Jonlissla Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Both of you are severely mistaken ... long as possible. Wow... Thanks, I've learned a few things about Stalin from you... Until I saw Archangel, I've allways concentrated on the German army during WWI and WWII (and the political battles in the Interbellum) @ Jonlissla: you're intrested in old military history too? What is your specialization? WWI? WWII? other? So: thank you! Cya Fritz Well, I've learned a few things as well. I'm interested in all kind of military history. Though I'm not excactly good at it, it is nonetheless interesting to read and hear about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FritzDerochebrune Posted June 29, 2007 Author Share Posted June 29, 2007 Well, I've learned a few things as well. I'm interested in all kind of military history. Though I'm not excactly good at it, it is nonetheless interesting to read and hear about it. The same for me, although people call me an expert concerning the German army in WWII :blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovietlukmanov Posted December 16, 2007 Share Posted December 16, 2007 agree with Malchik. If you think about it, fascism and communism aren't all that different. The policies a different, but the end result on the people is almost identical. Let me outline the difference between the two of them In theory:Facsist states are conservatives, they keep on reminding the people of the glory their nation HAD, and urge them to try to bring their nation to their former glory. They also tend to bring up religious values (not pointing an argument against religion). Then, what a fascist state would surely have, is a powerful military, enough to fight off "the enemy inside" which are mostly activists against the government and some other opposition. Communists are liberals, they do not believe in the state, they believe that the people should all work as one, and then share the results among themselves. Here, it's what like Lenin said, Proletarian dictatorship, where the people rules the state, and not the other way around. In a communist state, a government only serves to represent the people as a state to the international world, this is due to the fact that all internal matters are, as was said, dealt by the people in collective. Though in practice:Communist states are run just like any other fascist state. Anyways, back to the point of the debate itself: of course, I see Stalin as a hero. What would happen if he hadn't been there to challenge Hitler on the eastern front? Stalingrad was one of Stalin's plan to destroy the advancing German forces when they were at their weakest. It was winter, and Stalin knew how it would significantly affect the German supplies, in addition, Stalin sent his own armies to encircle Stalingrad and cut off the German supply line. Sure, as a General, Stalin was great, though I must confess, that as a dictator, he was not a good one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 What would happen if he hadn't been there to challenge Hitler on the eastern front?A much more capable leader would've been in his place. Trotsky, perhaps. Stalingrad was one of Stalin's plan to destroy the advancing German forces when they were at their weakest... As a General, Stalin was great...Yes, that must be it. Boy that Stalin, he was incompetent like a fox! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninja_lord666 Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Sure, as a General, Stalin was great...What definition of 'great' are you using? During the Nazi assault on the Soviet Union, the main defensive tactic Stalin employed was retreat and hope the Nazis give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovietlukmanov Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Well, for one, Stalin knew the inferiority of his forces compared to the Germans, so instead of going head to head, he decided to hold them all out in Stalingrad during the winter. Then, Stalin also sent his army to encircle Stalingrad, effectively closing all supply routes for the German forces save air-dropped supplies. Then finally, he just needed to wait till the German supplies run low, it was then, he decided to attack Stalingrad after a few weeks of withdrawing. Even if it's simply retreat, and hope for the enemy to run out of supplies, it's still a tactic, rather than meet them all out and get defeated for sure. So he was great, as in he could effectively use "strategies" to be honest, nearly no strategies he could use will gain him superiority over German forces, but then, he knew Russian winter. He knew that his best weapon is to hold out till winter, and of course (an example) you know why Napoleon retreated from Russia on his second campaign to Russia... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 There is a very big difference between saving your troops for a more favorable battle and denying that the enemy is even in your country. The invasion of Russia was much more farce than glory, and it's silly to look for heroes there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dullahan Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I agree with Malchik. If you think about it, fascism and communism aren't all that different. The policies a different, but the end result on the people is almost identical. As for Joe, he was a murdering, socialist pig. I hate him. I have no problems with Comrade Stalin. Hehe.. You hate him, do you. Hm.. Wonder what it would be like.. To still be at war with the Nazis.. To see more and more people join their cause, because, let's face it, the governemt sucks and Anarchy is the only way, for me anyway. Was it Stalin's intention to murder anyone? If that would be the case, why would he have played a major role against Hitler and the Nazi's? If he was truly evil, he could have joined. As a Russian guy, i do not support his methods, but i do support his point of views. I could say the same thing about Hussein. I don't see anything wrong with Comrade Stalin. Then again, i'm not a judgemental american.. WHOOPS!!! Sorry!! I didn't mean to let my true colours show that soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duskrider Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Hehe.. You hate him, do you. Hm.. Wonder what it would be like.. To still be at war with the Nazis.. To see more and more people join their cause, because, let's face it, the governemt sucks and Anarchy is the only way, for me anyway. Err, remind me again why Stalin was the only one capable of winning against the Nazis? Last time I checked, Germany was doomed from the beginning, the only question was how long it would take for them to finally lose, and how many people would die in the process. But of course you're an anarchist, so I shouldn't expect too much intelligence or historical knowledge from you. Compared to the ignorance of history required to think anarchy is a good idea, thinking Stalin was necessary for a Soviet victory is a pretty minor thing. Was it Stalin's intention to murder anyone? If that would be the case, why would he have played a major role against Hitler and the Nazi's? If he was truly evil, he could have joined. Err, what part of "insane dictator" is so hard to understand? This is really not complicated, Stalin didn't join with Hitler because Stalin wanted to conquer Germany. Why would he settle for being Hitler's pet when he can rule instead? Of course your ignorance of history shows again, Stalin did join Hitler, for a while, when it was convenient for his ambitions. Here's a hint: in the real world, good and evil are not some black and white thing. There isn't some united "evil" side struggling against a united "good" side, evil people are perfectly capable of fighting against each other. Neither Stalin nor Hitler had a plan of "advance the cause of Evil", they both had their independent ideologies and goals. Insane, terrifyingly wrong goals, but still something beyond your comic book idea of morality. But I see... Stalin just murdered millions of people by accident. I'll have to keep that excuse in mind next time I need to kill someone! I don't see anything wrong with Comrade Stalin. Then again, i'm not a judgemental american.. WHOOPS!!! Sorry!! I didn't mean to let my true colours show that soon. No, of course, nothing wrong. Killing millions of people is just fine, right? And it has nothing to do with being an american... everyone with any sense of morality and a vague understanding of history thinks Stalin was a mass-murdering psycho. But then again, you're an anarchist, so the concepts of "empathy" and "knowledge of history" are completely alien to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justwantmusicbe Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Joseph Stalin was brutal, but he did what was necessary for the USSR, im sure. Fidel Castro probably would have done a better job in Stalin's place, though. He was a fantastic leader during war, Germany put up a tough fight, but Stalin had the nearly radical patriotism of his people. I wish I could inspire like those communists could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.