Curious on non-USian's answers

This forum is for members to discuss topics that do not relate to anime music videos.

Re: Curious on non-USian's answers

Postby Kosmit » Thu May 27, 2010 7:59 am

mirkosp wrote:I think he was referring to Gulags...

That and the fact that Poland and many other central/eastern Europe countries were pretty much fucked under communist rules for half a century. Somehow I keep getting the impression that Americans beleive Stalin to be quite a good guy cause he defeated Hitler, but fail to notice what Russia has done to US's allies.

Pwolf wrote:But again, iirc, Stalin didn't target a specific group of people and the total number of casualties from the Gulags (which also consisted of actual criminals and not just POWs and innocent civilians) during the war wasn't even close to the number of innocent civilians killed by Hitler's holocaust. Not to say Stalin wasn't a bad guy overall, he has somewhere around 40 million deaths associated to his name during his time as ruler but as far as being the big bad guy of WWII? I think Hitler still takes the cake.

Well according to various sources the number of holocaust victims varies between 11 and 17 million. That's pretty far from 40 mil if you ask me...
User avatar
Kosmit
Slippery Pole
 
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Location: Pole land
Status: Punching your salad

Re: Curious on non-USian's answers

Postby Otohiko » Thu May 27, 2010 9:01 am

What I like to remind people though is that there is a crucial difference between Hitler and Stalin: Stalin was an equal-opportunity killer, and just as most of the population under his control was Russian, so did Russians bear the brunt of his repressions. His own compatriot Georgians likewise got no little measure of it. Party members and political allies got disproportionate attention, as did anyone who was good at attracting attention generally. It's also worth noting that by the time WWII was over and occupation of Eastern Europe began, by far the worst and most fatal of Stalin's repressions were long over (having happened in the mid-30s, well within Soviet borders). His goals were never genocidal, and the repressions, while brutal, were of a political character and aimed at keeping in line, not destroying populations in favour of other populations. He did aim actions at ethnic groups (see relocation of Chechens and several other nationalities), but those were again mostly to keep them in line, to destroy identity rather than actually destroy the populations. And he wasn't terribly successful at it, probably kept back by more 'real' political needs. Arguably the only national identity he'd actually succeeded at destroying was Russian. Otherwise everyone got fucked, sure. And as bad as this was, if you were a Slav (let alone Jew), you had a far better chance of surviving and even having a normal life under even the worst period of Soviet history than you did under German occupation. Sure Eastern Europe was fucked for the next 50 years, but look at them today. People are able to identify themselves as Poles, Czechs, even Ukrainians. The cultures took a bit of a beating but in all fairness, have survived relatively intact. I think we all know what would have happened if Hitler had actually succeeded in his plans.

That's not to defend Stalin, but I think seeing him as the greater, not lesser of two evils is pretty preposterous. Poland and others got a terrible deal from the end of WWII, sure, but incomparably more acceptable than Hitler's eventual plans for them. The actual histories of German and Soviet occupation of the same territories are absolutely incomparable. Last I checked, for example, Stalin did not get anywhere near feats like destroying a quarter of the population of Belarus in just 3 years of occupation (which the Germans did, while also busy fighting a war elsewhere - and that's a figure well short of the actual goals of Nazi policy there). And blaming "Russia" for the party's wrongs is even more preposterous - Russians as such bore the brunt of it and, compared to many other nations had suffered much more significant cultural damage from Stalin's repressions than anyone.
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Re: Curious on non-USian's answers

Postby Pwolf » Thu May 27, 2010 10:21 am

Kosmit wrote:
mirkosp wrote:I think he was referring to Gulags...

That and the fact that Poland and many other central/eastern Europe countries were pretty much fucked under communist rules for half a century. Somehow I keep getting the impression that Americans beleive Stalin to be quite a good guy cause he defeated Hitler, but fail to notice what Russia has done to US's allies.

Pwolf wrote:But again, iirc, Stalin didn't target a specific group of people and the total number of casualties from the Gulags (which also consisted of actual criminals and not just POWs and innocent civilians) during the war wasn't even close to the number of innocent civilians killed by Hitler's holocaust. Not to say Stalin wasn't a bad guy overall, he has somewhere around 40 million deaths associated to his name during his time as ruler but as far as being the big bad guy of WWII? I think Hitler still takes the cake.

Well according to various sources the number of holocaust victims varies between 11 and 17 million. That's pretty far from 40 mil if you ask me...


We're talking WWII. When you look at just 5-6 years of the war, the number of innocent civilians killed under Stalin is a far-cry away from Hitler. The being said, Stalin was never taught to us as being a good guy but when you look at just WWII, he's not at the top of the list of bad guys either.
ImageImage
ImageImage
Like the AMV .Org App? Think about donating to help me make it better.
User avatar
Pwolf
Friendly Neighborhood Pwaffle
 
Joined: 03 May 2001
Location: Some where in California, I forgot :\

Re: Curious on non-USian's answers

Postby Kosmit » Thu May 27, 2010 10:48 am

Otohiko wrote:What I like to remind people though is that there is a crucial difference between Hitler and Stalin: Stalin was an equal-opportunity killer, and just as most of the population under his control was Russian, so did Russians bear the brunt of his repressions. His own compatriot Georgians likewise got no little measure of it.

I'm not denying the fact that he probably killed more of his own than people of any other. Truth be told, that probably makes it even worse.

Otohiko wrote:And as bad as this was, if you were a Slav (let alone Jew), you had a far better chance of surviving and even having a normal life under even the worst period of Soviet history than you did under German occupation. Sure Eastern Europe was fucked for the next 50 years, but look at them today. People are able to identify themselves as Poles, Czechs, even Ukrainians. The cultures took a bit of a beating but in all fairness, have survived relatively intact. I think we all know what would have happened if Hitler had actually succeeded in his plans.

That's a bit of a controversial statement. When Poland was occupied during WWII many people actually fled form the soviet occupation zone to the german side. The reason for that was the Germans were cruel and all, but they at least had a set of rules that they more or less followed. That wasn't neccesarily the case where the reds were.

Otohiko wrote:That's not to defend Stalin, but I think seeing him as the greater, not lesser of two evils is pretty preposterous.

I guess it depends on your point of view. I, being Polish, probably am a bit biased against Stalin and Russia due to the... hmmm... eventful history between the two countries (no offence Oto). So, saying Stalin is lesser of the two evils strikes me as horribly wrong. Not to blow this discussion out of proportion, I guess it's a safe bet to say both were murderous basterds, although with slightly different goals.
User avatar
Kosmit
Slippery Pole
 
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Location: Pole land
Status: Punching your salad

Re: Curious on non-USian's answers

Postby Pwolf » Thu May 27, 2010 11:46 am

Kosmit wrote:... I guess it's a safe bet to say both were murderous basterds, although with slightly different goals.


Agreed :P
ImageImage
ImageImage
Like the AMV .Org App? Think about donating to help me make it better.
User avatar
Pwolf
Friendly Neighborhood Pwaffle
 
Joined: 03 May 2001
Location: Some where in California, I forgot :\

Re: Curious on non-USian's answers

Postby godix » Thu May 27, 2010 2:36 pm

I think which is worse is all a matter of perspective. Does sheer body count make you worse? In that case, Stalin wins by a long shot. Does what was intended make you worse? Hitler probably would be worse given what his goals were. Sheer coldhearted indifference? Probably Hitler, his methods were so mechanical. Stalin seems to have understood he was killing people, he didn't care but he did understand. Hitler seemed like he was a plant manager. It wasn't people he was having killed, it was part #4295301 that he was discarding.

Regardless, I wish either of their parents had a still birth instead.
Image
User avatar
godix
a disturbed member
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2002

Re: Curious on non-USian's answers

Postby 8bit_samurai » Thu May 27, 2010 9:12 pm

If there's something video games taught me, it's that even if either of their parents had still birth, someone would take their place. For instance, if there was no Hitler, then there would be the Brotherhood of Nod, and if there were no Stalin, there would be Yuri, and if there were no Yuri, there would be Emperor Yoshiro/Crown Prince Tatsu, etc. etc.
Under Construction
User avatar
8bit_samurai
Hmm...
 
Joined: 17 May 2006
Location: Alaska

Re: Curious on non-USian's answers

Postby Otohiko » Thu May 27, 2010 9:27 pm

And well, if Poland teaches us anything... it didn't take Stalin for Poles to be mad at Russians - they'd been perfectly good imperialist jerks in occupying Poland (under not-much-better circumstances) for a good 150 years prior. And the Tsarist regime was no cakewalk and honestly is treated far too leniently by history, all because of how good it looked compared to Stalin :P

European history is messy and dirty, and I honestly think that if it taught me anything, it's that noone's hands are clean. I just prefer that credit is given where it's due, and that historical figures and events are seen in proper light and without too much ideology. As WWII goes, I don't think there was a "good" side, but there was a side that was infinitely preferable and that wouldn't have worked without compromise and cooperation of all the Allies. While the West likes to sideline Russia's role, I'm also often ticked at Russians sidelining the West's role. Fortunately there's also many Russians who remember and appreciate the US's lend-lease input. It didn't provide for the bulk of Russian materiel at the crucial stage of the war, but it was just the right extra bit at the right time. It was really that last keystone that held the whole front together when it really mattered, and I hope Russians don't forget that.

In general, while "US saving everybody" is IMHO a huge misreading of WWII, by the same token people also often don't give the US proper credit. Militarily I don't think the US really achieved anything huge in WWII (in Europe, anyway) and anything they may have done really pales in comparison to what Soviets did (and people also like to think that the Soviets ended up winning by sending more cannon fodder to the front than the Germans - which is VERY unfair to Soviet tactical and strategic effectiveness of the late war). This doesn't take away from some of the individual and collective military successes and sacrifices that the US achieved of course, but what people really need to remember is the massive material and industrial input that the US threw into WWII. Maybe people just forget that because "the US workers and builders won WWII" sounds too communist. :roll:
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Re: Curious on non-USian's answers

Postby mirkosp » Thu May 27, 2010 9:40 pm

To sum it up:

Image

YOU'RE WINNER!
Image
User avatar
mirkosp
MODkip
 
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Location: Gallarate (VA), Italy
Status: (」・ワ・)」(⊃・ワ・)⊃

Re: Curious on non-USian's answers

Postby godix » Fri May 28, 2010 3:44 am

Otohiko wrote:In general, while "US saving everybody" is IMHO a huge misreading of WWII, by the same token people also often don't give the US proper credit. Militarily I don't think the US really achieved anything huge in WWII (in Europe, anyway) and anything they may have done really pales in comparison to what Soviets did (and people also like to think that the Soviets ended up winning by sending more cannon fodder to the front than the Germans - which is VERY unfair to Soviet tactical and strategic effectiveness of the late war).

The only thing the US did in Europe is accelerate the obvious conclusion to the war. Hitler was beat before we got in. Now Japan, we pretty much can claim sole credit for that (well, Australia too), even if we did rush a bit in the end there to finish it before Russia joined in.

And to be fair, in the early stages of the war Russia did send tons of cannon fodder to the front. That and practicing a scorched earth policy on their own cities is what kept them from being defeated. Tactics, equipment, and strategy came later. In the beginning, it was little more than an attitude of 'So what if 10 of ours are killed for every one of theirs, we can always have more babies...'
Image
User avatar
godix
a disturbed member
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2002

Re: Curious on non-USian's answers

Postby BurningLeaves » Fri May 28, 2010 9:06 pm

Otohiko wrote:In general, while "US saving everybody" is IMHO a huge misreading of WWII...



I believe number 5 would apply here.

5 most widely believed WWII facts that are actually bullshit
User avatar
BurningLeaves
 
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Location: New York

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest