[naked_turk]

Hi guys,
We're having a discussion on the achievements and mistakes of Joseph Stalin at the local chapter of the Communist party here. I'd like to know, from as neutral a perspective as possible (which is hard, I know):

1) What were the personal merits of comrade Stalin?
2) Successes and achievements?
3) Personal faults?
4) Failures and mistakes?

These are just discussion points, I'm not going to be submitting an argument of strictly either opinion. In the interests of full disclosure, there is what some might call a slight pro-Stalin bias on my side, but I'm rather certain it stems from my unwillingness to accept the "mainstream" American/Khrushchevite caricature they have made of this man. Anything I do discuss from here will be credited to the members of the Politics Forum.

[The Immortal Goon]

1) What were the personal merits of comrade Stalin?

Even Trotsky admitted that he was a shrewd realpolitiker and organizer.

2) Successes and achievements?

Under him, the USSR went from one of the world's most backward states to arguably the most technologically sophisticated.

Was able to out maneuver Churchill, who had already out maneuvered FDR, and take a nice chunk of Europe that Churchill had been trying to get.

Winner of 1929-38 Soviet (instead of Royal) Rumble.

I think it actually speaks well of him that he amended his theories when they didn't work out, like the Third Period nonsense.

Basically won WWII.

3) Personal faults?

Notoriously paranoid. Probably a result of the political battles that were the bulk of his life, but he concentrated too much on consolidating his own power and defending his position; not enough in expanding the revolutionary gains to the people.

Was possessive and proud of his theories, even when not working well. For instance, before Lenin came back with the April Theses, Stalin was using Pravda to promote cooperation with the bourgeoisie—even while a lot of Bolsheviks had already moved on from the Stagist theory and were ready for a socialist government. He stuck with Lenin, but after Stalin was in charge he seemed to have gone back to asking backward countries (like China for instance) to support their native bourgeoisie. It was a theory that was discredited by Russia that he held on to (though, in fairness, it probably had a lot to do with politicking).

4) Failures and mistakes?

He all but gave up on a world revolution after the Third Period, deciding that protection of the USSR was what was most important. Say what you will, that formula of "Socialism in One Country" crashed and burned in the end.

He didn't do enough about fascism, swinging and missing in defining it—going so far as to instruct German communists to vote for the NAZIs—though he did eventually drop the theory after the fascists won.

His purges went too far in most cases. For instance, while we can agree a stable army is a good thing, calling the POUM back to be liquidated and allowing all their territory to fall to Franco during the Spanish Civil War probably didn't help much. In the general, a lot of talent that could have been used defaulted upon his shoulders and those around him. At the end of his life, his Doctor's Plot paranoia may well have killed him.

---

I'll bow out now, pretty much. There will assuredly be people coming in to defend Stalin, though I have tried to be reasonably fair.

The Stalinists will be met in flamewar by Trotskyists, both sides will unite in telling the goddamn Anarchists to shut the hell up. A right-winger or two will come in and snipe.

I've been in the Stalin/Trotsky threads enough and I probably won't come back into this thread as I've seen it too many times.

[Andropov]

Stalin likely saved more people through his industrialization program, meaning prevented more people from dying of easily preventable diseases, malnutrition, etc, by modernization than he killed in all his purges put together.

[grassroots1]

I don't know why there's this pervasive belief that industrialization and modernization require intense exploitation. That is the way it's happened in nearly every historical example but that is because, well, humans are monstrous.

[Potemkin]

I don't know why there's this pervasive belief that industrialization and modernization require intense exploitation. That is the way it's happened in nearly every historical example but that is because, well, humans are monstrous.

Three words, GR1: primitive capitalist accumulation. In the early 1920s, Trotsky gave a speech to the Party faithful in which he spoke of the need for 'primitive socialist accumulation' in the Soviet Union, by which he meant essentially the same thing, but under the aegis of a workers' state.

[Dr House]

Under him, the USSR went from one of the world's most backward states to arguably the most technologically sophisticated.

Economic growth was already high in Tsarist Russia, and there's no way to know that the Tsar wouldn't have instituted an industrial policy or that it wouldn't have been more successful, particularly considering that most industrialization programs in Europe were undertaken by empowered monarchies in the early 20th century.

Basically won WWII.

By creating a defensive wall of his own soldiers' corpses. 800,000 Soviets died in Operation Barbarossa, versus 200,000 Germans. Total casualty rate was 9 to 1, Germany's favor.

[Eauz]

Economic growth was already high in Tsarist Russia, and there's no way to know that the Tsar wouldn't have instituted an industrial policy or that it wouldn't have been more successful, particularly considering that most industrialization programs in Europe were undertaken by empowered monarchies in the early 20th century.

Right, but this thread is about "Pro-Stalin arguments". This type of argument can go into an infinate loop of "What If's", which do not contribute to the discussion. Go start another thread in History or something.

[Andropov]

By creating a defensive wall of his own soldiers' corpses. 800,000 Soviets died in Operation Barbarossa, versus 200,000 Germans. Total casualty rate was 9 to 1, Germany's favor.

False. Axis losses on the Eastern Front add up to 5,178,000 and Soviet and allied forces to 10,651,000.

[Dr House]

False. Axis losses on the Eastern Front add up to 5,178,000 and Soviet and allied forces to 10,651,000.

Yeah there were like five nations fighting in the Eastern Front; and you might notice that casualties were still 2-1 for the entire front. In Operation Barbarossa (not the whole theater, just that one campaign), the kill ratio was 4-1 Germany's favor; the casualty ratio was 9-1 Germany's favor.

[Dagoth Ur]

And they still lost.

[Dr House]

Through attrition. Russia has the geographical advantage and had a lot more people to serve as cannon fodder, which if that's all you rely on to win you the day, speaks poorly to your techno-industrial capabilities.

[Paradigm]

Through attrition. Russia has the geographical advantage and had a lot more people to serve as cannon fodder, which if that's all you rely on to win you the day, speaks poorly to your techno-industrial capabilities.

I hear that WWII produced virtually an entire generation of widows in Russia.

[Dr House]

It did. That's largely the reason Russian women are both very submissive and very easily the hottest in the world on average.

May God have Stalin in his good grace.

[Ombrageux]

Under him, the USSR went from one of the world's most backward states to arguably the most technologically sophisticated.

That is not remotely true. Sputnik, a lump of metal propelled outside the atmosphere, was extremely misleading. Yes, the hypermilitarization of the economy did mean significant achievements in raw production of war matériel, conventional weaponry, and space. In all other respects however the Soviets were technically inferior to the United States, Great Britain, France, etc, often grotesquely so. (And the Soviets would indeed very rapidly be overtaken by the Japanese and Germans in many areas.)

As far as tyrants go, he was remarkably successful, achieving unprecedented control over his own State and turning it from a peripheral European power to the world's Second Superpower complete with its own Central Europe empire.

For both the old Bolshevik ruling class and the ordinary Soviet citizen this was a disaster. One was simply exterminated, the other faced enslavement by the military-bureaucratic state (evidently necessary to some extent given the Nazi threat), starvation via collectivization, purges, and some truly terrible errors of judgment in policy towards Germany (contributing to the rise of Nazism and total lack of preparation for the 1941 invasion and ensuing millions of dead). I hasten to add that Stalin was not the only world leader to make mistakes on the latter.

[fuser]

Yeah there were like five nations fighting in the Eastern Front; and you might notice that casualties were still 2-1 for the entire front. In Operation Barbarossa (not the whole theater, just that one campaign), the kill ratio was 4-1 Germany's favor; the casualty ratio was 9-1 Germany's favor.

And? why should German allies be not counted? Any ways total ratio was never 1:2 it was around 1:1.3 in Axis favor.
Also, just looking at Barbarossa is simply dishonest, why don't you look at the year 1945 and compare the ratio? See, what selective uses can lead too.

Through attrition. Russia has the geographical advantage and had a lot more people to serve as cannon fodder

Now, that is just simply wrong.and what geographical advantage that would be?
Also, were Soviets superhuman, even when used as cannon fodder they manage to kill one at the lost of only 2(even when taking into account of your wrong ratio)considering that they were used as cannon fodders only, it was a massive achievement, 1:2, wasn't it? or may be its just stupid.

The thinking that without industrialization Soviet Union had won is just daydreaming.It was that rapid industrialization that made sure that SU will outproduce Germany in almost every department even when large swaths of her industrial areas were overrun.

In all other respects however the Soviets were technically inferior to the United States, Great Britain, France,

They were technically inferior before Stalin too. In fact they were decades behind, the fact that they managed to catch up and were giving a tough competition to whole western sphere is a positive rather than negative.

the ordinary Soviet citizen this was a disaster.

How?

some truly terrible errors of judgment in policy towards Germany (contributing to the rise of Nazism

How the fuck Stalin was instrumental in rise of Nazism. Should he had invaded Germany in 1933? Only to be condemned for invading a peaceful country after so many years on an internet forum.

and total lack of preparation for the 1941 invasion and ensuing millions of dead)

What total lack of preparation? A friendly pact with an enemy to avoid war (Hitler betrayal is irrelevant here). Construction of new Defensive line, further to the west (because of the newly acquired territories in west.) Massive Industrialization, over 200% increase in military personnel in last 3-4 years is not preparing, then what preparing would had been?

I hear that WWII produced virtually an entire generation of widows in Russia.

May God have Stalin in his good grace

Haters gonna hate, no matter what. Of course what Paradigm said is true, but not because of dead solders but you know Nazis were not exactly friendly and had genocidal plans on Soviet Union. Yeah, that's the reason and not the answer to life's every question i.e. "Stalin"

Also, what's funny is that, people will always hate Stalin no matter what. Just as in this example as Ombrgaeux said Stalin was not prepared, you also hear condemnation of Stalin that he was overly prepared for taking over the Europe, i.e. there is no middle ground for "Stalin", we have to hate him. He either over prepared or didn't prepared at all, he can't be right at all.

[Ombrageux]

fuser - I agree this inferiority was not Stalin's fault. I am just correcting the previous post which stated that the Soviets through him had achieved technological leadership in the world, which is not remotely true.

Well, beside living in one of the purest tyrannies in the history of human civilization, it's a disaster for the Soviet citizen because of the starvation due to collectivization, fear of purges, and avoidable deaths in the war against Nazism. As to Stalin's failure vis à vis Nazism, see TIG on his instructions to the German Communist Party and his errors of judgment between 1939 and 1941 (standing back during the Battle of France, failing to consider seriously enough the threat of Nazi invasion).

[Dr House]

I presume from your poor spelling you're russkie and mounting an irrational defense of Mother Russia.

And? why should German allies be not counted? Any ways total ratio was never 1:2 it was around 1:1.3 in Axis favor.

Um, no it wasn't. The number of all allied and axis casualties was exactly what Andropov said; yielding a 2-1 kill ratio for the Axis in the Eastern Front. I looked at Operation Barbarossa in isolation because itself it was just Germany vs Russia. And Germany proved itself superior in all but numbers.

Now, that is just simply wrong.and what geographical advantage that would be?

Two words: Russian. Winter.

Also, were Soviets superhuman, even when used as cannon fodder they manage to kill one at the lost of only 2(even when taking into account of your wrong ratio)considering that they were used as cannon fodders only, it was a massive achievement, 1:2, wasn't it? or may be its just stupid.

Unless you're willing to claim Wikipedia is lying (in which case I do hope you have another source), my kill ratio is correct and sourced. On both counts. So why don't you do us both a favor and stop embarrassing yourself?

The thinking that without industrialization Soviet Union had won is just daydreaming.It was that rapid industrialization that made sure that SU will outproduce Germany in almost every department even when large swaths of her industrial areas were overrun.

First off, I just showed that you have no clue how many people actually died in the Eastern Front, so I'm gonna have to ask for a source.

Second, as Stalin's previous embarrassing fiasco in Finland showed, quality counts for a lot more than quantity, and Soviet defense manufacturing was severely lacking in that department. In fact, if they hadn't realized that fact and taken steps to improve their QA, they would probably have been overrun, even with the manpower advantage.

[fuser]

it's a disaster for the Soviet citizen because of the starvation due to collectivization

The famine you are talking about was not an everlasting phenomenon neither whole of USSR was affected.

fear of purges

For most parts, this fear of purges was not for ordinary citizens.

and avoidable deaths in the war against Nazism

There was no such thing as avoidable deaths in war against Nazism. Can you tell me how exactly?

As to Stalin's failure vis à vis Nazism, see TIG on his instructions to the German Communist Party and his errors of judgment between 1939 and 1941 (

There was absolutely nothing that he could had done at that moment which would had resulted in some sort of successful Communist coup inside Germany. Preserving Soviet Union should had been the topmost priority and he did that well.

standing back during the Battle of France

You mean he should had invaded Germany? You do realize invading Germany at that moment without any preparation could had resulted in a disaster too. And we may had been complaining nowadays about worthless deaths of soviet men in megalomanical war started by Stalin as well. You see, we have to hate Stalin, its like we have been genetically engineered for that.

failing to consider seriously enough the threat of Nazi invasion

That is just wrong, he did considered that threat. That's why the whole preparation, in fact he even signed a pact with them (again betrayal is irrelevant here.) to get breathing space in which he can modernize his army.

The number of all allied and axis casualties was exactly what Andropov said; yielding a 2-1 kill ratio for the Axis in the Eastern Front.

Yes, wikipedia, not a surprise really. Even though,help yourself and look carefully at that data. That actually support my 1:1.3 causality figure, the fact that you missed that is quite telling. Then, I will oblige you and provide some sources. (by the way I could have porvided you mine source but that particular site is down right now, with a message that "Database maintenance in progress")

Two words: Russian. Winter.

And why that would be advantageous to Soviets really? Coupled with the fact that winter always favors the defenders (obviously) and in almost every winter it was soviets that were on offense, so we can safely assume that not for winter Germany would had lost the war n 41 only.Right?

Operation Barbarossa in isolation because itself it was just Germany vs Russia

No, it wasn't. at least have basic facts right.

Unless you're willing to claim Wikipedia is lying (in which case I do hope you have another source), my kill ratio is correct and sourced. On both counts.

First, the statement of mine that you quoted has nothing to do with exact figures. But it shows the stupidity of cannon fodder argument (even when using your number) and the fact that you ignored that quite clearly shows, that even you accept the stupidity of that argument.

Then, I won't say wiki is outright lying (but first please at least look wiki carefully this time) but does have some inconsistencies.Nonetheless, even wiki is supporting my claim.

quality counts for a lot more than quantity

And congratulation, you have no idea about winter war ( that showed when you linked to wiki by the way.) and about quality, really do you want a list of technological superior equipments of Soviets.

if they hadn't realized that fact and taken steps to improve their QA

And suddenly, it improved so much that from the fear of overrunning, they overran their enemy. Were those Soviets superhuman, once again.

[Dr House]

Jesus Christ.

Yes, wikipedia, not a surprise really. Even though,help yourself and look carefully at that data. That actually support my 1:1.3 causality figure, the fact that you missed that is quite telling.

Wikipedia says:

5,178,000+ total dead for the Axis side (4,300,000 for Nazi Germany).
10,651,000 total dead for the Allied side (10,600,000 for the USSR).

Which equals *whips out calculator*: 2.05:1 Allied to Axis deaths, 2.47:1 Soviet to German deaths. The KIA count was a bit more even (though still not 1.3:1), but POWs still count as losses.

And suddenly, it improved so much that from the fear of overrunning, they overran their enemy.

Suffering, I say once again horrific casualties. It is a historical fact that the USSR had the most casualties of any combatant nation in WWII. And this includes the country that got fucking nuked.

[fuser]

Wikipedia says:

Do you know what "Casuality" means Dr. House?
Yes, go for a dictionary first and then calculate wiki data, I am not going to spoon feed you.

EDIT : Just for other readers : Dr House here has deliberately omitted the prisoners and other non recoverable losses to make his case. When added those, even with wiki its 1:1.3 ration in axis favor. And before any one say that "Hey its not fair as Soviets took large number of prisoners in closing days of war", then think this. Soviets prisoners were disproportionally killed while being POW. So, I will be happy to omit any prisoners data but then again it will provide a kill ratio of approximately 1:1.3 .

It is a historical fact that the USSR had the most casualties of any combatant nation in WWII.

And the point being.?

Also, here are the figures :

From Kirosheev ( he uses Overman(a german) and German high command data in 45 for German and axis losses.)

Casualties of the USSR - 8.6 million soldiers killed and 4.4 million who were captured or missing . Total demographic losses (including the civilian population) - 26.6 million people

Casualties of Germany - 4.046 million soldiers dead, died of wounds, missing in action (including 442.1 thousand died in captivity), another 910.4 thousand had returned from captivity after the war

Casualties of the Allies in Germany - 806 thousand dead soldiers (including 137.8 thousand perished in captivity), another 662.2 thousand had returned from captivity after the war

Irreversible loss of the armies of the Soviet Union and Germany (including prisoners) - 11.5 million and 8.6 million people. (Not counting the 1.6 million prisoners of war after the May 9, 1945), respectively. The ratio of irrecoverable loss of armies of the USSR and Germany, with satellites is 1.3:1 .

Now, do the maths.