[Malatant of Shadow]

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.

You know, that's really the only question here that interests me. Stalin is far from one of my heroes, but he did -- it can't be denied -- industrialize the Soviet Union in a single decade, thus making victory over Hitler possible. By comparison, the United States industrialized along the capitalist road and took about a century to do it, from the end of the 18th century until the end of the 19th.

Unfortunately, Stalin also seems to have condensed all of the suffering and misery entailed in America's capitalist industrialization over that century, down into that same one decade.

Is it the case that industrialization always, necessarily entails suffering and misery, and a country can either get it all out of the way in one orgy of brutality, or stretch it out so it's less intense but lasts longer?

I don't want to think so, but it does kind of look that way.

[Tekumze]

On one hand he appeared at the right moment in time to save SU (Soviet Union) from Nazis while on the other hand he caused a lot of the problems that nearly caused SU to fall to Nazis.

In war countries need strong leaders to have a chance. All the bad (weak or otherwise unable to rally their country or act before it was too late) lost the war before it even begun.
In war democracy has a hard time acting fast enough while weak/bad leaders simply don't act or are unable to exert enough influence to present a strong opposition.

SU had Stalin.
USA had FDR.
GB had Churchill
Italy had Mussolini

All strong leaders with a vision of their own and capable of rallying people behind them (either by force or charisma).

As harsh as it may sound all other European countries might as well not exist. They were practical pushovers even though some of them produced strong leaders within their resistance (Tito, DeGaule... )
Only countries with strong leadership can achieve something (be it good or bad).

So Stalin was the right type of a leader (a strong one) but a lot of what he did(as a leader) wasn't particularly special but rather good enough.

So to rate him by your points

1) Personal merits
As a person obviously he was an intelligent guy.
Good politician that knew when and how much to press his(perceived or real) advantage.
He was strong leader when SU desperately needed one to survive.

2) Successes and achievements
Managed to lead SU to victory over Nazis and later subjugate half of Europe even though he had strong opposition in other leaders (Churchill and Roosevelt)
The second "achievement" may be questionable from our point of view but it is an achievement nonetheless.

3) Personal faults
He seemed overly paranoid but I can't really judge as I wasn't there. Perhaps he had a reason to be.
It was a strange time for SU and only a strong and unopposed leader seemed to be able to actually do anything with the country. Now that I think of it Russia and SU always seemed to be that way.

In any case he caused a lot unnecessary deaths that also caused increased the death toll in the war among military personnel.

4) Failures and mistakes?
This one depends on the point of view.
He
- practically beheaded his army which caused a lot of extra casualties until newly appointed army leadership knew what it was doing.
- was an instigator of mass murder/torture driven by his quest for eliminating all opposition (perceived or real).
- made a pact with Germany to split Poland before the war helping Germany establish its powerbase in Europe.
- didn't act on spy reports which left his army ill prepared to meet the Germans on the battlefield.
- ordered his army not to help Polish resistance to avoid having to deal with a stronger Poland after the war.
- practically occupied eastern Europe and forced his version of political leadership on them.

[Andropov]

So Stalin was the right type of a leader (a strong one) but a lot of what he did(as a leader) wasn't particularly special but rather good enough.

Since when is lifting a country out of total ruin after WW1 and the Civil War into an industrial, scientific, cultural, and military superpower with the entire world standing in opposition and relying on no foreign financing, defeating the most well-trained and skilled army in human history, and rebuilding the USSR, the entire Western portion being described as a "total wasteland" by Eisenhower as he flew over the country in 1945 into the second strongest superpower in the world "not particularly special"?

The achievements of the Stalin era, in their sheer scale, are unprecedented in the entirety of human history, even more so by the fact that the driving force was an idea- the idea of perfect human happiness and social justice. Were mistakes made? Of course- Stalin is the first to admit this.

In his interview with H.G. Wells, who says:

But I have already seen the happy faces of healthy men and women and I know that something very considerable is being done here. The contrast with 1920 is astounding.

Stalin replied:

Much more could have been done had we Bolsheviks been cleverer.

If you want to find out what the Stalinist USSR really was, read these eyewitness testimonies from Western journalists. They paint a very different picture than what you hear on the History Channel today:

http://www.red-channel.de/the_real_stal ... ociety.htm

[Decky]

On one hand he appeared at the right moment in time to save SU (Soviet Union) from Nazis

On one hand he appeared at the right moment in time to save the world from Nazis

Fixed that for you.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Since when is lifting a country out of total ruin after WW1 and the Civil War into an industrial, scientific, cultural, and military superpower with the entire world standing in opposition and relying on no foreign financing, defeating the most well-trained and skilled army in human history, and rebuilding the USSR, the entire Western portion being described as a "total wasteland" by Eisenhower as he flew over the country in 1945 into the second strongest superpower in the world "not particularly special"?

I would agree that it was pretty special.

Of course, engineering famines that killed millions in order to sell food to the West to buy industrial tech with, and the use of slave labor to build factories, is a large part of how he built the USSR into a superpower. That was pretty special in a different way.

And we should recognize as well that part of the reason why the western USSR could be described as a "total wasteland" by Eisenhower is because Stalin had murdered all Soviet high-ranking military officers with any brains and experience before the war started, and because despite his infamous paranoia the only man he seems to have ever trusted was Adolf Hitler, who least deserved it. Stalin's leadership almost lost the war, but luckily Hitler was also not immune to mistakes, as he showed by committing his best army to the attempt to take Stalingrad.

[fuser]

This post has been removed for violating Rule 15.

If you wish to discuss the merits of the Holodomor, you can do so here.

[Andropov]

Stalin speech in 1931:

"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us."

10 years later, the Wehrmacht invaded the USSR.

To say Stalin did not expect an invasion is the height of stupidity- there were special lots in the Urals prepared to fit reassembled factories brought in from the West in case of an attack.

The losses in the first years of the war were nothing extraordinary considering the Wehrmacht was the most experienced, well-trained, and well-equipped army in the world, which had just conquered Western Europe and which was fueled by Hitler's ideas of world domination. Most of the outside world did not expect the USSR to last more than a few months- Hitler didn't even bother giving his troops winter uniforms, they were so sure they would destroy the USSR before Winter arrived.

If you talk with veterans, you would know that the reason resistance to the Nazis both on the front and behind from lines was so fierce was because of the populations' loyalty to the Soviet regime and to Stalin in particular, and most of all, to the messianic Communist ideology of human justice, with roots deep in Russian religious and secular tradition. As they fought, Red Army men yelled "For the Motherland, for Stalin". The Soviet population was determined to defend the massive gains it had made under Stalin's rule- the hundreds of thousands of universities, factories, power plants, hospitals, and schools built from Brest to Vladivostok.

"The great transformation that the country had gone through before the war had, despite all its dark sides, strengthened the moral fiber of the nation. The majority was imbued with a strong sense of its economic and social advance, which it was grimly determined to defend against danger from without."
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 485

[Malatant of Shadow]

This post has been removed for violating Rule 15.

If you wish to discuss the merits of the Holodomor, you can do so here.

[Andropov]

This post has been removed for violating Rule 15.

If you wish to discuss the merits of the Holodomor, you can do so here.

[fuser]

This post has been altered for violating Rule 15.

If you wish to discuss the merits of the Holodomor, you can do so here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Purge_of_the_army

"30% of officers purged 1937-9 were allowed back."

30% is not "most."

First You claimed that "Stalin had murdered all Soviet high-ranking military officers with any brains and experience before the war
started", Now that we know that it is definitely not the case, let's see what your own link has to say on this subject.

At first it was thought 25-50% of Red Army officers were purged, it is now known to be 3.7-7.7%. Previously, the size of the Red Army officer corp was underestimated and it was overlooked that most of those purged were merely expelled from the Party.

Please pay attention at the bolded parts in order to have a better understanding of your rubbish claim that Stalin killed all the brilliant military minds.

I was referring to Stalin trusting Hitler to abide by it

No he didn't. That's why massive expansion of red army in a very short period.

The evidence is conclusive that the Barbarossa attack took Soviet forces completely by surprise

Yes.

The reason it did was because Stalin ignored and discounted all intelligence that Hitler was getting ready to violate the pact and go to war.

No, its not the case. Once again see the massive build up of red army, coupled with rapid modernization and construction of new defensive line, all of them suggesting that Soviet Union was getting ready for war day by day.

Had he allowed himself to believe Hitler was preparing to screw him over like that, there were many steps that could have been taken. The Red Army could have retreated, trading space for time and avoiding being enveloped and cut off. Or a more effective counterattack or defense in depth could have been done. There was no excuse for the complete military disaster of Barbarossa.

There are many excuses for Barbarossa, I won't go in detail on that but seriously at least pick up something by "david glantz" for starters before preaching about "Barbarossa".

but he was the one who persisted in it when it should have been broken off.

Again he was not alone persuading, then leaving Stalingrad meant doom for entire gain that was made during "fall blau" with massive losses (possible annihilation) for army group A in Caucasus .

In general, Hitler showed the weakness of the Fuhrerprinzip in his military commander role, because his authority overrode that of experienced German generals that knew what they were doing better than he did. (That was just as bad as purging them.)

German generals were a lying bunch when they started writing their memoir pinning all faults and reasons for failures on Hitler whom no one was going to defend.

What do you consider the best German army, then?

There was no such thing as best German army. But sixth army was neither the best nor the largest.

If it wasn't the best, it was certainly a force they couldn't afford to lose.

They did quite well without it.

I completely disagree that Stalingrad was a necessary military objective. In fact, the entire operation in that area was unnecessary.

So, your beef is with "fall Blau" and not Stalingrad.

he original German plan was to push for the main political targets, Moscow and Leningrad.

Moscow-leningrad region was too well defended with most of red army concentrated there, it was one of the chief reasons why Wehrmacht moved to south, where it can still achieve local numerical superiority.

[Malatant of Shadow]

This post has been removed for violating Rule 15.

If you wish to discuss the merits of the Holodomor, you can do so here.

There are many excuses for Barbarossa, I won't go in detail on that but seriously at least pick up something by "david glantz" for starters before preaching about "Barbarossa".

Tell us why you think the German victory in that campaign, on the scale that occurred, with the Soviet losses it entailed, does not indicate massive bungling on the part of Stalin. Tell us in your own words. I need a reason to bother reading anything by David Glantz.

While you're at it, check this out https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no1/9_BK_What_Stalin_Knew.htm and consider how Stalin could have made the decisions he made given the intelligence he had available. Regarding the buildup of Soviet forces, that looks very much like an offensive buildup rather than a defensive one in anticipation of a German attack. (This would be in character considering who we're talking about; if so, it was short-circuited only because Hitler proved no more trustworthy than Stalin was and beat him to the punch.) I've also seen it characterized as a show-of-force move, neither defensive nor immediately offensive, and intended to take advantage of the fact that the Germans were busy in the west to reorganize and improve the Soviet forces.

What's undeniable is that the forward placement of Soviet forces was a very poor defensive arrangement and led to their destruction in the initial moves of the campaign.

They did quite well without it.

Dude, they lost the war. In fact, they lost their whole country. Evidently your idea of "doing quite well" and mine vary considerably.

So, your beef is with "fall Blau" and not Stalingrad.

If you get right down to it, my beef is with the entire attempt to conquer European Russia. Like the attempt to exterminate the Jews, I see that as plain craziness. But if he was going to try it, then it had to be done with a knockout punch. Yes, I realize Moscow and Leningrad had formidable defenses; if that couldn't have been pulled off (and I won't argue the point because it's not ultimately material), then the invasion shouldn't have even been tried.

A war of attrition between Germany and the Soviet Union inevitably meant a Soviet victory. And of course, that's exactly what happened. If Germany was going to win the war, there was only one way to do it: achieve such a rapid victory that the Soviet Union literally could not recover and would have to redefine itself as an Asian nation the other side of the Urals, where German ambitions didn't go (at least in that generation). I'm not even sure that was possible (Stalin had already moved a lot of industrial production to Siberia), but it certainly wasn't possible if the Germans diluted their efforts.

Look at the manpower comparison between Germany and the Soviet Union. The Germans could not afford significant losses. The Russians could. That tells the story of the war right there.

[Rich]

First as an individual Stalin achieved a lot. Given his starting point in life, that Stalin managed to become leader and in effect the richest man in Russia, arguable the richest man in the world and indisputably the most powerful man in the world, is incredible. I'm sure many Conservatives and classical Liberals will want to commend him on his get up and go, entrepreneurial spirit. The Soviet union and its empire was in effect his own personal business and what a business it was. On a personal level it would be churlish of any Libertarian or classical Liberal to complain about Stalin. You could try and complain that millions if not tens of millions were in effect his personal slaves, but that's hardly a moral failing is it? That's lefty Liberal whining talk. I mean if we started criticising people for owning slaves we wouldn't be able to honour John Lock, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for being the highly moral, noble and inspiring examples that they were. Joseph Stalin could so easily have laid about and worked the benefit system. He could have had a cozy little career in the State backed Orthodox church which was itself one giant welfare scam. But he didn't and went on to really make something of himself. Poor Stalin later in life his mother asked him what he did for a job. He replied that he was a sort of Tsar. She snapped back that he would have better to have become a Priest. Its to Stalin's credit that he found this highly amusing.

[Dagoth Ur]

Lol Rich Stalin? Haha

Stalin lived cheap as shit.

[Paradigm]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but a lot of the high death counts attributed to Stalin are based on the assumption that most people who were sent to the gulag died there, when in fact 90% came out alive. The other 10% is nothing to sneeze at, though.

[Potemkin]

And a larger percentage of the population of the USA is held in prison right now than the percentage of the population of the Soviet Union who were held in the Gulag, even at the height of Stalin's "tyranny". Make of that what you will.

[Kman]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but a lot of the high death counts attributed to Stalin are based on the assumption that most people who were sent to the gulag died there, when in fact 90% came out alive. The other 10% is nothing to sneeze at, though.

90% survived the gulags? What kind of lying history professor have you been reading? Have you actually read some of the eye witness accounts of the death camps and how fast people were dying from exhaustion and lack of nutrition? Millions of normal non criminal russians were dying of starvation and you claim that the people in the gulag, the enemies of the state had a 90% survival rate? I am pretty good at detecting bullshit and that claim set off the biggest ping in a long time on my bullshit detector.

[Decky]

90% survived the gulags?

They were just prisons where people had to work Kman, nothing special.

[Kman]

This post has been removed for violating Rule 15.

If you wish to discuss the merits of the Holodomor, you can do so here.

[Decky]

You are the one making the claim that they were death camps. Any evidence? And statistics? Anything?

[Kman]

You are the one making the claim that they were death camps. Any evidence? And statistics? Anything?

Where is paradigms proof of his ridicilous claim? Why arent you whining about his lack of references? People in Russia were scared to death of being sent to the gulag, there was a reason for that.

Also if you want some insight into the russian gulags you should read Alexander Dolguns book about his imprisonment and torture under the Stalinist system, in the book he describes how it was extremely easy to end up dead in the gulags because the work quotas were very very high and if you fell behind you were punished with more work, causing further calorie depletion which made you weaker and slower which made you fall behind even further which increased your workload, creating a viscious spiral into death via work. Dolgun survived by doing various tricks to lessen his workload like stack the rocks he was chopping by hand in a way so that the center was hollow, leading inspectors to think he had done a full days work.