Curious on non-USian's answers

[Kosmit]

Now WWII, you'd have a point there. US history classes barely mention that Russia was invaded, much less how influential that front was in the war.

What bothers me more is that Hitler is made out to be the biggest bad guy of WWII, while what he did is nothing compared to how many people died under Stalin's command.

[Pwolf]

I honestly don't think my history classes went over the War of 1812 at all. If they did then it was along the lines of "Oh yea, we were invaded in 1812... Now lets move on to Westward Expansion..." I remember a lot of euro stuff but not a whole lot until WWI was covered. even then, WWI wasn't really covered in great detail either. My classes spent a lot of time covering the great depression and what led up to it rather then the war itself. WWII was another story, we had that beaten down our brains like there was no tomorrow.

Now WWII, you'd have a point there. US history classes barely mention that Russia was invaded, much less how influential that front was in the war.

What bothers me more is that Hitler is made out to be the biggest bad guy of WWII, while what he did is nothing compared to how many people died under Stalin's command.

iirc and excuse my ignorance if I'm completely off, while the majority of the casualties during the war were under Stalin's rule, Russia was getting their ass handed to them by Germany. At the time they needed people to fight back and stand their ground. I don't really believe that killing their own soldiers while they retreated was the best way to go about it but if that was going to get people to hold Germany back, then desperate times call for desperate measures. Russia also had way more soldiers then they had guns to give them so a lot of them went into battle with nothing but a knife and maybe a few rounds of ammo for a gun they didn't have. Of course there's more to it then just that but the point being looking at just the amount of casualties doesn't really make Stalin that bad compared to Hitler who tried to wipe out an entire group of people for no reason.

[mirkosp]

Now WWII, you'd have a point there. US history classes barely mention that Russia was invaded, much less how influential that front was in the war.

What bothers me more is that Hitler is made out to be the biggest bad guy of WWII, while what he did is nothing compared to how many people died under Stalin's command.

iirc and excuse my ignorance if I'm completely off, while the majority of the casualties during the war were under Stalin's rule, Russia was getting their ass handed to them by Germany. At the time they needed people to fight back and stand their ground. I don't really believe that killing their own soldiers while they retreated was the best way to go about it but if that was going to get people to hold Germany back, then desperate times call for desperate measures. Russia also had way more soldiers then they had guns to give them so a lot of them went into battle with nothing but a knife and maybe a few rounds of ammo for a gun they didn't have. Of course there's more to it then just that but the point being looking at just the amount of casualties doesn't really make Stalin that bad compared to Hitler who tried to wipe out an entire group of people for no reason.

I think he was referring to Gulags...

[Pwolf]

I think he was referring to Gulags...

Ahh, yes how could I forget -_- I was looking at military casualties as Stalin "being a bad guy" rather then civilians. 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.

[Garylisk]

I was in honors history in senior year of high school, and we covered WWII in great detail, including Russia, but I think the basic history classes do sort of glaze over it.

[Kosmit]

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.

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...

[Otohiko]

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.

[Pwolf]

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.

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.

[Kosmit]

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.

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.

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.

[Pwolf]

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

Agreed