Poll
Question:
How do Hitler and Stalin compare, in terms of evil/being murderous bastards?
Option 1: They were more or less equally evil
votes: 17
Option 2: Hitler was more evil than Stalin
votes: 13
Option 3: Stalin was more evil than Hitler
votes: 2
The Polish President compared the Stalinist crimes to Holocaust, which caused a reaction of, among others, the Jewish Council of Germany, which denounced such comparisons, saying that it is unacceptable to compare the two, since Hitler was much worse.
So, what do Languishites think?
Thread is incomplete without:
http://www.comics.aha.ru/rus/stalin/
More or less equal. Uncle Joe gets off easy because he picked the winning side in the Dubya Dubya Two. :cool:
Hitler, working with a smaller population and a shorter time managed to kill the same number as Stalin. Hitler is more evil.
Quote from: Viking on September 02, 2009, 06:50:13 AM
Hitler, working with a smaller population and a shorter time managed to kill the same number as Stalin. Hitler is more evil.
Only if efficiency is evil.
Come to think of it, Jews > Ukrainians, so maybe Hitler was more evil. :ph34r:
(Hi, Beeb! :) )
Quote from: barkdreg on September 02, 2009, 06:57:18 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 02, 2009, 06:50:13 AM
Hitler, working with a smaller population and a shorter time managed to kill the same number as Stalin. Hitler is more evil.
Only if efficiency is evil.
Pol Pot wins then.
Both pass the threshhold where such comparisons become ludicrous.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 07:02:16 AM
Both pass the threshhold where such comparisons become ludicrous.
Correct. It's like saying "Between Saturn and Jupiter, which has a less survivable atmosphere?" :cool:
There should be a "Evil is not quantitatively measurable" option.
Quote from: barkdreg on September 02, 2009, 06:57:18 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 02, 2009, 06:50:13 AM
Hitler, working with a smaller population and a shorter time managed to kill the same number as Stalin. Hitler is more evil.
Only if efficiency is evil.
The evil lies in the methods for killing chosen.. show me the soviet gas chambers?
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 07:16:57 AM
There should be a "Evil is not quantitatively measurable" option.
yeah, this poll needs a jaron option.
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 07:03:44 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 07:02:16 AM
Both pass the threshhold where such comparisons become ludicrous.
Correct. It's like saying "Between Saturn and Jupiter, which has a less survivable atmosphere?" :cool:
I'm still wondering if we could regulate the atmosphere of Mars in a way that the air was breathable and the temperature over freezing or if it's just too far away from the Sun for that to work.
:yawn: dumbest debate topic on the internet, evah.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 07:19:22 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 07:03:44 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 07:02:16 AM
Both pass the threshhold where such comparisons become ludicrous.
Correct. It's like saying "Between Saturn and Jupiter, which has a less survivable atmosphere?" :cool:
I'm still wondering if we could regulate the atmosphere of Mars in a way that the air was breathable and the temperature over freezing or if it's just too far away from the Sun for that to work.
We'd need to thicken it enough for oxygen and greenhouse gasses to warm itwithout the pressure crushing the colonists. I fear it is impossible. :(
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 07:21:52 AM
:yawn: dumbest debate topic on the internet, evah.
I know. Anybody who gives Transylvania to the Romanians has got to be far eviler than Hitler.
On the basis that I have to choose one, I go with Hitler. I consider the deliberate, systematic and mechanised extermination of millions on a racial basis "more evil" than Stalin's callous and bloody paranoia.
Wiggins does have a point though.
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 06:43:51 AM
The Polish President compared the Stalinist crimes to Holocaust, which caused a reaction of, among others, the Jewish Council of Germany, which denounced such comparisons, saying that it is unacceptable to compare the two, since Hitler was much worse.
So, what do Languishites think?
Both comitted the unforgivable crime of not wiping out the Poles, so they're equally evil.
Oh, and Syt has a hot avatar.
As a radical left wing university type, I blame society. Therefore we shouldn't damn either of these two and instead blame those really responsible - the white males.
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 07:21:52 AM
:yawn: dumbest debate topic on the internet, evah.
Not the Enterprise versus a Super Star Destroyer?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 02, 2009, 07:24:10 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 07:19:22 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 07:03:44 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 07:02:16 AM
Both pass the threshhold where such comparisons become ludicrous.
Correct. It's like saying "Between Saturn and Jupiter, which has a less survivable atmosphere?" :cool:
I'm still wondering if we could regulate the atmosphere of Mars in a way that the air was breathable and the temperature over freezing or if it's just too far away from the Sun for that to work.
We'd need to thicken it enough for oxygen and greenhouse gasses to warm itwithout the pressure crushing the colonists. I fear it is impossible. :(
In a practical sense, it's impossible. Theoretically, you could use some methane to jack up the temperature in the short term, and as that breaks down fill in some CO
2 and water vapour in order to keep the greenhouse on, oxygen for breathability and nitrogen as a filler. You wouldn't have to worry about crushing people with the atmospheric pressure.
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 08:06:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 07:21:52 AM
:yawn: dumbest debate topic on the internet, evah.
Not the Enterprise versus a Super Star Destroyer?
Galactica would take out either one.
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 08:06:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 07:21:52 AM
:yawn: dumbest debate topic on the internet, evah.
Not the Enterprise versus a Super Star Destroyer?
Circumcision or not? is the dumbest debate topic.
I'll go with Hitler for the systemic methods and mass murdering. But I think Stalin is a close second with his brand of techniques and killings, and was just as ruthless as Hitler but in a different ideology.
Of course both are distant seconds to Obamahitler.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 02, 2009, 07:25:28 AM
Both comitted the unforgivable crime of not wiping out the Poles, so they're equally evil.
Wow...you beat Neil to the punch with that one. :)
Hitler all the way.
Russia had always been a country on the edge of nowhere, desperatly trying and failing to be European but still half stuck in medieval times. The Stalinist murders weren't too different to buisness as usual.
Germany though...A centre point of civlization turned towards evil.
A few other reasons too.
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 08:06:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 07:21:52 AM
:yawn: dumbest debate topic on the internet, evah.
Not the Enterprise versus a Super Star Destroyer?
No because you see, "but Stalin was horrible as well" is the standard answer you get from internet nationalist balkantard morons each and every time someone hints at the nazis MAYBE not being the nicest guys right after hello kitty. Then usually someone from the other non-nazi side is dumb enough to take the bait, and the "debate" of measuring approximate causality numbers ensue. :bleeding:
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 08:16:53 AM
Of course both are distant seconds to Obamahitler.
Hah, Obama is not even close to Bushhitler!! Not yet anyway; maybe in time the right wing will make it happen though. Or even the left wing if Obama continues to advocate for the war in Afghanistan.
Quote from: KRonn on September 02, 2009, 08:58:30 AM
Hah, Obama is not even close to Bushhitler!! Not yet anyway; maybe in time the right wing will make it happen though. Or even the left wing if Obama continues to advocate for the war in Afghanistan.
Now that Bushitler is a harmless ex-president people will remember him more and more fondly as time goes on. Right now he is moving down to Bussolini status.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 09:08:14 AM
Now that Bushitler is a harmless ex-president people will remember him more and more fondly as time goes on. Right now he is moving down to Bussolini status.
:lol:
So nowadays, instead of going "BUSHITLER!!!!" *gnashing of teeth* people say "Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Booshie, e'sa good guy, uh!"
I saw this and thought "Only a Pole would create such a poll."
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 09:14:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 09:08:14 AM
Now that Bushitler is a harmless ex-president people will remember him more and more fondly as time goes on. Right now he is moving down to Bussolini status.
:lol:
So nowadays, instead of going "BUSHITLER!!!!" *gnashing of teeth* people say "Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Booshie, e'sa good guy, uh!"
he's seems very personable one on one. I think most of us, over a barbecue and a couple of beers, and watching some football, would kinda get along with him.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 09:08:14 AM
Quote from: KRonn on September 02, 2009, 08:58:30 AM
Hah, Obama is not even close to Bushhitler!! Not yet anyway; maybe in time the right wing will make it happen though. Or even the left wing if Obama continues to advocate for the war in Afghanistan.
Now that Bushitler is a harmless ex-president people will remember him more and more fondly as time goes on. Right now he is moving down to Bussolini status.
Bussolini status I like that.
I lol'd.... :lol:
I went with Stalin. Hitler had a plan, wrote about it, than implemented it. He was evil but he worked within the rules of society for the most part (at least until the wheels started to come off his plans). Stalin was a paranoid mass murdering thug. The only reason they have a similar body count is that God (or Beria) stopped Stalin. There is no estimating how many million more Stalin might have killed if he lived longer.
I guess you would call Hitler "Lawful Evil" while Stalin was 'Chaotic Evil". :nerd:
Quote from: Strix on September 02, 2009, 09:47:38 AM
I guess you would call Hitler "Lawful Evil" while Stalin was 'Chaotic Evil". :nerd:
Not when international relations are taken into account.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 09:49:27 AM
Quote from: Strix on September 02, 2009, 09:47:38 AM
I guess you would call Hitler "Lawful Evil" while Stalin was 'Chaotic Evil". :nerd:
Not when international relations are taken into account.
Indeed. I'd say it was quite the opposite.
Quote from: Strix on September 02, 2009, 09:47:38 AM
I guess you would call Hitler "Lawful Evil" while Stalin was 'Chaotic Evil". :nerd:
Actually, I think they'd both be Neutral Evil, although Hitler would tend lawful.
I'd make a good level level nazi. Stamping and signing endless forms in that bureaucracy. Plus, I'd have toilet paper.
Wait... Stalin had no plan? :lol:
Dude, the Soviets invented the whole concept of endless planning vs. actually getting shit done.
Equally evil.
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 10:55:09 AM
Wait... Stalin had no plan? :lol:
Dude, the Soviets invented the whole concept of endless planning vs. actually getting shit done.
Maybe "vision" would have been a better word. Stalin seemed very chaotic in his plans at best.
This reminds me of that Russian guy on Paradox who told me never to come to Russia or he would kick my ass during a thread when I said bad things about Stalin.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 11:06:07 AM
This reminds me of that Russian guy on Paradox who told me never to come to Russia or he would kick my ass during a thread when I said bad things about Stalin.
A surprising number of Russians LOVE the guy. :blink:
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 11:07:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 11:06:07 AM
This reminds me of that Russian guy on Paradox who told me never to come to Russia or he would kick my ass during a thread when I said bad things about Stalin.
A surprising number of Russians LOVE the guy. :blink:
He made Russia strong. :stalin:
Apparently I read somewhere that Stalin's grandson is suing Russia ? or something for libel to the family name.
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 11:08:12 AM
Apparently I read somewhere that Stalin's grandson is suing Russia ? or something for libel to the family name.
His daughter lives in a nursing home in Milwaukee or Minneapolis or some such place. :lol:
aaah...here it is...He is suing a Russian newspaper for libel.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/6124564/Joseph-Stalins-grandson-sues-Russian-newspaper-over-slurs-against-dictator.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/6124564/Joseph-Stalins-grandson-sues-Russian-newspaper-over-slurs-against-dictator.html)
The grandson of Joseph Stalin has begun a libel suit against one of Russia's leading liberal newspapers, accusing it of lying in an article that stated the wartime leader had killed Soviet citizens.
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 11:09:31 AM
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 11:08:12 AM
Apparently I read somewhere that Stalin's grandson is suing Russia ? or something for libel to the family name.
His daughter lives in a nursing home in Milwaukee or Minneapolis or some such place. :lol:
Once while one of his kids was serving drinks during his drinking parties in the Kremlin he asked the room at large, "I wonder who is fucking her these days?"
Guy was a prince. Very popular in Georgia.
I blame the Orthodox monks who played a big role during his childhood.
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 11:10:47 AM
aaah...here it is...He is suing a Russian newspaper for libel.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/6124564/Joseph-Stalins-grandson-sues-Russian-newspaper-over-slurs-against-dictator.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/6124564/Joseph-Stalins-grandson-sues-Russian-newspaper-over-slurs-against-dictator.html)
The grandson of Joseph Stalin has begun a libel suit against one of Russia's leading liberal newspapers, accusing it of lying in an article that stated the wartime leader had killed Soviet citizens.
Most ridiculous lawsuit ever. :lmfao:
You know, I really don't think Stalin would have cared if people thought he was "evil", just as long as they thought he got shit done for the USSR, which I guess there's no doubt that he did. The ends justify the means and all that.
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 11:12:33 AM
You know, I really don't think Stalin would have cared if people thought he was "evil", just as long as they thought he got shit done for the USSR, which I guess there's no doubt that he did. The ends justify the means and all that.
I have my doubts much of anything Stalin did was really good shit though. I mean yes he beat Germany but his leadership mistakes were primarily responsible for the situation the Soviets found themselves in in 1941.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 11:14:39 AM
I have my doubts much of anything Stalin did was really good shit though. I mean yes he beat Germany but his leadership mistakes were primarily responsible for the situation the Soviets found themselves in in 1941.
I think in spite of the purges, the Russians were better prepared in 1941 than 1914.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 11:21:14 AM
I think in spite of the purges, the Russians were better prepared in 1941 than 1914.
Then why did they win most of the opening battles in 1914 and drive to the Carpathians, while they immediately and completely collapsed in 1941?
Facts do not support your thesis.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 11:22:15 AMThen why did they win most of the opening battles in 1914 and drive to the Carpathians, while they immediately and completely collapsed in 1941?
Facts do not support your thesis.
Don't forget that in 1914 their primary enemy, at least initially, was Austria. My left nut could have single-nuttedly defeated the Austro-Hungarians.
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 11:23:52 AM
Don't forget that in 1914 their primary enemy, at least initially, was Austria. My left nut could have single-nuttedly defeated the Austro-Hungarians.
Meh Romania didn't have too much trouble fighting the Red Army up until they got hung out to dry at Stalingrad and they were hardly a juggernaut.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 11:25:39 AM
Meh Romania didn't have too much trouble fighting the Red Army up until they got hung out to dry at Stalingrad and they were hardly a juggernaut.
:huh:
Didn't the Germans have to send a big part of Army Group South to help the Romanians to get beyond Kishinev? After that point it would have been a dogpile anwyay.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 11:22:15 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 11:21:14 AM
I think in spite of the purges, the Russians were better prepared in 1941 than 1914.
Then why did they win most of the opening battles in 1914 and drive to the Carpathians, while they immediately and completely collapsed in 1941?
Facts do not support your thesis.
? The Second Army got encircled and wiped out in East Prussia.
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 11:27:11 AM
Didn't the Germans have to send a big part of Army Group South to help the Romanians to get beyond Kishinev? After that point it would have been a dogpile anwyay.
Huh?
Anyway Stalin put his Army in exposed forward positions in fixed defenses against the advice of his best commanders, he left them without instructions as to what to do in the event of an attack, he instructed them not to respond to "provocations" without qualifying what exactly was the difference between a provocation and an attack, and he forbade them from retreating. As a result his army was devastated in a few weeks. Oh and this was after he had driven several nations into the Nazi camp who might otherwise had been neutral or sympathetic or colluded with Hitler for them to be destroyed.
If somehow this string of unbelievable incompetent decisions is ok because, you know, the Tsarist Army only succeeded in winning a smashing victory over the Austrians then knock yourself out. I find that bullshit personally.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 11:31:33 AM
? The Second Army got encircled and wiped out in East Prussia.
How many Soviet Armies got encircled and wiped out in 1941?
Please this is the lamest arguement ever: Stalin's decisions were awesome because, you know, Samsonov was defeated 30 years earlier.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 11:35:36 AM
How many Soviet Armies got encircled and wiped out in 1941?
Please this is the lamest arguement ever: Stalin's decisions were awesome because, you know, Samsonov was defeated 30 years earlier.
And Rennenkampf shortly afterward. But I'm not claiming Stalin was a good c-in-c. Just that you can't blame the failings of the Russian military on him when they'd been failing for ages. He at least stuck it out and got a win.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2009, 11:11:56 AM
Most ridiculous lawsuit ever. :lmfao:
it depends - is truth an absolute defense to libel under Russian law?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 11:21:14 AM
I think in spite of the purges, the Russians were better prepared in 1941 than 1914.
High standards.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 11:41:00 AM
And Rennenkampf shortly afterward. But I'm not claiming Stalin was a good c-in-c. Just that you can't blame the failings of the Russian military on him when they'd been failing for ages. He at least stuck it out and got a win.
I think the problems with the Russian Armies in 1914 in East Prussia came down to bad luck, supply problems, incompetent peace time generals, outdated tactics, and so forth. These sorts of things that plagued all the Armies in 1914 and were completely understandable and the result of things no Russian officer could have forseen. A pincer movement into East Prussia was strategically sound. To blame that on anything peculiarly Russian is nonsense especially after they won one of the biggest battles in history decisively just next door in Galicia.
The problems the Russian Armies faced in 1941 were almost entirely Stalin's own doing and were forseen by many officers in his army even after he purged so many competent ones. The fact he managed to save a disasterous situation does not excuse his reckless foreign policy and frankly idiotic military management that made the disaster possible.
I am, frankly, unsure how exactly the Soviet Union could have been less well prepared. Maybe if Stalin had taken away his Army's ammunition to save money the week before or something.
I think this line of argument is somewhat off-topic (and I checked and I think what I was thinking of was the Seige of Odessa, Valmy, not the initial campaign in Bessarabia, but anyway...) It came about as a result of your rejection of my statement about Stalin leaving the USSR stronger than when he took it over (i.e. your post that contained "I have my doubts much of anything Stalin did was really good shit though.")
Is there any dispute that the USSR of 1953 was not stronger than the USSR of 1922? This is not a loaded question--I seriously do not know if anyone has tried to dispute that.
The obvious followup, assuming there is no serious dispute, is: was Stalin responsible, or maybe did the USSR succeed during that interval because of Stalin, in spite of him, or neither? That's a question that nobody can probably answer with any degree of precision but obviously there will be opinions encompassing the first two possibilities at least.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 11:48:21 AM
I think the problems with the Russian Armies in 1914 in East Prussia came down to bad luck, supply problems, incompetent peace time generals, outdated tactics, and so forth.
= they were unprepared.
Stalin made some strategic blunders, but he also modernized the army and the industrial base and closed the gap with Germany a bit. During Lenin & Stalin's reigns, Russia went from being a backward empire on the decline to being one of two hyperpowers in the world. Surely he deserves some of the credit.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 11:48:21 AM
I think the problems with the Russian Armies in 1914 in East Prussia came down to bad luck, supply problems, incompetent peace time generals, outdated tactics, and so forth.
Another problem is that they were under pressure to conduct large-scale offensive operations as soon as possible. Ie we are comparing apples and oranges here.
My impression is that according to conventional moral metrics they were more or less equally evil.
The whole "Hitler was teh most evilest man ever possible" thing is not very mature and not very productive.
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 11:59:02 AM
The obvious followup, assuming there is no serious dispute, is: was Stalin responsible, or maybe did the USSR succeed during that interval because of Stalin, in spite of him, or neither?
I'm going with neither. The portrayal of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, in Court of the Red Tsar (http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Court-Simon-Sebag-Montefiore/dp/1400042305) and Young Stalin (http://www.amazon.com/Young-Stalin-Vintage-Simon-Montefiore/dp/1400096138/ref=ed_oe_p) strongly suggests that, while Stalin was the most successful of his generation, that he was merely one of a long line of Russian leaders with roughly the same goals, motives, and tactics. To put it another way, Beria could have done a reasonable Stalin impersonation.
Quote from: The Brain on September 02, 2009, 12:07:05 PM
The whole "Hitler was teh most evilest man ever possible" thing is not very mature and not very productive.
I'm going to go further and say that it's downright dangerous. The more Hitler is demonized and made to seem inhuman, the easier it is to overlook the possibility that "another Hitler" could arise from a seemingly ordinary, charismatic leader.
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 12:08:04 PMI'm going with neither. The portrayal of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, in Court of the Red Tsar (http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Court-Simon-Sebag-Montefiore/dp/1400042305) and Young Stalin (http://www.amazon.com/Young-Stalin-Vintage-Simon-Montefiore/dp/1400096138/ref=ed_oe_p) strongly suggests that, while Stalin was the most successful of his generation, that he was merely one of a long line of Russian leaders with roughly the same goals, motives, and tactics. To put it another way, Beria could have done a reasonable Stalin impersonation.
I don't disagree... but it was still ultimately Stalin in the driver's seat, yes?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 12:01:26 PM
= they were unprepared.
Stalin made some strategic blunders, but he also modernized the army and the industrial base and closed the gap with Germany a bit. During Lenin & Stalin's reigns, Russia went from being a backward empire on the decline to being one of two hyperpowers in the world. Surely he deserves some of the credit.
They were unprepared only because they did not have a clairvoyant powers. Magical powers is a pretty big demand to make of a military.
Stalin had an army the sort of which you would be expected to have in 1941 so what? Russia was well on its way to being a hyperpower in 1914, its economic expansion every year was massive and everybody was predicting it would be a superpower someday. The Soviet Union destroyed that from ever really happening with its heavy hand IMO.
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 12:10:51 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 12:08:04 PMI'm going with neither. The portrayal of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, in Court of the Red Tsar (http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Court-Simon-Sebag-Montefiore/dp/1400042305) and Young Stalin (http://www.amazon.com/Young-Stalin-Vintage-Simon-Montefiore/dp/1400096138/ref=ed_oe_p) strongly suggests that, while Stalin was the most successful of his generation, that he was merely one of a long line of Russian leaders with roughly the same goals, motives, and tactics. To put it another way, Beria could have done a reasonable Stalin impersonation.
I don't disagree... but it was still ultimately Stalin in the driver's seat, yes?
Yes, it was ultimately Stalin. My point is that anyone of Stalin's potential replacements would have likely done the same things.
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 12:19:08 PM
Yes, it was ultimately Stalin. My point is that anyone of Stalin's potential replacements would have likely done the same things.
I have my doubts about that. They might have had similar goals but surely they would have done different specific things to attain those goals.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 12:19:59 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 12:19:08 PM
Yes, it was ultimately Stalin. My point is that anyone of Stalin's potential replacements would have likely done the same things.
I have my doubts about that. They might have had similar goals but surely they would have done different specific things to attain those goals.
Specific things, yes. The overarching points of Stalin's modernization (lots of heavy industry, screwing the kulaks) I think would have been implemented in any event.
What happens if we were to throw Mao into the mix?
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 12:58:43 PM
What happens if we were to throw Mao into the mix?
Well, Mao did attempt to industrialize China and repressed the farmers, so I agree that Mao would have implemented policies similar to Stalin's if Mao had run Russia in Stalin's place.
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 01:01:42 PM
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 12:58:43 PM
What happens if we were to throw Mao into the mix?
Well, Mao did attempt to industrialize China and repressed the farmers, so I agree that Mao would have implemented policies similar to Stalin's if Mao had run Russia in Stalin's place.
By "repressed", you mean "killed" right?
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 01:20:00 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 01:01:42 PM
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 12:58:43 PM
What happens if we were to throw Mao into the mix?
Well, Mao did attempt to industrialize China and repressed the farmers, so I agree that Mao would have implemented policies similar to Stalin's if Mao had run Russia in Stalin's place.
By "repressed", you mean "killed" right?
I meant "repressed", since there are still quite a lot of Chinese farmers left, but obviously quite a few were killed during the process. That word choice was really a sideshow to the main point, though.