Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Register ][ Login ]

Was Stalin Preparing To Launch World War III

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove these advertisements.
Soviet cogitations: 113
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2004, 16:47
Pioneer
Post 09 Aug 2004, 07:22
I have Radzinsky's book on Stalin. The BBC did an article on his findings and hypothesis. Here is the BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2793501.stm

So here is the debate, would Stalin have launched World War III if he had lived longer? Why or why not?
"I hope you are all Republicans" -Ronald Reagan After being shot in the surgery room with doctors
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 301
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jul 2004, 20:17
Komsomol
Post 09 Aug 2004, 07:25
no, stalin was not stupid.
“This is not what we fought for (Poverty). We dreamt of how rich life would be after the war” - Nikolai Protasov, Great Patriotic War Veteran
Image
Soviet cogitations: 204
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2004, 03:27
Pioneer
Post 09 Aug 2004, 07:28
Both Stalin and US leaders made out endless plans to attack and/or defend, although no plan was ever carried out. Stalin made the determination that if the USSR was nuked, he'd still be able to respond with his own nukes. The US government drew up any number of plans to nuke major russian cities and Stalin made plans to bomb major US cities. The idea of mutual anhinalation prevented any attack from being carried out.
"While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state." - Vladimir Lenin
In Soviet Russia, TV watches you!
Soviet cogitations: 113
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2004, 16:47
Pioneer
Post 09 Aug 2004, 07:29
czechman86 wrote:
no, stalin was not stupid.


It seems as more of the Soviet Archives become declassifed we are having to rewrite history. What makes you so sure that Stalin wouldn't start World War III? During his time in power would have been one of the best times for the Soviet Union to wage World War III. You should check out Radzinsky's book...excellent read. Here is a cool article I found on released Secret Police Archives:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/1719668.stm
"I hope you are all Republicans" -Ronald Reagan After being shot in the surgery room with doctors
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 301
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jul 2004, 20:17
Komsomol
Post 09 Aug 2004, 07:31
Reaganite wrote:
czechman86 wrote:
no, stalin was not stupid.


It seems as more of the Soviet Archives become declassifed we are having to rewrite history. What makes you so sure that Stalin wouldn't start World War III? During his time in power would have been one of the best times for the Soviet Union to wage World War III. You should check out Radzinsky's book...excellent read. Here is a cool article I found on released Secret Police Archives:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/1719668.stm


did stalin start something against the germans? no, he worked for peace.
this is what he did with the americans. both sides had plans to destroy the
world 5 million times over, but that does not mean that anybody was going
to use them.
“This is not what we fought for (Poverty). We dreamt of how rich life would be after the war” - Nikolai Protasov, Great Patriotic War Veteran
Image
Soviet cogitations: 113
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2004, 16:47
Pioneer
Post 09 Aug 2004, 07:38
czechman86 wrote:
Reaganite wrote:
czechman86 wrote:
no, stalin was not stupid.


It seems as more of the Soviet Archives become declassifed we are having to rewrite history. What makes you so sure that Stalin wouldn't start World War III? During his time in power would have been one of the best times for the Soviet Union to wage World War III. You should check out Radzinsky's book...excellent read. Here is a cool article I found on released Secret Police Archives:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/1719668.stm


did stalin start something against the germans? no, he worked for peace.
this is what he did with the americans. both sides had plans to destroy the
world 5 million times over, but that does not mean that anybody was going
to use them.


Their wasn't as many nuclear weapons at the time of Stalin as their was later on in the Cold War. Come on...are you so niave as to believe that Stalin would not go to war to accomplish some of his political objectives?
"I hope you are all Republicans" -Ronald Reagan After being shot in the surgery room with doctors
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 301
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jul 2004, 20:17
Komsomol
Post 09 Aug 2004, 07:40
Quote:
Their wasn't as many nuclear weapons at the time of Stalin as their was later on in the Cold War. Come on...are you so niave as to believe that Stalin would not go to war to accomplish some of his political objectives?


i do not think that either side would have gone to war. it would have been the world ended 5 million times. ture stalin had political goals, so did the us. i believe at the end of the day though, niether side would have gone nuclear to achieve them. plus it does not matter if one side had 20k nukes and the other side has 5k nukes, its still end game if one of them launches a nuke.
“This is not what we fought for (Poverty). We dreamt of how rich life would be after the war” - Nikolai Protasov, Great Patriotic War Veteran
Image
Soviet cogitations: 113
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2004, 16:47
Pioneer
Post 09 Aug 2004, 07:55
czechman86 wrote:
Quote:
Their wasn't as many nuclear weapons at the time of Stalin as their was later on in the Cold War. Come on...are you so niave as to believe that Stalin would not go to war to accomplish some of his political objectives?


i do not think that either side would have gone to war. it would have been the world ended 5 million times. ture stalin had political goals, so did the us. i believe at the end of the day though, niether side would have gone nuclear to achieve them. plus it does not matter if one side had 20k nukes and the other side has 5k nukes, its still end game if one of them launches a nuke.


Here is the thing though, Stalin did not mind killing millions of people. He wasn't stupid...he was a calculating evil genius and he certainly didn't mind killing off millions of people either. Taking that into consideration...what would starting World War III mean to Stalin? He wouldn't care if millions died, he had proven that with the millions he killed in his purges and starvations.
"I hope you are all Republicans" -Ronald Reagan After being shot in the surgery room with doctors
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 301
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jul 2004, 20:17
Komsomol
Post 09 Aug 2004, 07:58
Quote:
Here is the thing though, Stalin did not mind killing millions of people. He wasn't stupid...he was a calculating evil genius and he certainly didn't mind killing off millions of people either. Taking that into consideration...what would starting World War III mean to Stalin? He wouldn't care if millions died, he had proven that with the millions he killed in his purges and starvations.


stalin was not stupid. a third world war would have meant no planet left to bring whatever ideology to. this is why there would have never have been a third world war started by stalin or anybody else, for the point of starting a war.
“This is not what we fought for (Poverty). We dreamt of how rich life would be after the war” - Nikolai Protasov, Great Patriotic War Veteran
Image
Soviet cogitations: 113
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2004, 16:47
Pioneer
Post 09 Aug 2004, 08:01
czechman86 wrote:
Quote:
Here is the thing though, Stalin did not mind killing millions of people. He wasn't stupid...he was a calculating evil genius and he certainly didn't mind killing off millions of people either. Taking that into consideration...what would starting World War III mean to Stalin? He wouldn't care if millions died, he had proven that with the millions he killed in his purges and starvations.


stalin was not stupid. a third world war would have meant no planet left to bring whatever ideology to. this is why there would have never have been a third world war started by stalin or anybody else, for the point of starting a war.


But at the time their was not enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet. He might have lost a few cities to American nuclear weapons...but according to US intelligence and people close to Stalin...he intended to launch a surprise attack as soon as he got sufficient atomic capability. I don't put nothing past a man like Stalin. If it was somebody else I might agree with you, but this isn't just anybody, this was Stalin we are dealing with here.
"I hope you are all Republicans" -Ronald Reagan After being shot in the surgery room with doctors
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 301
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jul 2004, 20:17
Komsomol
Post 09 Aug 2004, 08:05
Quote:
But at the time their was not enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet. He might have lost a few cities to American nuclear weapons...but according to US intelligence and people close to Stalin...he intended to launch a surprise attack as soon as he got sufficient atomic capability. I don't put nothing past a man like Stalin. If it was somebody else I might agree with you, but this isn't just anybody, this was Stalin we are dealing with here.


the us also had their special surprise attack plans as well. everybody did. that did not mean that they were going to use them. remember, patton want to nuke moscow right after the war. did it happen? no. like i said, everybody had one of these plans. a good movie to watch, although fictional is doctor stranglove.
“This is not what we fought for (Poverty). We dreamt of how rich life would be after the war” - Nikolai Protasov, Great Patriotic War Veteran
Image
Soviet cogitations: 43
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Aug 2004, 07:20
Pioneer
Post 09 Aug 2004, 15:21
Enough weapons or not, Reaganite, the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) worked, as insanely ridiculous as such a doctrine is. What would Stalin and/or the Soviet Union have to gain from having their major cities nuked and tens of millions of their citizens killed? Huge areas of cropland irradiated? Yes, sounds like a champ of a way to make political gains!


More importantly, Stalin was, and this sounds a bit redundant, a Stalinist. When Stalin defeated Trotsky for leadership of the Party, the Soviet Union abandoned International Socialism and, hence, socialism. The USSR became State Capitalist, ruthlessly pursuing industrialization schemes, forced agricultural collectivization and the like, so that it could compete with the Western capitalist States. The 'New Economic Plan' that Lenin introduced made many more concessions to the peasants and would've been much more gradual.

Stalin caught Russia, and the USSR, up to the West in about 10 years. They industrialized in 10 years what the West did in ~130 years. This was a grueling process, however, driving wages down, literally 'working to death' hundreds of thousands of workers, and seeing even more sent to the camps. But it worked, that must be said, and even Stalin could not get control of every aspect of Soviet life.

Bottom line is, yes, Stalin was an "evil, calculating genius", but he was also quite pragmatic. The benefits of rapid industrialization and forced agricultural collectivization, despite the human costs, are plainly obvious. Launching "World War III" and starting a nuclear should be plainly disadvantageous to anyone, and it obviously was to Stalin.

Even though he was a hothead and did some stupid things, I really respect Khruschëv for breaking the silence on the horrors of Stalin's abuses and that went a long way in increasing world respect for the USSR.
Здравствуйте!
Image
Soviet cogitations: 110
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Jul 2004, 12:42
Pioneer
Post 09 Aug 2004, 18:05
czechman86 wrote:
no, stalin was not stupid.


But he was exceptionally paranoid in his later years. Kinda like what George W. is like now.
Welcome to the North...

(PS... I'm not Scottish...ish.)
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4390
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 09 Aug 2004, 18:19
Stalin dissolved the ComIntern because it made the western powers uncomfortable. I'm not thinking he'd start WWIII as that would made the west REALLY uncomfortable.

-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
Image
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2004, 23:46
Pioneer
Post 09 Aug 2004, 18:51
Quote:
Stalin dissolved the ComIntern


True, yet their activities in Africa (specifically Algeria) and elsewhere and the continuation of the same types of programs and involvement by the KGB tells me the Cominterns aims, goals, and activities never really ended when they were dissolved, it just changed names. I see them as no different than the American CIA and other nations similar groups that did/do the same- past or present.
Last edited by Dr. Nosophoros on 09 Aug 2004, 18:53, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4390
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 09 Aug 2004, 18:53
Quote:
True, yet their activities in Africa (specifically Algeria) and elsewhere and the continuation of the same types of programs and involvevment by the KGB tells me the Cominterns aims, goals, and activities never really ended when they were dissolved, it just changed names. I see them as no different than the American CIA and other nations similar groups that did/do the same past or present


Good point, but I think this shows a shift to being crafty and covert. WWIII isn't so crafty or covert.

Suppose it's in your perspective though.

-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
Image
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2004, 23:46
Pioneer
Post 09 Aug 2004, 19:09
Quote:
Good point, but I think this shows a shift to being crafty and covert


Hence the "Cold War". IMO, it was only called "cold" because it wasn't people from the major powers mainly fighting and dying for the causes- it was people in developing countries. Make no mistake, there were wars and still are, they just don't overtly involve major powers, but people are still fighting and dying for it no matter what side of the fence(s) they are on.

We kick over a fruit stand in South America and it becomes "Crisis in South America" in our media, people are raped or tortured to death in front of their families in Third world countries because of the powers that be past or present involvements, yet most never hear about it.

WWIII was/is being fought right now, it was/is being fought in far flung areas and nations by people who can least afford it, and by people that most media and governments ignore to an extent except to the degree that the ideology they fight for pleases or outrages them and what they feel they can use as leverage to affect the masses thinking, everything in between does not seem to matter. The trickle down effect affects the media that are supposedly responsible for informing instead of indoctrinating and that "reality" is what they present as truth .
Soviet cogitations: 6
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Aug 2004, 15:25
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 13 Aug 2004, 18:33
Quote:
When Stalin defeated Trotsky for leadership of the Party, the Soviet Union abandoned International Socialism and, hence, socialism. The USSR became State Capitalist...


Or perhaps National Socialist.


Stalin would not have intentionally launched "World War III," such action would have been suicidal. But it is certainly not unreasonable to conclude, based on his own prior actions and otherwise available evidence that he would have continued to push the boundaries. Locked in an ideological battle with the west and having pushed the Iron Curtain as far west as Germany, are we to believe that Uncle Joe would just sit on it? If he thought he could away with extending Soviet hegemony further he almost certainly would have. A miscalculation could have led to world war.
...and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.
And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had...

Alma 1:26/27
Soviet cogitations: 113
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2004, 16:47
Pioneer
Post 23 Aug 2004, 16:15
Quote:
Stalin would not have intentionally launched "World War III," such action would have been suicidal. But it is certainly not unreasonable to conclude, based on his own prior actions and otherwise available evidence that he would have continued to push the boundaries. Locked in an ideological battle with the west and having pushed the Iron Curtain as far west as Germany, are we to believe that Uncle Joe would just sit on it? If he thought he could away with extending Soviet hegemony further he almost certainly would have. A miscalculation could have led to world war.


I read Radzinsky's book on Stalin and it was awesome... basically Radzinksy asserts that Stalin was planning to attack Hitler first and that the purges of the 1930s were designed to prepare the Soviet Union to launch a war against Hitler. As well, the author also believes that Stalin was likely murdered or poisoned and did not die of natural causes because many around him feared he was about to start World War III. It's an excellent read. His sources are Stalin's personal archive and the Soviet archives. Here is the book I am referring to:

Stalin
"I hope you are all Republicans" -Ronald Reagan After being shot in the surgery room with doctors
Soviet cogitations: 347
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2004, 13:24
Komsomol
Post 23 Aug 2004, 17:03
[SF edit: deleted. No personal attacks.]
Image
» Next Page »
POST REPLY
Log-in to submit your comments and remove Infolinks advertisements.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.