mechanized army won. Khalkhin Gol is telling. It shows what war in Europe might have been if wasn't for Stalin's messing with military affairs. Its easy to downplay Russia and praise Germany in order to hide the truth of the purges.

Germany corruption prevented it to reach its full military potential (Because nazism is utterly corrupt). Germany did not enter full scale mobilization until later in the war. Germany economical administration was incompetent. It was not an invencible force as it is shown by the official media, far from it. At some momments before WW2, even Tchecoslovaquia could have been a foe for Germany, had it mobilized and fought, etc. That appraisal of Germany is made to hide France and England incompetence and later served well Stalin's porpuse of hiding his own errors.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 24 Aug 2014, 18:12
Quote:
The "traitors" are just ordinary people that oposed Stalin's rule.

This is SHAMEFUL to read things like that. An "ordinary" man in Russia:
1 - Wouldn't oppose Stalin.
2 - Even if he would, he wouldn't join the nazis.
Yet many of your traitor friends joined the Nazi army.
If that's how you see ordinary people, you are anything but a Communist.

Quote:
But it's scientifically ridiculous to believe that most old guard bolcheviques turned traitors and only Stalin was the true marxist of the bunch.

Why should I care?

Quote:
And thats the consequence (to believe that) if you take official party history as gospel.

I sing it everyday.


Quote:
Russia was materally utterly superior to Finland in the winter war. Had no purge take place, Red army would wipe the floor with the finish.

How could you know? Even the glorious French army which won WWI, with a great military history, with great officers, great military schools, was defeated in a few days. They did worst than the Red Army, and I personally believe that had the French government organized stalinist purges in the Army, the French wouldn't have lost the war, or at least not like that. So why should I blame Stalin for the purges? Am I a Soviet general? No. Am I a military expert? No. Do I watch CNN? No.


Quote:
I dont believe such propagada.

You statements are shameful reactionary propaganda, everything of what you write stinks reaction and you obviously know nothing about Soviet history because you have no way to prove that I'm wrong (because I'm right). Read actual history books and stop watching reactionary TV programs.


Quote:
You cite Khalkhin Gol, a minor battle, done by the most qualified troops of URSS

Oh so you have just discovered the existence of this battle, and you have probably read Wikipedia to find a bit of informations. But it was certainly not a "minor battle", it involved quite a lot of men, and became such an important victory for the Red Army that it was certainly the main reason for which the Japanese, during those 4 years of war, never tried to attack the USSR again. And without this glorious victory, Stalin might not have taken troops for his 700 000 men reserve in the Far East to defend Moscow. So tactically and strategically, it was one of the most important battles of WWII, maybe as much as Stalingrad itself.

Quote:
Tanks were distributed among infantry units to be used as a support weapon.

No, tanks were sent first to establish a frontline, then the infantry followed.

Quote:
Zukhov used defense in depth there.

No, althoug Zhukov started with a defense, he used a combination of infantry, artillery and tanks, and encircled the enemy, which is the contrary of "defense in depth". It was a battle in depth, but certainly not a "defense" in depth. Where did you read that? On Wikipedia? Give me the link.

Quote:
By placing trusted people (trusted by him, Stalin) at key positions in Russia's military and civil leadership, competent people where taken away from their posts.

So Zhukov wasn't competent?

Voroshilov was probably not a military genius like Zhukov, but he was far frome being incompetent and above all you could trust him. The fact is that under his commande, Leningrad didn't break. I would have liked to have a commander like Voroshilov to defend Paris.

Quote:
It was not an invencible force as it is shown by the official media, far from it.

OMG. What kind of media to you watch or read?

The Nazi army was defeated, so the only media who still say that the Nazi army was invincible are probably 1930's-1940's Nazi media.

Quote:
Fact is that you cant account the victory on a four years war, involving millions of troops, to a single arm, weapon or battle. Thats unscientficall.

Your penchant for aphorism is ridiculous and tiresome. If you have to say something, at least try to prove it, you will have a lot of difficulty to prove that a simple battle can't seal the fate of a whole war. It can, and it does quite often, that's what Clausewtiz called the "decisive battle".
Last edited by OP-Bagration on 25 Aug 2014, 12:54, edited 1 time in total.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 24 Aug 2014, 19:27
Quote:
This is SHAMEFUL to read things like that. An "ordinary" man in Russia:
1 - Wouldn't oppose Stalin.
2 - Even if he would, he wouldn't join the nazis.
Yet many of your traitor friends joined the Nazi army.
If that's how you see ordinary people, you are anything but a Communist.


You too believe in the moscow trials ? Non-sequiteur. You try to lump together all the victmyns of the purges as Nazists and etc. Thats pure propaganda. Even if, lets say, 10% of the purgees were nazists and traitors, you still fail to prove that most where traitors. The purges have an too big outreach to be simple a matter of removing random traitors. They are the outcome of a political struggle between the old guard bolcheviques and the Stalinist group. First the matter is settled at the head, at the key political positions, then later that secure political position is materialized as a persecution of the middle and low level suporters of the defeated group. Thats classics politics. Call it terror, whatever you like. But its not the proletariat terror, because it was done inside the ranks of the proletariat political structure itself. It was a partisan fight inside the bolcheviques itself.

Quote:
Why should I care?


Simply because its impossible for a group of people to all together betray itself. Stalin and a small part of the bolcheviques ended being "not traitors" while the vast majority was killed for treason or under suspicios circunstances. Thats impossible. Its way simpler to tell that the old guard was not traitors at all and the small group around Stalin was the true traitors.

Quote:
I sing it everyday.


Being proud of ignorance does not make you less ignorant. If your position is correct you will need way more than sing a song...

Quote:
How could you know? Even the glorious French army which won WWI, with a great military history, with great officers, great military schools, was defeated in a few days. They did worst that the Red Army, and I personally believe that had the French government organized stalinist purges in the Army, the French wouldn't have lost the war, or at least not like that. So why should I blame Stalin for the purges? Am I a Soviet general? No. Am I a military expert? No. Do I watch CNN? No.


Are you serious ? Are you comparing the French vs Germany war to a war betwen the puny Finland and Russia ?

Quote:
You statements are shameful reactionary propaganda, everything of what you write stinks reaction and you obviously know nothing about Soviet history because you have no way to prove that I'm wrong (because I'm right). Read actual history books and stop watching reactionary TV programs.


Yeah, shamefull reactionary propaganda. Maybe i am a traitor of the proletariat ! Send me to a gulag ! Oh ! Oh ! Back to the point, you fail to produce an coherent argument to defend your position.

Quote:
Oh so you have just discovered the existence of this battle,


Just discoreved ? hahaha Ok, lets pretend i never knew about Khalkin Gol.

Quote:
and you have probably read Wikipedia to find a bit of informations. But it was certainly not a "minor battle", it involved quite a lot of men, and became such an important victory for the Red Army that it was certainly the main reason for which the Japanese, during those 4 years of war, never tried to attack the USSR again.


It was certainly a minor battle. But your lack of understanding confuses matters. Khalkin Gol was militarely a minor battle (A skirmish so to say). But, minor battles can have effect in the political and military thinking. For the japanese Khalkin Gol showed that their lack of mechanization meant that they could not fight the russians effectively. For the Russians, mainly for Zukhov, it showed that mechanized armies are way more powerfull than thought before and a viable strategy in the future fight against Germany.

Quote:
And without this glorious victory, Stalin might not have taken troops for his 700 000 men reserve in the Far East to defend Moscow. So tactically and strategically, it was one of the most important battles of WWII, maybe as much as Stalingrad itself.


I was about to talk about those men from Siberia that came to save Moscow. By being far from Moscow, they were less subject to the purges and political meddling from Stalin's group. So they organized on the basis of competence more than on the account of political prestige.

Quote:
No, tanks were sent first to establish a frontline, then the infantry followed.


You are confusing the later war tatics with the pre-war mindset of the russian army. Before the war, russian tatics swinged from a infantry centered mentality (like WW1) to a mechanized - deep war - structure, them back to a WW1 infantry style structure. There were some experimental all mechanized armies setup. They were disbanded by the likes of Voroshilov and the tanks where distributed among infantry units.

I will have to write a whole text to explain to you the differences between the end of world war one view about tanks to the world war two, blitzkrieg like, tatics.

Late in world war one tanks were used to shield and protect infantry from machine guns. They where intended to break strongholds and allow infantry to break the deadlock that was trench warfare. Tanks were supposed to walk just some kilometers deep into the front line, allowing more conventional infantry attacks against the rear. There was no strategic deepth to the attacks. They were massed and sent against the trenchs, killing machine guns and artillery positions. That was a classic infantry suport role. Infantry was the key unit while tanks played a suportive role to that infantry. Usually the whole front moved slowly, with infantry filling the gaps and mantaining a linear front line.

Under Blitzkrieg style attacks, the roles are swaped. You concentrate tanks, artillery, mechanized infantry and aircraft into a smaller part of the front in order to break the lines. After the lines are broken, you advance as fast as possible towards the hinterland and the strategic objectives behind it. You leave exposed flanks if needed, hoping that the tempo of the operation prevents an enemy counter attack. Thats a kind of battle in depth.

With knowledge from the mistakes of Napoleon against Russia, german generals knew that an attrition war was impossible. Russia had more man and material to survive an attrition war. They could retreat indefinitely towards the Urals and Siberia and keep fighting and attriting the german military, until a german collapse. Just like Russians did against Napoleon. So Blitzkrieg was adapted to solve that problem. By encircling Russian soldiers they could prevent their retreat towards Siberia. That was the hope for Germany.

So, Stalin's order to defend the most westernmost possible, and the dispersal of tanks and other highly mobile units among infantry (as if the war was going to be fought as a world war one style one) provided for the great encirclements that germany produced at the war start. If the mobile armies had not been dispersed, had the soviets organized the defense as a deep battle one, had their officers had not been killed and purged by Stalin, Russia could defend from the first blows and counter-attack deep battle style, something that Germany was not prepared to counter. Even the lack of preparations by the russian army was detrimental to the defense. At the north, under command from Kuznetzov, the defenses were on alert, aircrafts dispersed etc. This had a lot of effect on the outcome of the war, had the northern german army sector advanced faster, Moscow could very well have been encircled just like Leningrad.

Quote:
No, althoug Zhukov started with a defense, he used a combination of infantry, artillery and tanks, and encircled the enemy, which is the contrary of "defense in depth". It was a battle in depth, but certainly not a "defense" in depth. Where did you read that? On Wikipedia? Give me the link.


I used the wrong term, it was not a defense in depth, it was a deep war inspired battle. Zokhov did what Manstein or any blitzkrieg general would do. And thats why he won. So Khalkhin Gol shows that Russia was not a sitting duck to blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg was not a new idea created by Germans and only know by them. Blitzkrieg was the result of the big mechanization of the era and was a logical conclusion to that mechanization. Had not been the purges, the Red Army might very well fight blitzkrieg style right from the start of the war.

Quote:
So Zhukov wasn't competent?


Where did i say that ?

Quote:
Voroshilov was probably not a military genius like Zhukov, but he was far frome being incompetent and above all you could trust him. The fact is that under his commande, Leningrad didn't break. I would have liked to have a commander like Voroshilov to defend Paris.


Voroshilov was so competent that fell out of favour from Stalin rght when Zukhov gained favour. In Zhukhov Stalin found competence and loyalty, while Voroshilov had loyalty without competence.

Quote:
OMG. What kind of media to you watch or read?

The Nazi army was defeated, so the only media who still say that the Nazi army was invincible are probably 1930's-1940's Nazi media.


Modern day media still portray German army as a kind of superior army that was defeated by the ignorant hordes of the Red Army. They fail to show German shortcommings like the Nazi party mismanagement of the economy.

Quote:
Your penchant for aphorism is ridiculous and tiresome. If you have to say something, at least try to prove it, you will have a lot of difficulty to prove that a simple battle can't seal the fate of a whole war. It can, and it does quite often, that's what Clausewtiz called the "decisive battle".


Decisive battle has nothing to do with what you are saying. World War Two was a too big war to be decided by a single battle alone. The japanese tried to achieve a decisive battle at Pearl Harbour and did not achieve it. It was simple a too big war. It was littered of great and smaller operations that created the result, and you cannot credit one single weapon, battle or general as the reason for final victory. Not even nuclear weapons can have that title (But they had the potential to be a war wining weapon).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 24 Aug 2014, 23:41
Quote:
You too believe in the moscow trials ? Non-sequiteur. You try to lump together all the victmyns of the purges as Nazists and etc. Thats pure propaganda. Even if, lets say, 10% of the purgees were nazists and traitors, you still fail to prove that most where traitors. The purges have an too big outreach to be simple a matter of removing random traitors. They are the outcome of a political struggle between the old guard bolcheviques and the Stalinist group. First the matter is settled at the head, at the key political positions, then later that secure political position is materialized as a persecution of the middle and low level suporters of the defeated group. Thats classics politics. Call it terror, whatever you like. But its not the proletariat terror, because it was done inside the ranks of the proletariat political structure itself. It was a partisan fight inside the bolcheviques itself.

Once again I have to stress that you shall write non sequitur and not non sequitEur, otherwise it's literatim what we call nonsense. But of course you are free to write as you like. Anyway your answer has nothing to do with my point since it doesn't change anything to the fact that you called "ordinary people" a bunch of nazis, which is shameful. I said that there was a bunch of actual traitors in 1941 who joined the Nazi ranks, and you replied: "The "traitors" are just ordinary people that oposed Stalin's rule." This is what you replied, and this is SHAMEFUL. Don't even try to switch to another topic with your red herring.

Quote:
Being proud of ignorance does not make you less ignorant. If your position is correct you will need way more than sing a song...

Indeed, If my position is correct the only thing I need is a gun.

Quote:
Are you serious ? Are you comparing the French vs Germany war to a war betwen the puny Finland and Russia ?

I'm comparing the French-German war to the Soviet-German war. Don't pretend not to understand.

Quote:
It was certainly a minor battle. But your lack of understanding confuses matters. Khalkin Gol was militarely a minor battle (A skirmish so to say).

If you call "skirmish" a battle which involved 57000 Soviet troops and 75000 Japanese, then you are either a troll or an idiot. Or both. You might as well call Austerlitz a skirmish!

Even if Khalkin Ghol didn't involved as much troops as Stalingrad, it was nonetheless an important and decisive battle, and one shouldn't speak about the Great Patriotic War if he forgets this battle.

Quote:
You are confusing the later war tatics with the pre-war mindset of the russian army.

As I said: "tanks were sent first to establish a frontline, then the infantry followed." This is what happened at Khalkin Ghol. I'm not trying to discuss military theory in the Soviet Army, I'm just stating what happened. They sent the tanks first, then the infantry followed. The tanks were not used as a support for infantry. They were simply not. You might not like that, because it contradicts your childish dogmas about the Red Army and military theory in general (including the "Blitzkrieg" myth), but it's what happened.

Quote:
Had not been the purges, the Red Army might very well fight blitzkrieg style right from the start of the war.

Oh certainly not, because what they did in Finland was some kind of "blitzkried too". Actually they did in Finland more or less what the Germans would later do in France, and they were halted for a time by the Mannerheim line and guerilla tactics (what the French should have done in their own country of course). The Soviets had also observed in Spain that artillery is sufficient to destroy tanks and that tanks are far from being invincible. Thus the Great Patriotic war wasn't a blitzkrieg, it wasn't a war of movement or a war of position, it was all of that alltogether. The blitzkried itself never existed, it's just a fable for children. When Rommel attacked France, he clearly took personal initiatives (but he wasn't ordered to do so), and the opening caused by the shameful retreat of the French armies what what we called "blitzkried", a rush into the void.


Quote:
Where did i say that ?

You said that Stalin replaced "competent" people with "trusted" people. So I ask if you consider that Zhukov wasn't competent. If you consider that Zhukov was competent then you have to admit that Stalin also replaced those guys with competent people like Zhukov, and there was many competent Soviet commanders during the Great Patriotic War.

Quote:
Voroshilov was so competent that fell out of favour from Stalin rght when Zukhov gained favour. In Zhukhov Stalin found competence and loyalty, while Voroshilov had loyalty without competence.

How can you conclude that Voroshilov wasn't competent? Zhukhov might have been more competent than him, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't competent at all. He was.

Quote:
Decisive battle has nothing to do with what you are saying. World War Two was a too big war to be decided by a single battle alone.

You can have different decisive battles in a war as long as it's decisive. Khalkin Gol was a decisive battle as the conclusion was that the Japanese would never try again to attack the USSR until the end of the war. So the issue of the conflict between Japan and the USSR was decided at this battle. During the Great Patriotic War Stalingrad was another "decisive" battle as an enormous fascist army was clearly defeated, their troops killed or taken prisoner, and it probably sealed the fate of the war. I would say that you can even have different decisive battles in a war, as long as there is a "decision", defeat or victory of an army over another army. And during the GPW there was probably more than one decisive battle. Although the most important one is without doubt Stalingrad.

Quote:
Under Blitzkrieg style attacks, the roles are swaped. You concentrate tanks, artillery, mechanized infantry and aircraft into a smaller part of the front in order to break the lines. After the lines are broken, you advance as fast as possible towards the hinterland and the strategic objectives behind it. You leave exposed flanks if needed, hoping that the tempo of the operation prevents an enemy counter attack. Thats a kind of battle in depth.

No, you try to use your advantage to encircle the enemy, otherwise it's suicide and not a blitzkrieg. It's not enough to "break the lines", because if you break the lines and go directly to the "strategic objectives", the remaining lines will just cut your supply lines and your army won't go anywhere.
Last edited by OP-Bagration on 25 Aug 2014, 22:40, edited 5 times in total.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 25 Aug 2014, 06:41
Stalin's place is in Russian history is that of war hero, industrializer, crime fighter. According to some, Stalin was also the Russian patriot who destroyed the cosmopolitan communists.
The liberal historiography does exist, consisting for the most part of translations of Western works on the matter from the 80s and 90s, and found mostly wherever used books are sold, but if a Western liberal walked into a Russian bookstore and read some of the titles praising Stalin they would be absolutely horrified, and somehow link the phenomenon to Vladimir Putin I'm sure.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 26 Aug 2014, 14:38
Quote:
According to some, Stalin was also the Russian patriot who destroyed the cosmopolitan communists.

Which was and is an unmistakable code word for Jews, as i'm sure you know. No wonder that many outright fascists and nazis in Russia worship Stalin. Not that a lot of self called "communists" there are much better anyway.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 26 Aug 2014, 15:42
Quote:
Once again I have to stress that you shall write non sequitur and not non sequitEur, otherwise it's literatim what we call nonsense. But of course you are free to write as you like.


Why should i care ?

Quote:
Anyway your answer has nothing to do with my point since it doesn't change anything to the fact that you called "ordinary people" a bunch of nazis, which is shameful. I said that there was a bunch of actual traitors in 1941 who joined the Nazi ranks, and you replied: "The "traitors" are just ordinary people that oposed Stalin's rule." This is what you replied, and this is SHAMEFUL. Don't even try to switch to another topic with your red herring.


Lets summarize :

1 - I said that most people killed and deported in the purges where ordinary citizens who happened to be against Stalin.
2 - You came with a non sequiteur saying : "You are offending ordinary people by calling those traitors ordinary people".

Nowhere in your argument you showed that they where traitors. You simply state in ellipsis that all those killed where traitors, and to avoid discussing why, you do that by simply jumping to the conclusion that they where traitors and pretending to be offended. This might work with other people, but it doesnt work with me.
It's still to be proved that all where traitors. Yet i proposed a more in depth explanation for the purges, that takes into account historical behaviour associated with tyrants (IE.: Ocham Razor tells that the simpler explanation is usually the correct one).

The "traitors" where not traitors at all. But by reaching power, Stalin tries to make it look like that his interest to govern Russia is one and the same with the interests of Russia itself. So an enemy of Stalin becomes an enemy of Russia. This works by flawed logic just the same way your response is flawed logic too. This is a structure of thinking commonly found in any ideology. All ideologies try to make it look as if the interests of a certain group are the interests of the large group.

Structure : Enemy of Stalin -> Enemy of Russia and the proletariat.

Now, by working that ideological transformation, Stalin gets a legitimizing argument to kill his oponents without questions from the popular masses. Hidden between the lines is an unsaid argument : Stalin represents perfectly the proletariat. Do him ? Thats what we are questioning here, so you cannot jump as if that conclusion was already estabilished. If Stalin interests are not the same as the interests of the proletariat. Then those people are ordinary people who happened to be against Stalin. When you pretend to be offended when i call those unlucky people caught in the purges "ordinary people", you provide no better explanation for this. On the contrary, you only repeat the same process done in the time to justify the killings. Proving my point is correct. It is even simpler to detect this, when you resort to a emotional state, something that is appealling to the masses (an all tyrants know that). Hitler itself was a master of manipulating the masses by pretending to be offended, deeply preocupied etc (all sorts of emotional responses devoid of arguments). This might work with an ordinary man. But it doesnt work with me, and certainly is far away from science.

Quote:
Indeed, If my position is correct the only thing I need is a gun.


Nice "revolutionary phrase". But it doesnt work with me.

Quote:
I'm comparing the French-German war to the Soviet-German war. Don't pretend not to understand.


But as we were discussing the winter war, this argument tells me that you are lost and cannot produce an argument to refute what i said.

Quote:
If you call "skirmish" a battle which involved 57000 Soviet troops and 75000 Japanese, then you are either a troll or an idiot. Or both. You might as well call Austerlitz a skirmish!

Even if Khalkin Ghol didn't involved as much troops as Stalingrad, it was nonetheless an important and decisive battle, and one shouldn't speak about the Great Patriotic War if he forgets this battle.


Its called skirmish troughtout the literature. If you want to call it a battle, do as you please. But i must state that you are confusing the ammount of troopes located in the area with the ammount of troops actually fighting. Its called skirmish precisely becouse of that, not all troops present in the region were active - becouse it was not an all out war. When this happens, historians call that a skirmish.

Quote:
As I said: "tanks were sent first to establish a frontline, then the infantry followed." This is what happened at Khalkin Ghol. I'm not trying to discuss military theory in the Soviet Army, I'm just stating what happened. They sent the tanks first, then the infantry followed. The tanks were not used as a support for infantry. They were simply not. You might not like that, because it contradicts your childish dogmas about the Red Army and military theory in general (including the "Blitzkrieg" myth), but it's what happened.


And this adds nothing to the discussion. Khalkhin Gol is an exception that shows that places where the Stalin's purge hit hardest, Red Army performance fell accordingly. By being far away from Moscow, siberian armies where not much affected by the purges, so they - as an exception - fared better than their european counterparts. This tells us that Stalin's purges are the root cause of Red Army inefficiency. Precisely because of Khalkhin Gol we can compare the performance of both (siberian and european armies) and conclude this. Thats why i concluded that had no purge happened, Red Army efficiency would be much better than it was historically.

Quote:
Oh certainly not, because what they did in Finland was some kind of "blitzkried too".


No. There are a lot of examples of lack of coordination between tanks, infantry, artillery and air force. Sending tanks is not tantamount to blitzkrieg war. You must concentrate those tanks and mobile infantry at a key positions of the front line. Suppot those with concentrated artillery and aircraft. Pound the small frontage to oblivion, penetrate with tanks and infantry the broken line and run the hinterland to block the supply lines and capture strategic/operational positions. Thats exactly what the russians did not do. Besides to operate that tatic, you need sargeants, liutienants and captains that are versed in those operations. Red army purges hit not only the generals, but the middle level officer corps. Russian soldier trainning was interrupted too etc. Russians did not have the profficience needed to operate a blitzkrieg war and that showed why such a monster as the Red army was not able to break a defensive line held by the puny Finland, even with assistence from a modern military machine like the russians had. What you see in winter war is tanks attacking in small groups devoid of supporting infantry. Infantry without complete logistic support freezing in the cold etc. All manners of mismanagement. Finland is not far from russian centers of power, so the supply lines were not overstretched. All this can be explained by incompetence steemed from the purges.

Quote:
Actually they did in Finland more or less what the Germans would later do in France, and they were halted for a time by the Mannerheim line and guerilla tactics (what the French should have done in their own country of course).


Off course the Russians were stopped by the Mannerheim line. Had they implemented the proper deep battle - created exactly to break lines like the mannerheim line, just like blitzkrieg and all other manners of mobile war - they would break it in no time, simply becouse Finland had not enough manpower to man all the line, nor the equipment for this.

Quote:
The Soviets had also observed in Spain that artillery is sufficient to destroy tanks and that tanks are far from being invincible. Thus the Great Patriotic war wasn't a blitzkrieg, it wasn't a war of movement or a war of position, it was all of that alltogether. The blitzkried itself never existed, it's just a fable for children. When Rommel attacked France, he clearly took personal initiatives (but he wasn't ordered to do so), and the opening caused by the shameful retreat of the French armies what what we called "blitzkried", a rush into the void.


Sorry but you are telling bullshit. If you dont want to call it Blitzskrieg, ok with me. But you are talking as if there wasnt a decidedly difference between armored/mechanized warfare and the world war one. Whats the difference ? Wars in the 19th century where mobile due to the lack of enough manpower to entrench front lines. By this lack of manpower, generals could allways find flanks to exploit. This resulted in mobile war.

Unfortunately during world war one, we had two elements that produced a deadlock : Enough manpower to man a whole trench system from ocean to ocean and machine guns to protect those trench systems. Thats why you couldnt find a flank in world war one. So whats the difference between 19th century war and blitzskrieg ? Blitzkrieg is mobile war done in an era of large industrialization and very large armies. As a result you can still man the whole front sometimes, but you can keep strategic mobile reserves to effect a breaktrought or to counterattack against one. This makes a difference. Thats where the french failed. They placed too much emphasis in their maginot line. they ignored the needs of their airforce and tank armies. What would work in the French case ? Static artillery and infantry positions in a fortified line, backed by an all mechanized combined army as strategic reserve (self propelled guns, mechanized infantry and tanks in france's hinterland prepared to counter attack mobile style). That would allow the french to man the whole front and protect against german penetrations blitzkrieg style. Taking into account that france, by having a smaller population, could not propose to attack alone. That very mobile reserve could have very well left the maginot line behind and attacked Germany during the phony war, when germany was most weak.

Quote:
You said that Stalin replaced "competent" people with "trusted" people. So I ask if you consider that Zhukov wasn't competent. If you consider that Zhukov was competent then you have to admit that Stalin also replaced those guys with competent people like Zhukov, and there was many competent Soviet commanders during the Great Patriotic War.


You, yourself, quote the text below. In Zhukhov Stalin found competence and loyalty. But like i said, competence and loyalty was not found in all places. So Stalin usually placed loyal people at key positions, and by chance, those loyal people showed competence. Its not a reasoning too hard to understand.

Quote:
Voroshilov was so competent that fell out of favour from Stalin rght when Zukhov gained favour. In Zhukhov Stalin found competence and loyalty, while Voroshilov had loyalty without competence.


By dispersing the all mechanized experimental armies, by not placing russian military in war time alert when needed, by not grasping the concepts of deep war, by dispersing the tanks to be used as support elements of infantry, by not concentrating artillery to be used as breakthrought elements etc. By not dispersing aircraft to safe positions (So as not to have them bombed out in the first days of war) etc. All those bad decisions ammount to incompetence, planly and simple.

Quote:
You can have different decisive battles in a war as long as it's decisive. Khalkin Gol was a decisive battle as the conclusion was that the Japanese would never try again to attack the USSR until the end of the war.


Nope, you are confusing things. A decisive battle is not one that is important. You can have important battles that are not decisive. A decisive battle is one that greatly decreases the losers ability to fight and take initiative. Thats why Kursks is a decisive battle, becouse after that battle the germans where fully defensive and unable to take the initiative. The concept of decisive battle is precisly that, to force your oponnent into a battle that he cannot win and that will make him lose so much man and material that he will be left defensive for a big ammount of time, giving your army freedom to choose where and how to fight. Thats why the japanese attacked pearl harbour, for example.

Quote:
So the issue of the conflict between Japan and the USSR was decided at this battle.


Nope, not even close. Khalkhin Gol is not a decisive battle. Both sides did not lose the ability to mount offensives. It was decisive (if you use that term without the military conotation) in the sense that it flagged Tokyo that the japanese army was not mechanized enough to take on the fully mechanized russian army. And thats it. It was politically decisive, not militarely.

Quote:
During the Great Patriotic War Stalingrad was another "decisive" battle as an enormous fascist army was clearly defeated, their troops killed or taken prisoner, and it probably sealed the fate of the war.


Nope, it was not decisive. It was a very important battle that flagged that the russians where now able to fight the germans in an effective way. But after that the Germans still had capability to mount offensives, like they done in Kharkov.

Quote:
I would say that you can even have different decisive battles in a war, as long as there is a "decision", defeat or victory of an army over another army. And during the GPW there was probably more than one decisive battle. Although the most important one is without doubt Stalingrad.


As you dont know the concept of decisive battle you keep on babbling about all the impotant battles as being decisive.

Quote:
No, you try to use your advantage to encircle the enemy, otherwise it's suicide and not a blitzkrieg. It's not enough to "break the lines", because if you break the lines and go directly to the "strategic objectives", the remaining lines will just cut your supply lines and your army won't go anywhere.


That depends on the situation. Its not simple as that. If your enemy is organized in a WW1 all-infantry style without mobile strategic reserves, after breaking the lines you can simple go all the way to the main strategic objective without risk of counter-attack. If your enemy has mobility, it can counterattack. But the situation changes when you effect a breakthrought and place a strategic objective at risk becouse the defending units now dont have a reason to stay deployed in their former positions (the breakthrought obsoletes that position). Now they have to retreat and mount another line of defense. Etc. The idea is that by creating havok in the hinterland, the attacking army can break the lines of supply to the front line units. Its not necessary to fully encircle. Just to hit the supply lines. If you dont break the lines of supply, the encircled enemy can stay defending indefinitely, just line Leningrad. By having a small line of supply still open, they could stay encircled indefinitely. Modern armies consume a lot of fuel and munitions and the interdiction of the supply lines are one of the key concepts of modern war. Blitzskrieg (deep battle, whatever you want to call it) is not a fixed concept but a philosophy of war, where mobility and firepower are praised above static lines of defense. When both sides show mobility and firepower it evolves into positional war.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 26 Aug 2014, 18:09
Loz, nice try (to sound like almost every anti-communist, anti-Russian academic I've ever read), but no. 'Cosmopolitan communists' is my phrasing, and I'm using it to mean those ultra internationalists that considered Russia strictly as a log for the fires of global revolution, and didn't really care about the fate of the country or its people. Nazis in Russia don't worship Stalin, since he was the mortal enemy of their idols, the Vlassovites, although it's true that some fascists and many conservatives mistakenly do so.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 26 Aug 2014, 18:23
Yeah. Sure. Ignore the fact that "rootless cosmopolitan" was and remains a code word for Jews.
Not saying that you mean it this way of course.
Also who were these "ultra internationalists" you speak of? Name one.

Quote:
Nazis in Russia don't worship Stalin, since he was the mortal enemy of their idols, the Vlassovites, although it's true that some fascists and many conservatives mistakenly do so.

Do i really have to google the hundreds of photos of degenerates with swastika tattoos and other shit praising Stalin or carrying his portraits or whatnot? And what's the difference between nazis and fascists anyway.
Also it's funny how you said "mistakenly" here. There's a reason why Stalin is so popular among reactionaries.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 Aug 2014, 19:53
Quote:
Yeah. Sure. Ignore the fact that "rootless cosmopolitan" was and remains a code word for Jews.

Who used that as a code word for Jews?
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 26 Aug 2014, 21:21
OP-Bagration wrote:
Who used that as a code word for Jews?


Western academics accusing Stalin and the Soviet regime of antisemitism.

Loz wrote:
Also who were these "ultra internationalists" you speak of? Name one.


Well, arguably Kamenev, Zinoviev, Trotsky. Suffice it to say that there were elements of the party, at all levels, that were more interested in the global ramifications of the revolution than in their home country. Now whether they were simply wrong politically or national traitors is a matter of judgement, and obviously the non-communist Stalin supporters will argue that their lack of interest in Russia while being part of the country's leadership makes them traitors.

Loz wrote:
Do i really have to google the hundreds of photos of degenerates with swastika tattoos and other shit praising Stalin or carrying his portraits or whatnot?


Yes, please do. I'd genuinely like to see some.

Loz wrote:
And what's the difference between nazis and fascists anyway.


For me, it's Nazism's emphasis on racism.

Loz wrote:
Also it's funny how you said "mistakenly" here. There's a reason why Stalin is so popular among reactionaries.


Nothing strange about it at all. Because while Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist in theory and in practice, he also oversaw industrialization, the war effort, postwar reconstruction, turning the USSR into a genuine world power, etc. That nationalist reactionaries cling to the non-ideological, 'great power building' aspects of his rule is natural for them, but leftists don't forget that all this was achieved because Stalin was a communist.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.