WWII Russia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polaris

Russia won a little of German! Could be worse :\

The main question I think would be what if Hitler would have won the war!

I do remember a document where a guy said that after a Stalin speach they all had to clap for more than half an hour like they clapped and clapped and clapped even if they were tired they had to keep clapping and of course one would be tired enought o stop clapping and then the police would take that man who stopped clapping first and arrest him!

---

That sounds like a true story. Stalin during his purges was absolutely crazy. People would disappear in the middle of the night and never be seen again. Little girls would go on trial even for plotting against Stalin and stuff like that I think.

And then he chucked loads (millions) of people in the Gulags to die. He also made his people work like dogs for very little reward.


But Stalin wasnt all bad news. Some of the stuff he did helped prepare Russia against the Nazis.

Quote:

---

Some of the stuff he did helped prepare Russia against the Nazis.

---

Yes he was a bit like Salazar like well we don't want to be too involved but you know we don't get in your territory but you don't come into ours as well! ^^ Salazar even accpeted a Merecedes I think from Hitler but in the end he helped a lot of jewish... of course he also got some of their money but oh well...

alright, i finished up my powerpoint, but i cant post it as an attachment because it says its an invalid file =/

Attachments aren't working darling! ;) Do you have a 4shared account? Might help ^^

nope im afraid not =/ ill have to try attachments later on, its due tomorrow :x

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivisteiner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polaris

Russia won a little of German! Could be worse :\

The main question I think would be what if Hitler would have won the war!

I do remember a document where a guy said that after a Stalin speach they all had to clap for more than half an hour like they clapped and clapped and clapped even if they were tired they had to keep clapping and of course one would be tired enought o stop clapping and then the police would take that man who stopped clapping first and arrest him!

---

That sounds like a true story. Stalin during his purges was absolutely crazy. People would disappear in the middle of the night and never be seen again. Little girls would go on trial even for plotting against Stalin and stuff like that I think.

---

True... Not sure about the rumor, but the arrests, absolutely true.

Quote:

---

And then he chucked loads (millions) of people in the Gulags to die. He also made his people work like dogs for very little reward.

---

Make the reward 200 g of black bread (and not a fact that you'll get the whole of your share, kitchen steals), a bowl of porridge (again, kitchen steals), and 2 bowls of the stuff that can be hardly considered something even to be thrown away, let alone soup or anything of that sorts.

I knew that all from reading a book by one of the people who made it though all of this, "The Gulug Archipelago" by Alexander Soljenitsyn (though I'm unsure about how his name is spelled...) (Lib.Ru: Àëåêñàíäð Ñîëæåíèöûí Even if you know Russian, read with caution, it's VERY horrifying) And I know that Hitler borrowed some of his ideas of what to do with Jews and other prisoners from what Stalin did.

:save: Selena

Russia was caught off guard at the start of the second World War as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentop (Nazi-Soviet Pact) signed in 1939 between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Basically it was an agreement between the two powers to divide up recently created Poland between the two of them. The British Empire and France declared war on Germany whilst Russia focussed on its neighbouring countries when in 1939 it declared war on Finland (The Winter War) and in 1940 when it occupied Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Encouraged by Russia's poor showing against the Finnish and making little progress on the Western Front after the defeat of France, facing an increasingly impossible invasion of Great Brtain (Operation Sea Lion), Hitler embarked upon Operation Barbarossa to invade the USSR. Stalin was - by all accounts - outraged and mostly unprepared when invaded in 1941. Traditionally Russia has had a massive but ill-equipped and unprepared military (as was the case in WWI) and so were unable to effectively mount a resistance against a German invasion.

The turning point really came at the Battle of Stalingrad. The Russian city was surrounded by the Germans following their swift invasion of Russia, but the battle erupted into the bloodiest battle in history. Hundreds of thousands were killed including many civilians. More detail on Stalingrad that evades me shouldn't be too difficult to find online. The tide turned on the Germans into 1942 and the Russians began a swift and overwhelming counter-invasion of Eastern Europe, eventually occupying Berlin in 1945.

Quote:

---

True... Not sure about the rumor, but the arrests, absolutely true.

---

That was probly my history teacher getting carried away. :p

I dont think they went on trial actually. I think they just disappeared.

You cannot say that Stalin helped prepare the SU against the nazi's. He comitted worse genocide than the Nazi's did. He let millions be killed by starvation. He became paranoid and killed off all the people closest to him. Then he sent unarmed men into battle against Germans with tanks and Machine guns and shot anyone who turned back.

His regime might be less known than the Nazi one, but it was just as bad.

^I never said he wasnt worse than Hitler. He killed more people for a start, and I dont deny he was a terrible man. But he did do some important things that did prepare Russia. I studied Russia in the period leading up to World War II, and his attempts to industrialise Russia did not have wholly negative connotations.

Stalin's main atrocities were his purges and the murdering of all those people. But in terms of industrialising Russia, he succeeded. Sure, it didnt all go to plan, and huge numbers died working under him but after it was all finished they did reap the benefits from what he did in terms of vastly improved production of raw materials. Focussing purely on Russia's industry, there is a case to be made for Stalin being more of a helper than a hindrance.

Looking at Stalin's rule as a whole though, he definitely was a terrible, terrible person. You just cant portray him in a simplistic, one dimensional way like you did there.

Saying the things he did for war were good is like saying that Hitler industrializing Germany was good, that America creating the atom bomb was good. They all leaded to scientific and industrial progress, but that doesnt make the action right.

Actually those things by virtue of the advancements they produced could be argued as being generally positive, even if they had negative aspects. Even though the Atomic Bomb was created with the intent to destroy, and its victims were horribly disfigured, vaporized, or died from poisoning, one could argue that it led to one of the more stable parts of the century. Pardon my twisted thinking, but a 1v1 with weapons whose true potential was completely unknown is way better than a 2v2v3v2v3v2v5v6v1v2. MAD? Economic push in wartime? You know that the States were at their economic height in the 60s and 70s, right? Furthermore, the absolute desire to surpass the other bloc led to extraordinary advances in all fields of science. These are good things with bad elements. Advancement is generally good.

Furthermore, Hitler was elected by the people of Germany. It seems that people decide to ignore this fact; TIME magazine, iirc, chose him as a Man of the Year in the 30s. He did do good things; he brought the people out of depression, solved many an economic problem, re-industrialized Germany for the future, and united the country which had more or less been split apart, quibbling and arguing over petty things. These were all good things, and are what leaders should have been expected to do. If Europe said no to all of Hitler's "I want this I want that" instead of appeasing him, Germany could have been stable for the next 70 years. Does that make what Hitler had done at that point done a bad thing? One should not confuse context with individual actions.

If you want to talk about horrible things, where's what the Communists did in China; the Great Leap Forward, "New Science"? Apparently whatever is the boldest is the most successful! Greater Eastern Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? Hi Japan! So, let's talk about the Filipino-American War. Ever knew that existed? Ohh, how about modern atrocities? Wouldn't take much effort at all, and yet, a one-dimensional view of Hitler and Stalin having created ONLY evil must be true. Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tavrobel

Furthermore, Hitler was elected by the people of Germany. It seems that people decide to ignore this fact; TIME magazine, iirc, chose him as a Man of the Year in the 30s. He did do good things; he brought the people out of depression, solved many an economic problem, re-industrialized Germany for the future, and united the country which had more or less been split apart, quibbling and arguing over petty things. These were all good things, and are what leaders should have been expected to do. If Europe said no to all of Hitler's "I want this I want that" instead of appeasing him, Germany could have been stable for the next 70 years. Does that make what Hitler had done at that point done a bad thing? One should not confuse context with individual actions.

---

Hitler got elected because France hold the Ruhrgebied after the First world war. People were starving because of payments they had to give to France and England. Hitler had a good economics, because he fueled the machine of war. He opened factories for Tanks and weapons, indoctrinated the people and took back the Ruhrgebied. If France and England had retaliated immediatly, there would have been no economic upliving. He was a leader that united the people by giving them someone to hate, he was no leader, he was a manipulator and a dictator. He even tried to overthrow the goverment before, but was arrested and it failed. These are only the individual actions.. no context here.

There was no decent bone in that man's body, he, the same as Stalin, used the SS to oppress the people into voting for him.

He got into office by manipulation, and stayed there by indoctrination and oppression. He basically build a country that can only survive on warfare, how would that make a stable economy when you dont assault another nation?

Yep Dennis but Europe wanted to humiliate German! :rolleyes2 so it was their fault! Everyone knows that when people are in crisis they don't care if their minister wants to kill jewish or conquer the World all they want is to have food!

But after a while Hitler's economy would be tired because you can't build war material forever! Now with Stalin and Salazar it was quite different!

Salazar was elected now the title of 'the best portuguese of all time' last year here in Portugal... we have to admit they all had great ideas but the perfect government doesn't exist!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Hitler got elected because France hold the Ruhrgebied after the First world war. People were starving because of payments they had to give to France and England. Hitler had a good economics, because he fueled the machine of war. He opened factories for Tanks and weapons, indoctrinated the people and took back the Ruhrgebied. If France and England had retaliated immediatly, there would have been no economic upliving. He was a leader that united the people by giving them someone to hate, he was no leader, he was a manipulator and a dictator. He even tried to overthrow the goverment before, but was arrested and it failed. These are only the individual actions.. no context here.

There was no decent bone in that man's body... [stuff]

---

So you you believe that Nazi Germany should have been blamed for acting on something they had no control over, and not the French or the British who had decided everything without consultation? They rejected most of Wilson's 14 Points, which should surely have led to a more stable Europe, and kept trying to drive the nail in, when there were already several in place. There was no need to take away Germany's major industrial centers with a debt attached on, especially with the other provisions that were established as terms for losing the first World War. Thanks for ignoring what the rest of Europe did.

Tell that to me again when you learn what could've been if he had succeeded as an artist.

In regards to a permanent war economy, hello, 1984! i didntz c u thar