Did Communism and Stalin save the world from Nazism ?

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
If Stalin hadn't industrialized the USSR prior to the German invasion, it is doubtful whether the Soviets would have come out alive. Whatever his wartime decisions were, he certainly deserves some credit for that.


Russia is not really inconquerable, from a broader historical perspective. Of course, two invasions failed, one by Napoleon and one by Hitler. Kindly note that the Russians were at one time vassals to the Kazan Khanate.
Russia in those days was a nascent state. It was not the Eurasian superstate that we know today.

What many people don't realize is that Russia's fervent expansionism from the 16th century up to 1945 was a direct result of the threats to its security. It is said that "offence is the best defence", but Russia is probably the only country that has implemented that policy on a conscious, nationwide scale on all levels. By expanding so much, Russia obtained enormous strategic depth, which proved decisive in defending the country from both Napoleon and Hitler.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
If Stalin hadn't industrialized the USSR prior to the German invasion, it is doubtful whether the Soviets would have come out alive. Whatever his wartime decisions were, he certainly deserves some credit for that.




Russia in those days was a nascent state. It was not the Eurasian superstate that we know today.

What many people don't realize is that Russia's fervent expansionism from the 16th century up to 1945 was a direct result of the threats to its security. It is said that "offence is the best defence", but Russia is probably the only country that has implemented that policy on a conscious, nationwide scale on all levels. By expanding so much, Russia obtained enormous strategic depth, which proved decisive in defending the country from both Napoleon and Hitler.
Good points.

If I may add, there are two things that worked in favour of the Russian Empire or USSR, which were huge compared to the nascent Kievan Rus or the Muscovy that were relatively smaller:
  • Severe winters that the Russians can withstand but not many Western Europeans can.
  • Possession of vast swathes of territory extending upto Turkey and Persia south of the Caucasus, Wakhan Corridor (very close to the State of Jammu and Kashmir) in Central Asia and the Pacific Ocean in East Asia, which provided a vital source of resources that can keep the Russian State rolling and capable of withstanding a long and protracted war.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Was Stalin the greatest Russian ever?

Was Stalin the greatest Russian ever?

[DV]<object width="370" height="277"><param name="movie" value="http://rt.com/s/swf/player.swf?file=http://rt.com/files/news/was-stalin-the-greatest-russian-ever/48752d7059d6a.flv&image=http://rt.com/files/news/was-stalin-the-greatest-russian-ever/4874f19f7cbb5.n.jpg&skin=http://developer.longtailvideo.com/trac/changeset/643/skins/beelden?old_path=%2F&provider=http&abouttext=Russia%20Today&aboutlink=http://rt.com&autostart=true"></param><embed src="http://rt.com/s/swf/player.swf?file=http://rt.com/files/news/was-stalin-the-greatest-russian-ever/48752d7059d6a.flv&image=http://rt.com/files/news/was-stalin-the-greatest-russian-ever/4874f19f7cbb5.n.jpg&skin=http://developer.longtailvideo.com/trac/changeset/643/skins/beelden?old_path=%2F&provider=http&abouttext=Russia%20Today&aboutlink=http://rt.com&autostart=true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="370" height="277" /></object>
[/DV]

Published: 09 July, 2008, 17:10
Edited: 14 September, 2010, 10:54


He's often vilified as one of the 20th century's worst tyrants, but it seems that Joseph Stalin has a big following in modern Russia. In a nationwide poll to find the greatest hero in Russian history, the former Soviet leader is leading the pack by a land
Communists are rubbing their hands at the news, while much of the media are sounding alarm bells.

Two months ago, the state-funded Rossiya channel launched the 'Name of Russia' project. On June 12, a shortlist of 50 finalists was announced. Since then a second round of voting has been under way. The winner won't be officially announced until the autumn, but preliminary results show Stalin to be out in front. Way behind in second place is the popular singer and actor Vladimir Vysotsky. Curiously enough, Stalin's 'comrade', Vladimir Lenin, is in third spot.

Not everybody is happy with how the voting is going. Opponents of the poll point to what they say is a serious flaw in the voting procedure: respondents may vote as many times as they want.

It is believed bloggers across Russia are exploiting this loophole. Many Russian websites encourage surfers to vote for this or that candidate. So, Stalin's position at the top of the poll could be the result of a campaign to manipulate the survey.
Such polls are common in Europe. Since 2002 they have been held in the UK, Germany, Ukraine and other European countries.

Source: http://rt.com/news/was-stalin-the-greatest-russian-ever/
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Joseph Stalin (1879 - 1953)

Joseph Stalin (1879 - 1953)

BBC History

One of the most powerful and murderous dictators in history, Stalin was the supreme ruler of the Soviet Union for a quarter of a century. His regime of terror caused the death and suffering of tens of millions, but he also oversaw the war machine that played a key role in the defeat of Nazism.

Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili was born on 18 December 1879 in Gori, Georgia, which was then part of the Russian empire. His father was a cobbler and Stalin grew up in modest circumstances. He studied at a theological seminary where he began to read Marxist literature. He never graduated, instead devoting his time to the revolutionary movement against the Russian monarchy. He spent the next 15 years as an activist and on a number of occasions was arrested and exiled to Siberia.

Stalin was not one of the decisive players in the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917, but he soon rose through the ranks of the party. In 1922, he was made general secretary of the Communist Party, a post not considered particularly significant at the time but which gave him control over appointments and thus allowed him to build up a base of support. After Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin promoted himself as his political heir and gradually outmanoeuvred his rivals. By the late 1920s, Stalin was effectively the dictator of the Soviet Union.

His forced collectivisation of agriculture cost millions of lives, while his programme of rapid industrialisation achieved huge increases in Soviet productivity and economic growth but at great cost. Moreover, the population suffered immensely during the Great Terror of the 1930s, during which Stalin purged the party of 'enemies of the people', resulting in the execution of thousands and the exile of millions to the gulag system of slave labour camps.

These purges severely depleted the Red Army, and despite repeated warnings, Stalin was ill prepared for Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941. His political future, and that of the Soviet Union, hung in the balance, but Stalin recovered to lead his country to victory. The human cost was enormous, but was not a consideration for him.

After World War Two, the Soviet Union entered the nuclear age and ruled over an empire which included most of eastern Europe. Increasingly paranoid, Stalin died of a stroke on 5 March 1953.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/stalin_joseph.shtml
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
^^In my opinion the greatest Russian ever is Lenin, not Stalin.

He deserves credit for having the tremendous vision and willpower to forge the world's first constitutionally socialist state, and for laying the groundwork that transformed Russia from a backwards agrarian society to a global superpower.

Russia and the other SSRs would have been much better off if Leon Trotsky had succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin, as was planned. Stalin ruined Lenin's vision and gave communism an extremely bad reputation, which it still has today.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
^^ Me too. What I posted above were what I got from different sources, and are not necessarily my opinions. Although I'll give credit to Stalin where it is due, V. I. Lenin stands ahead of all the great Russian politicians.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Again, good points. Yes, Stalin did certain things that did not particularly help the Soviet Red Army. It is controversial why he did that. The reasons were many were sympathetic to the former Tsarist Russian Empire and Stalin did not have much confidence in their loyalty to the USSR. One needs to keep in mind that many Caucasians Ethnic Groups and the Ukrainian Guards were collaborating with the Germans.

I would like to ask you in particular and everyone in general: If it hadn't been for an authoritarian man like Stalin but a democratic man like Gorbachev, would the USSR have succeeded in defeating the Germans?

Once we satisfactorily answer this question, we can shed a lot of light on whether USSR would have fared better had it not been for Stalin.

I agree, I think we should all stick to the point. I guess, my thesis is: Stalin's savagery or brutality had a marginal, if any, effect upon the eventual outcome. Germany's defeat was a product of its strategic decision. And that strategic decision was motivated by the constraints it faced.


Russia is not really inconquerable, from a broader historical perspective. Of course, two invasions failed, one by Napoleon and one by Hitler. Kindly note that the Russians were at one time vassals to the Kazan Khanate.
Yes, but an important point to remember: is that even at its zenith, the Kazan Khanate occupied a fraction of what then became pre-WW2 Soviet Russia. Besides, the Golden Horde was a nomadic force, never occupying but rather moving from place to place, the only populated centres in what later became the Kazan Khanate, being around the Volga-Kama region. And even then, its politics was at times dominated by factions favourable to Moscow, and at times factions favourable to other Tatar polities like the Crimean Khanate.
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
Its hard to conclude if communism/Stalin saved the world from Nazism.
Few questions & to-be scenarios makes it hard to decide what would have been fate of most of the world.


But the key question to ask is: would Russia have collapsed?
Spot on. IMO this would have just posponed on-going Eurasian battle into even long-streached war. Sooner or later large scale conflicts would have arised between Soviets & Germany-contolled regions.

--

Also I would also like to add to ejazr's nice post that -

Indeed, basis to fight war was all different for Soviets, Germans, Brits, America & Japan.
Soviet armies were fighting out of National identity while German War machine was turned into even more desperate to control more & more resources. British were on larger loosing end from begining itself.

--


World was saved (?) from Nazism not just beacause of Soviet & several resons but appreciably because of flaws later developed in Nazi internal/external operations.
 
Last edited:

ashdoc

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
2,980
Likes
3,682
Country flag
IMO, if it hadn't been for Stalin, the Soviets would have fared far better. It was Stalin who initiated the purge of top Generals in the Red Army, seriously affecting it's ability to fight. It's also Stalin who refused to believe the German attack was imminent, even when the entire Wehrmacht was massing on the Russian border. The initial collapse of the Red Army would not have occurred without Stalin.
i think these are important points .
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
worth pondering which was lesser of two evil? Stalinist communism or Hitlers nazism?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
I agree, I think we should all stick to the point. I guess, my thesis is: Stalin's savagery or brutality had a marginal, if any, effect upon the eventual outcome. Germany's defeat was a product of its strategic decision. And that strategic decision was motivated by the constraints it faced.
True. Stalin's savagery or brutality had a marginal impact, which probably can be limited to instances like transporting the Chechens to the Steppes of Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (whether it was justified or not is controversial).

However, firstly, Stalin's policy of industrialisation of the USSR that started long before Germany invaded USSR was definitely responsible for enabling a Soviet victory. Secondly, Stalin's wartime planning to relocate key factories to the east of the Urals also helped the USSR keep the supply of weapons and armaments when much of European USSR was ravaged.

An interesting article that shed's light on Stalin's Contingency War Plans: Stalin's secret metro can be open for public in Moscow
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
worth pondering which was lesser of two evil? Stalinist communism or Hitlers nazism?
Yusuf, supposing you were forced to chose the better of the two, which one would you chose?
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Yusuf, supposing you were forced to chose the better of the two, which one would you chose?
Devil and the deep sea mate. Ultimately both were dictators. But a major difference between hitler and stalin is that if we minus the anti semetism and holocaust, hitler didn't kill is own people read christian germans. Stalin killed his own people. Created a perfect police state.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Devil and the deep sea mate. Ultimately both were dictators. But a major difference between hitler and stalin is that if we minus the anti semetism and holocaust, hitler didn't kill is own people read christian germans. Stalin killed his own people. Created a perfect police state.
I know. I keep asking myself this question again and again and can never get a satisfactory answer. Dictators are never good in the humanitarian perspective, yet products of dictatorial regimes are traits like efficiency, punctuality and discipline which has always been the Achilles Heel of democracy.

P.S.: Well, I'd consider the German Jews technically his own people too, but then that's me because I cannot accept people from the same country treated as first class and second class citizens.

Anyways, to get back to the point, what do you think would have happened had it not been Stalin but Gorbachev at that point of time?
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
/\/\/\ The question we should ask ourselves is whether this world is a good place without them? I think, Yes.

Pmaitra, actions depend on not only reactions, but cultural upbringing and a state's ideologies. I have no doubt Gorbachev would have done the same, had he been in place of Stalin. It was those times you see!
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
/\/\/\ The question we should ask ourselves is whether this world is a good place without them? I think, Yes.

Pmaitra, actions depend on not only reactions, but cultural upbringing and a state's ideologies. I have no doubt Gorbachev would have done the same, had he been in place of Stalin. It was those times you see!
Interesting. Yes, I agree that men are products of their times. Interestingly, Gorbachev was the only Soviet President or Premier who was born in the USSR and not in the Russian Empire. Surely, that reflected in his pacifist policies and this further supports whatever you just said.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
I know. I keep asking myself this question again and again and can never get a satisfactory answer. Dictators are never good in the humanitarian perspective, yet products of dictatorial regimes are traits like efficiency, punctuality and discipline which has always been the Achilles Heel of democracy.

P.S.: Well, I'd consider the German Jews technically his own people too, but then that's me because I cannot accept people from the same country treated as first class and second class citizens.

Anyways, to get back to the point, what do you think would have happened had it not been Stalin but Gorbachev at that point of time?
Western democracy is efficient. Its an excuse in democracies like india.

No doubt that the jews were his own men and there is no two doubts on that, but that was his mindset about jews. Stalin was not bothered about any particular community, ethnicity but just his grip on power. He terrorized his entire country. Nazis on the other hand didn't terrorize their own men but the world.
what should also be thought about is the general populations support to hitler which was genuine to a large extent but stalin ruled by imbibing fear in the minds of the people.

In the end it was about two individuals and their lust for power and the means that they adopted to achieve their goals.
Hitler wanted to rule the world, I am not sure if stalin had any thoughts of capturing large chunks of land and bring it under his rule.

I think threads could be opened to discuss both nazism and stalinist communism separately.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
Despite my previous posts in this thread, it dawned on me that I have yet to answer the original question:

Did communism -and Stalin-save the world from nazism ?.
First, I consider the question itself to be flawed, because it equates Stalin with "communism". Strictly speaking, Stalin and communism are unrelated, as Stalin did not create the communist ideology as Hitler, for example, created the Nazi ideology. Stalin merely took advantage of an existing system and used it to further his own means, even if it meant bastardizing the original ideology. Stalin's general policy in the USSR cannot be considered "communism"; rather, I refer to Stalin's general policy as "totalitarian collectivism".

Now, to answer the question itself, it was not Stalin nor the Soviet system that saved the world from Nazism; in fact, both those things probably hurt the Soviet Union more than they "helped". What really allowed the Soviet Union to win was the willpower and sacrifices of the average Soviet citizen, the unique geography of the Soviet Union, the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union, and a determined and highly-motivated High Command.

Of these four factors, Stalin and his system were responsible for only one: the wide-scale industrialization of the USSR prior to WWII.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
True. Stalin's savagery or brutality had a marginal impact, which probably can be limited to instances like transporting the Chechens to the Steppes of Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (whether it was justified or not is controversial).

However, firstly, Stalin's policy of industrialisation of the USSR that started long before Germany invaded USSR was definitely responsible for enabling a Soviet victory. Secondly, Stalin's wartime planning to relocate key factories to the east of the Urals also helped the USSR keep the supply of weapons and armaments when much of European USSR was ravaged.

An interesting article that shed's light on Stalin's Contingency War Plans: Stalin's secret metro can be open for public in Moscow

All of that is true, but I think it is worthwhile remembering the OP's original post.

I'm going to quote the original post here:

Recently I was reading a history of the second world war . While reading it , what becomes clear is the fact that the war had to be won or lost in Russia . More than 3/4ths of the german army was fighting against the Russians , with less than 1/4ths deployed on all other fronts put together .


Had Russia collapsed , the the americans and the british would have been utterly incapable of liberating europe , as they would have been unable to face the might of the full german war machine .


America would have remained protected by its distance from europe . But thats about it . Britain would have had to make peace with germany , on german terms , while eurasia would have been dominated by germany and its allies . Only Russia really stood between germany and final victory....


.......And the war in Russia was fought with unprecedented brutality by the germans . It was a war of annihilation . Millions died in the fighting , and millions more were slaughtered in cold blood .


In the initial months of the fighting itself, millions of russians were killed , and millions more were marched into captivity , where they eventually died due to appalling conditions .


It is unlikely that a democratic regime or even a monarchy like the czar would have been able to stomach the collossal losses , and remain in the fight . In the first world war , the regime ruled by the czar collapsed before the german advance , and revolution occurred . In the second world war too ,the democratic regimes of countries like france , netherlands and belgium quickly surrendered before the germans , and britain was saved only because it lay across the sea .


Only the communists , and above all the indomitable dictator , Stalin had the brutality and the sheer willpower to force the russian people to fight on inspite of unbelievable losses. By the most inhuman methods , incapable for a democracy , did stalin enforce among his people the will to fight ?


For example , all units had to stand and fight and hold their ground. Any unit , if it was encircled by germans , had to stay and hold its ground . If it fought its way out of the encirclement , all its men were shot dead , inspite of their bravery in fighting out of the german encirclement . Among the civilian population , anyone who did not co-operate with the war effort was rounded up and shot .


It is obvious that only a brutal regime like the communists , and above all their brutal dictator Stalin , would have been able to make and enforce such rules . A democratic regime , or even a monarchy like the czar would have lacked the brutality for enacting such laws , and enforcing them .


And it is difficult to imagine russia surviving against germany without such cruel discipline . So do we owe nazism's defeat to the commies ??

It is also worth remembering, that even while Stalin did authorize the Five Year plan, even more important than the relocation of factories to the Ural mountains, was the fact that the Soviet Union now possessed vastly more superior technology.

Ironically, the Soviets got much of their technology from the Germans. Before WWII, and infact ever since 1918 under Enver Pasha: intermediary for von Seeckt and Moscow; and Viktor Kopp under the RSFSR, Germany and the USSR had military and economic exchanges. Kopp in particular succeeded in establishing several Soviet-German joint ventures under his cover offices in Riga, Berlin and Lithuania. Germany, being more technologically advanced, provided the USSR with industrial and military technology and trained Soviet officers in modern warfare. In return, the USSR exported many resources (aluminium, magnesium and grain) to Germany. Soviet supporters for a secret (or at least unpublicized) partnership with Germany included Lenin, Trotsky, Dzerzhinski, Frunze and a host of others. So, Lenin, not Stalin, could be first credited with obtaining German technology. Although, Stalin did continue with the prospect, right until the Barbarossa Invasion.

When Germany invaded the USSR, all Soviet imports into Germany ceased and this was to be the downfall of Germany's war effort. By contrast, the Soviets now with a modern industry and military was able to win the war against their more experienced, but exhausted German counterparts.

Yes, the dismantling and removal of military industries to the Urals, Central Asia and Siberia was a tremendous feat of logistical prowess. But, the continual of those operations during wartime, the dismantling of the factories themselves and the churning out of millions of goods during the war to the point of Soviet T-34 tanks outnumbering German panzers 100:1 during its latter stages, would not have been possible without German technology.
 
Last edited:

neo29

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
1,284
Likes
30
Communism and Nazism are 2 sides of a coin. In reality they never got along. Both are against the primary human right of freedom of speech. Nazism is out but now communism needs to be wiped out.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top