Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5451|Cambridge, England
While I agree with Shahter that WWII was primarily between Germany and USSR, I think it would be fair to say the Nazis lost it rather than the USSR won.

On the issue of all Western history being wrong, there is truth in the distortion of the facts for popular / political reasons but this is certainly not the case with the vast majority of respected historians work. Movies & documentaries are the most susceptible to this as if you believed them then WWII becomes USA vs the rest of the world and they gave everybody a kicking which couldn't be much further from the truth. Start to look into any seriously written history however and it is easy to find considered objective analysis. If there's one thing historians love its to prove each others interpretations to be in error. Therefore writing the facts as you would like them to be will only gain you ridicule.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4077|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Maybe it's because you think Stalin doesn't get enough credit in the west for saving Mother Russia, but to us, he was no different from Hitler.
Yes he killed a lot of people and starved some more but I don't think he was as bad as Hitler. Only Hitler can be as bad as Hitler. IIRC from the time Stalin took control to the time he died industrial output of Russia increased something like 400%. Sure a lot of people died that shouldn't have but at least he got some positive results. Hitler on the other hand is just the premier example of unproductive militarism.
The ends don't justify the means.

Molotov, Beria, Dzerzhinskij, Stalin, these are names that should and will go down in history and be compared to Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, and Hitler. These were villains, not heroes. Never heroes. Not if you have a shred of respect for human life.

Last edited by Jay (2011-06-23 04:55:31)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4305

"The ends don't justify the means."
I never said they did. Nor did I suggest they were heroes. I'm just saying that at the very least they cannot be put in the same category as Hitler and the rest of the Nazi's. I mean- in the grand scheme of things Hitler is the worst you can have. After Hitler's rule most of Germany fell into Russian control, the economy was wrecked, their armies devastated, and German reputation never recovered. Stalin's at least helped industrialize Russia to the the point where they threatened the entire world, and defeated their most immediate threat, Germany. He also brought a good amount of stability to unstable place. So, no, he's not as bad as Hitler.

Yes though both were bad people who cost a lot of human beings lives but one isn't nearly as bad as the other. Despite their kill counts being higher I would put both Stalin and Mao in a different category than Hitler. All three were assholes but at least two redeemed themselves in a small way.

You just can't compared many people with Hitler.
BALTINS
ಠ_ಠ
+37|5205|Latvia

Shahter wrote:

"convenience"? for whom? the enlightened west nurtured nazi germany hoping to have them crush the soviets. how horribly that backfired - that is a disgrace the west is still trying to lie their way out of.
Oh for the love of god, I'd love to mention molotov-ribbentrop, but you would say that was for defensive purposes or something. And that didn't just start in in 1939, as if all of sudden both sides decided to lay down their grievances and be friends, training each others secret police.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5494|Moscow, Russia

Jay wrote:

Maybe it's because you think Stalin doesn't get enough credit in the west for saving Mother Russia, but to us, he was no different from Hitler. He killed off millions of his own people because of ideology and that can never be separated from everything else that he did. If someone tried to write a book that described him as a dutiful family man that loved fluffy bunnies who took on Hitler it would be laughed at. Why? Because Stalin and his purges are what caused the Germans to advance so far into Russia in the first place. He wiped out the officer corps on the eve of battle.
most of what you so faithfully believe there have been fed to you by your propaganda. history - is a story of one enormous crime. stalin only gets so much flak because he managed to build a nation and a society which shook the very foundations western civilization is build upon.

We just have a different morality. I guess you can shrug off the deaths of the millions he sent to the gulags. We can't. We find it abhorrent.
let's look at some heroic deeds by the west which allowed them to ascend to their current position of "enlightened and progressive", shall we?

"holy wars"
racism.
slavery.
genocide.
i dunno how to call what they did in the colonies in one word. atrocities? bloody mess?

i can't be assed to actually go look for fancier words in my dictionary, so i'll leave it like this.

what do your "morals" would have say about all that? i, personally, find that a lot more abhorrent than what stalin did, because the west didn't do any of that out of desperation and surrounded by enemies - only for wealth, power and influence. you killed millions, pillaged the whole nations, destroyed the whole cultures, and now you point a finger at the man who, among other things, led his nation to victory over your most horrible creation - the nazism.

hello there.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4077|London, England
This is worse than arguing with War Man about science.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5394|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:

This is worse than arguing with War Man about science.
No it isn't.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5451|Cambridge, England

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Maybe it's because you think Stalin doesn't get enough credit in the west for saving Mother Russia, but to us, he was no different from Hitler.
Yes he killed a lot of people and starved some more but I don't think he was as bad as Hitler. Only Hitler can be as bad as Hitler. IIRC from the time Stalin took control to the time he died industrial output of Russia increased something like 400%. Sure a lot of people died that shouldn't have but at least he got some positive results. Hitler on the other hand is just the premier example of unproductive militarism.
Disagree massively.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/na … conomy.htm
Unemployment in Germany Total

January 1933 6 million

January 1934 3.3 million

January 1935 2.9 million

January 1936 2.5 million

January 1937 1.8 million

January 1938 1.0 million

January 1939 302,000
Unemployment reduced by 95% over 6 years thats hardly non productive.

However, there is no doubt that work was created. The Nazis introduced public work schemes for men who worked in the National Labour Service (Reichsarbeitsdienst or RAD). Their work would have included digging ditches on farms to assist irrigation, building the new autobahns, planting new forests etc. The men of the RAD wore a military style uniform, lived in camps near to where they were working and received only what we would term pocket money. However, compared to the lack of success of the Weimar government and the chronic misery of 1931 to 1932, these men felt that at least the Nazi government was making the effort to improve their lot.
Look past the "Nazis are evil" and actually look at what was going on in the country at the time. The world as a whole thought highly enough of them to hold the Olympics there.

The reason Germany was in such a mess after the war is because they didnt know when to quit, they squeezed every last drop out of the nation when it reality it was already too late.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-06-23 05:13:43)

Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...
While I agree with Shahter that WWII was primarily between Germany and USSR, I think it would be fair to say the Nazis lost it rather than the USSR won.
WWII wasn't primarily between the USSR and Germany, that's bollocks.

My opinion is that if any one of these three forces, The US, UK or SU didn't participate in the war the other two that were left over would have lost. Each party was heavily reliant on the other.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-23 05:13:57)

inane little opines
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5494|Moscow, Russia

Jay wrote:

This is worse than arguing with War Man about science.
you are in no position of arguing at all, man - you don't know shit.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...
Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines.[99] Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression.[100]
Since he's a Russian I guess that's a more credible source to you, western historians being propagandists and all.
inane little opines
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4305

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Maybe it's because you think Stalin doesn't get enough credit in the west for saving Mother Russia, but to us, he was no different from Hitler.
Yes he killed a lot of people and starved some more but I don't think he was as bad as Hitler. Only Hitler can be as bad as Hitler. IIRC from the time Stalin took control to the time he died industrial output of Russia increased something like 400%. Sure a lot of people died that shouldn't have but at least he got some positive results. Hitler on the other hand is just the premier example of unproductive militarism.
Disagree massively.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/na … conomy.htm
Unemployment in Germany Total

January 1933 6 million

January 1934 3.3 million

January 1935 2.9 million

January 1936 2.5 million

January 1937 1.8 million

January 1938 1.0 million

January 1939 302,000
Unemployment reduced by 95% over 6 years thats hardly non productive.

However, there is no doubt that work was created. The Nazis introduced public work schemes for men who worked in the National Labour Service (Reichsarbeitsdienst or RAD). Their work would have included digging ditches on farms to assist irrigation, building the new autobahns, planting new forests etc. The men of the RAD wore a military style uniform, lived in camps near to where they were working and received only what we would term pocket money. However, compared to the lack of success of the Weimar government and the chronic misery of 1931 to 1932, these men felt that at least the Nazi government was making the effort to improve their lot.
Look past the "Nazis are evil" and actually look at what was going on in the country at the time. The world as a whole thought highly enough of them to hold the Olympics there.

The reason Germany was in such a mess after the war is because they didnt know when to quit, they squeezed every last drop out of the nation when it reality it was already too late.
Um how did Germany end up after the war? After all was said and done? Exactly. That was my point. I can't be bothered to find the post where I defended the Nazi's up until the war started based on their ability to rebuild post WW1 Germany. But that's not my point. Taken as a whole, Hitler and the Nazi's were more bad than good for Germany. If they didn't provoke WW2 than Hitler would a German national hero along with Bismark but the ball bounced the way it did.
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5451|Cambridge, England

Shocking wrote:

While I agree with Shahter that WWII was primarily between Germany and USSR, I think it would be fair to say the Nazis lost it rather than the USSR won.
WWII wasn't primarily between the USSR and Germany, that's bollocks.

My opinion is that if any one of these three forces, The US, UK or SU didn't participate in the war the other two that were left over would have lost. Each party was heavily reliant on the other.
The figures speak for themselves.

War dead:

UK 383,800
USA 416,800
France 217,600


Germany 5,530,000

USSR 8,800,000 to 10,700,000
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5451|Cambridge, England

Macbeth wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:


Yes he killed a lot of people and starved some more but I don't think he was as bad as Hitler. Only Hitler can be as bad as Hitler. IIRC from the time Stalin took control to the time he died industrial output of Russia increased something like 400%. Sure a lot of people died that shouldn't have but at least he got some positive results. Hitler on the other hand is just the premier example of unproductive militarism.
Disagree massively.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/na … conomy.htm
Unemployment in Germany Total

January 1933 6 million

January 1934 3.3 million

January 1935 2.9 million

January 1936 2.5 million

January 1937 1.8 million

January 1938 1.0 million

January 1939 302,000
Unemployment reduced by 95% over 6 years thats hardly non productive.

However, there is no doubt that work was created. The Nazis introduced public work schemes for men who worked in the National Labour Service (Reichsarbeitsdienst or RAD). Their work would have included digging ditches on farms to assist irrigation, building the new autobahns, planting new forests etc. The men of the RAD wore a military style uniform, lived in camps near to where they were working and received only what we would term pocket money. However, compared to the lack of success of the Weimar government and the chronic misery of 1931 to 1932, these men felt that at least the Nazi government was making the effort to improve their lot.
Look past the "Nazis are evil" and actually look at what was going on in the country at the time. The world as a whole thought highly enough of them to hold the Olympics there.

The reason Germany was in such a mess after the war is because they didnt know when to quit, they squeezed every last drop out of the nation when it reality it was already too late.
Um how did Germany end up after the war? After all was said and done? Exactly. That was my point. I can't be bothered to find the post where I defended the Nazi's up until the war started based on their ability to rebuild post WW1 Germany. But that's not my point. Taken as a whole, Hitler and the Nazi's were more bad than good for Germany. If they didn't provoke WW2 than Hitler would a German national hero along with Bismark but the ball bounced the way it did.
So your point is that the Nazis were the worst people ever in power because they lost the war whereas Stalin and Mao didnt so they are less evil. :s
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5494|Moscow, Russia

Shocking wrote:

Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines.[99] Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression.[100]
Since he's a Russian I guess that's a more credible source to you, western historians being propagandists and all.
you hit me with numbers, congratulations. now what?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4077|London, England

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Yes he killed a lot of people and starved some more but I don't think he was as bad as Hitler. Only Hitler can be as bad as Hitler. IIRC from the time Stalin took control to the time he died industrial output of Russia increased something like 400%. Sure a lot of people died that shouldn't have but at least he got some positive results. Hitler on the other hand is just the premier example of unproductive militarism.
Disagree massively.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/na … conomy.htm
Unemployment in Germany Total

January 1933 6 million

January 1934 3.3 million

January 1935 2.9 million

January 1936 2.5 million

January 1937 1.8 million

January 1938 1.0 million

January 1939 302,000
Unemployment reduced by 95% over 6 years thats hardly non productive.


Look past the "Nazis are evil" and actually look at what was going on in the country at the time. The world as a whole thought highly enough of them to hold the Olympics there.

The reason Germany was in such a mess after the war is because they didnt know when to quit, they squeezed every last drop out of the nation when it reality it was already too late.
Um how did Germany end up after the war? After all was said and done? Exactly. That was my point. I can't be bothered to find the post where I defended the Nazi's up until the war started based on their ability to rebuild post WW1 Germany. But that's not my point. Taken as a whole, Hitler and the Nazi's were more bad than good for Germany. If they didn't provoke WW2 than Hitler would a German national hero along with Bismark but the ball bounced the way it did.
So your point is that the Nazis were the worst people ever in power because they lost the war whereas Stalin and Mao didnt so they are less evil. :s
Which is kind of funny, because I'd rather live today in either of the two big 'losers' in WWII (Germany and Japan) than either of the winners he picked.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...
The USSR was heavily reliant on western supplies; materials, weapons, vehicles, in enormous numbers. Were these not supplied the eastern front would have failed.

Nevermind the fact that the western front was completely dominated by machinery because, you know, there was an ocean seperating much of Hitler's land from the western allied powers. With the Africa campaign being the only war fought on land up until 1944 in that theater. Raw numbers only tell you so much.
inane little opines
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4305

I didn't say evil. I don't believe in evil. I'm saying their overal impact on their respective people makes Hitler much worse than Stalin and Mao. That's all.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5494|Moscow, Russia

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Shocking wrote:

While I agree with Shahter that WWII was primarily between Germany and USSR, I think it would be fair to say the Nazis lost it rather than the USSR won.
WWII wasn't primarily between the USSR and Germany, that's bollocks.

My opinion is that if any one of these three forces, The US, UK or SU didn't participate in the war the other two that were left over would have lost. Each party was heavily reliant on the other.
The figures speak for themselves.

War dead:

UK 383,800
USA 416,800
France 217,600


Germany 5,530,000

USSR 8,800,000 to 10,700,000
you are a conspiracy nut!
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...

Shahter wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines.[99] Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression.[100]
Since he's a Russian I guess that's a more credible source to you, western historians being propagandists and all.
you hit me with numbers, congratulations. now what?
The point was that the numbers on Stalin's victims weren't 'lies'. As I told you before in another thread, many of them were attained AFTER the cold war because by then historians actually had access to credible data. BEFORE the cold war was over, estimates ranged from 3 million to 60 million because nobody really knew how many actually died. Numbers are now in between 6 and 10 (the gap still being large because the soviets didn't exactly document all that reliably or much at all.)
inane little opines
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5494|Moscow, Russia

Shocking wrote:

The USSR was heavily reliant on western supplies; materials, weapons, vehicles, in enormous numbers.
about 5% of total stuff produced and used in the war by ussr. an enormous part!
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5494|Moscow, Russia

Shocking wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Since he's a Russian I guess that's a more credible source to you, western historians being propagandists and all.
you hit me with numbers, congratulations. now what?
The point was that the numbers on Stalin's victims weren't 'lies'.
have i ever argued with you on that? the numbers are there. now what?

as I told you before in another thread, many of them were attained AFTER the cold war because by then historians actually had access to credible data. BEFORE the cold war was over, estimates ranged from 3 million to 60 million because nobody really knew how many actually died.
and?

Numbers are now in between 6 and 10 (the gap still being large because the soviets didn't exactly document all that reliably or much at all.)
bullshit. people, if anything, were the most crucial resource for ussr, because they couldn't import slaves from africa and didn't have colonies. you are also forgetting the fact that ussr ran a planned economy which required everything accounted for thoroughly. if anything, soviets documented everything a lot better that anyone else.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-23 05:36:05)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...

Shahter wrote:

Shocking wrote:

The USSR was heavily reliant on western supplies; materials, weapons, vehicles, in enormous numbers.
about 5% of total stuff produced and used in the war by ussr. an enormous part!
Uh, much of the Soviet logistics relied on US military trucks, because you know, they produced over 15x as many trucks as you did. It allowed you to move your supplies and people around effectively. Pretty important I would say.
inane little opines
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4077|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

I didn't say evil. I don't believe in evil. I'm saying their overal impact on their respective people makes Hitler much worse than Stalin and Mao. That's all.
Would you have rather lived in West Germany or the USSR after the end of WWII?

Last edited by Jay (2011-06-23 05:36:49)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|5529|Nårvei

So your arguements against well documented facts are just these:

Conspiracy nuts and you don't know shit
This makes for a really intelligent debate on your behalf Shahter ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard