UKC

OK, he killed a lot of people, but he did win the second world war.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

You should watch the film I've recommended on the forum. Samsara

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

He is responsible for more deaths than any other man in history... worse than Hitler. Some estimates total 16 million deaths from the Russians in the war (including killing their own) and between 8-20 million Russians that died outside of the war due to the gulags or famines as a direct result of his actions. He actually killed more Russians than Hitler did!

Though these numbers are only estimates so must be taken with a pinch of salt.

Ask any Pole (I am half Polish) and they hate the Russians more than the Germans for the atrocities they caused.

In reply to crayefish:


The oppression of Poland by Russia and their other neighbours goes back far beyond Stalin. The country has the sad fate of being between rival empires for centuries.


It's true that Poland was pretty much a fascist state before WW2 and anti-Semitism continued even after the end of WW2 in Poland so I would advise taking a pinch of salt concerning what some Poles say about this period of history.

PS. Blaming the 20 million Soviet deaths in WW2 on Stalin seems to be a little economical with the truth... most people would put it down to the invasion of the USSR by Nazi Germany and its allies!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


After the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was taken over, Poland was absorbed, yes. But not on a par with what the Poles suffered under Stalin.


I wouldn't call it fascist, but certainly right wing. Though is was not related to Stalin.


As I said... its up to 16 million. I also made an error there... that included the German deaths at the hands of the Soviets. The 8-20 million was outside of the war era. And yes, the Germans did invade Russia and cause some terrible atrocities but the Russian retaliation was even more brutal.

One must remember that much information about the Soviet atrocities was buried or forgotten because after the war the Brits were keen to keep Stalin as an ally. A war with them was the last thing the west needed and it was not something they could win.

In reply to crayefish:



Including the fact that Britain forcefully repatriated thousands of freed Red Army POWs who had sought refuge in the UK, in the full knowledge that they faced certain execution in the USSR for having surrendered to the German Army during the battles on the Eastern Front. Stalin had issued a directive that there was to be no surrender under any circumstances by any Red Army personal on pain of death.

Thses repatriations were not one of Britain's proudest moments.

In reply to Trangia:


At battles like Stalingrad a sizable proportion of the Russian deaths (not including cold/famine) were due to being shot by their own troops while trying to retreat.


Yeah definitely not a good day for Britain.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Yeah cos only good guys win wars

In reply to crayefish:

Russians and Poles have hated each other for centuries.

I'm sure Mao Tse Tung killed more, but I could be wrong.

In reply to crayefish:


No, it was extreme right with a military tinge, absolutely the opposite to the USSR politically.


Most historians give a figure of 20 million Soviet deaths in WW2. The Nazi invasion, the fighting and all the disruption this caused. I'm not sure what you mean here, you seem to be implying that the Soviet Union was in some way responsible for the deaths it suffered in WW2, fighting to save not only them but us too. Let's not forget that the greater part of the fighting and the battles which turned the tide were fought by the Red Army in the USSR and at the cost of Soviet deaths more than any of the other allies. We owe them a lot, and shouldn't forget it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Agreed.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No. When the crucial battles of WWII were being fought Stalin was still in a peace treaty with Hitler. The Russian people suffered appallingly because of the incompetence and cruelty of their leaders; they survived because of their courage, US largesse and the fact that we didn't succumb in 1940.

If Russia had fallen in 1942 we would still recognisably be here. If we had fallen in 1940 they wouldn't.

In reply to Submit to Gravity: I can't believe this topic is on the UKC forum - there's an incredible amount of s**t talked on here , but this beats it all - if you're that interested in it , as opposed to just bored , sitting at home , trying to provoke a reaction , join an appropriate history forum , there's plenty of em . Mind you , you'd get slaughtered , by people who know what they're talking about , so maybe not ...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Hitler lost the war like Napoleon, by turning on Russia after being thwarted in his plans to invade Britain. The decisive battles, the ones involving huge armies took place on Soviet soil... I think you'll find that the German/Soviet pact was somewhat annulled by Stalingrad. Obviously though the USSR only survived due to Allied help, especially US industrial production, and because Britain's resistance gave them time to move their arms factories East and generally regroup, it was a combined effort of all three Allies who refused fascism. It would be nice if some people would remember this.

Your inaccurate remark is quite odd, one wonders what is behind it?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

This is the first time a thread of mine has been parodied - I really feel like I've arrived

I'm not going to claim any great knowledge here, but Stalin interests me. I've heard that he overrrode his generals and insisted that Hitler would abide by his nonaggression pact right up to the invasion, and when a military deputation turned up at his dacha, he thought he was going to be deposed - but they'd turned up to pledge support, and get on with the job of repelling the German army - a task they were woefully underequipped for.....

Even given Hitler's tactical blunders [obviously never played Risk as a kid] The wehrmacht ought to have won, but the human wave tactics forced them to expend ammo they couldn't afford to, and the scorched earth tactics denied them resources they needed. Eventually their logistical network hit the point of diminishing returns and the rest is history.

My two favourite Stalin quotes are [and I realise they probably aren't accurate] "A hundred deaths is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic" And "Quantity has a quality all of its own". It takes a very special kind of mind to throw men at machine guns until the enemy runs out of ammo - We ridicule the General staff on both sides for doing this in WWI, but the fact remains that it worked here, and a more humane approach probably wouldn't have.

Also Stalin dragged the USSR out of feudalism and into the industrial age. True, he wasn't nice about it, but what used to be the USSR had a long history of harsh rulers, and revolution was still a fresh memory. It's possible that he saved more lives than he took, by imposing a harsh, but relatively stable rule.

Not saying I like the guy, just that he was a product of his time.

P.S Soviet joke - What's the tallest building in any soviet city?

A: The KGB building - because wherever it is, you can see Siberia from it...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Rubbish!

We owe the Russians much more than they owe us. If Hitler had taken Russia he would have had their vast natural resources and a huge pool of slave labour with which to prosecute a war against us.

In reply to Bergvagabunden:

I'm not sure why I'm replying to you, as you are clearly on a higher intellectual plane. It's a parody thread, which if you were as clever as you seem to think you are, you would realise.

I might take your advice on joining a history forum though, despite not realising that it's a competitive activity.

In reply to csw:


I suspect you know rather more about Stalin than you do about present-day teaching of 'religion' in the vast majority of British schools.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I know more about Quantum mechanics than I do about the teaching of religion in present day schools. If I gave the impression that I did know the first thing about it, then I apologise. I know how RE was taught in my school in the 70's and I know that my son had some religious instruction that I wasn't happy about, but that's the sum total of what I know about the subject

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I was talking about deaths at the hands of the Russians, not Russians that died in general (ie. including being killed by Germans).

The point is the Russians didn't only kill German soldiers, they killed millions of their own soldiers (for retreating and other reasons), German and Polish civilians and even partly responsible for the massacre in the Warsaw uprising.

The Russians told the Poles to rise up against the Germans and they would help. Then they just left the Poles to get killed and once it was over and a bunch of Polish and Germans were dead, then they stepped in to much lower opposition.

Not to mention the Katyn forest massacre which was completely buried by the allies. 22,000 Polish officers (the entire army structure basically) and anyone with power were just taken to the forest and shot.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

In my opinion, Hitlers biggest mistake was not pushing on to Moscow when he had for all intents and purposes taken Stalingrad. His ego wanted to take Stalin's city and so he got embroiled in the months of bitter fighting in the city, much to his Generals dismay. This allowed the Red Army to regroup and lay waste to the 4th Army at Kursk. Had he pushed on, Kursk would not have happened.

In reply to brokenbanjo:

There's what appears to be a fairly good account of the Battle of Stalingrad on Wikipedia. I don't know about Moscow but the failure to reach the oil fields in the South seems to me to have been more critical for the Nazi war effort.