I'm not really on anyone's side there but this is really begining to sound alot like a major Russian apologist thread.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

I think that people get so caught up in the horror of Stalin's rule (understandably so) that it's difficult for them to consider the full implications of the position he was faced with leading into world war II. The modernization of the Soviet army and the expansion of their manufacturing and transportation infrastructure is really one of the most incredible achievements of the 20th century. It did not come without an even more incredible price, but we can only speculate as to whether it could have been accomplished without a reign of terror. We can also only speculate as to what might have followed were it not accomplished... but I believe that those consequences could very likely have inspired equal, or even greater, horror.

To do what may be necessary and wonderful but difficult may be what we call great. To do what may be necessary but horrible beyond belief... to me that is beyond moral judgment, and I draw few lines with what I will judge. It is great and terrible, a twisted paradox of causalities and potentialities sufficient to rend most any moral system asunder. I feel the same horror as others when I think about Stalin - but I am also entranced. The will to do the things that he did... how many men could have faced those choices that he did, and, rather than being swept away in the river of time, how many could have instead decided its course - in the face of all that uncertainty, with horrifying potentialities in every direction? Stalin stands out from all those other men - profoundly so. I hesistate to say that it is in greatness, but his will shines brightly through the ages, casting many shadows in the present and, like thousand-year-old light from a distant star, may still be felt even in the distant future.

I can't find words to describe it adequately... it may take a truly exceptional person to fully understand what I am saying. There are so many dimensions to all phenomena that we can only see through their reflections. In that sense, the case of Stalin is a colossal mirror, and anyone who has eyes for that which is distant can't help but feel some awe at what is there to be seen.

Arbiter, let me summarize your post.

From Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone:

"After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things—terrible, yes...but GREAT."

--old dude that owned the magic broom shop

Last edited by Capitalizt on Feb-05-2007 at 15:02

quote:

HAHAHA, placed on global pedestal BECAUSE OF SLAVE LABOUR, FORCED INDUSTRIALIZATION that cost millions of people their lives. Yay, what a great achievement, build on people's blood.

I have no problems with that.

quote:

You just admire the communists too much.

I give credit where credit as due, whereas you are so blinded by your hatred because they dragged off your relative somewhere and kicked your dog that you are not willing to acknowledge the incredible feat of building Soviet Union in first 20 years to the level that it was at.

quote:

So now both you and magnetonium have relatives who died in russia in world war II?

I had relatives who died as civilians in WW II, one relative who fought for the Waffen SS and several relatives who fought for the Red Army. Except I don't feel the need to trumpet it in every post.

----------

For those defending Gorbachev and hailing him as some sort of pro-western reformer should know that it was never Gorbachev's intent to dissolve or dismantle the USSR. He wanted to reform economic management and allow some freedom to speak but he absolutely intended to keep USSR as a political entity.

Arbiter is right. Sometimes that is the cost you pay for greatness.

I have a question. Why is FDR considered such a great leader when so many men died in WW II when he was president? And why are the American deaths in Europe during WW II are acceptable?

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne I give credit where credit as due, whereas you are so blinded by your hatred because they dragged off your relative somewhere and kicked your dog that you are not willing to acknowledge the incredible feat of building Soviet Union in first 20 years to the level that it was at.

Hey, use common sense: United States also went through industrialization, expecially in 1930s during Great Depression to expand industry. Look where they are now. And for Soviets, all their oppressive methods, economic mismanagement, idiotic farming and planning techniques resulting in the absolutely embarassing import of grain from Canada in 1960s, and their terrible mismanagement of production resulting in some much wasted money. My dad worked at a factory in Soviet Union, he saw hundreds of tractors that would sit and rust because too many were built. Idiots were in charge of Soviet economy, communism party members who had little or no knowledge of what they're in to. But the people who were the experts, they were exiled, sent to gulags, imprisoned, or worked low-position jobs with their bright minds. LOL, I saw it, and my dad knows well too. He fought in the Afghan war of 1980s, he knows fully well the shit of the Sovietism.

What the West saw was a result of millions of people's blood, forced labour (gulags were a cheap and easy source of labour to build roads, factories, railroads, schools, military bases, canals, etc.) and when Soviet Union collapsed, the entire house of cards went down as well. Today Russia is barely back to the economic levels before the soviet economic collapse of late 1980s.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Hey, use common sense: United States also went through industrialization, expecially in 1930s during Great Depression to expand industry. Look where they are now. And for Soviets, all their oppressive methods, economic mismanagement, idiotic farming and planning techniques resulting in the absolutely embarassing import of grain from Canada in 1960s, and their terrible mismanagement of production resulting in some much wasted money. My dad worked at a factory in Soviet Union, he saw hundreds of tractors that would sit and rust because too many were built. Idiots were in charge of Soviet economy, communism party members who had little or no knowledge of what they're in to. But the people who were the experts, they were exiled, sent to gulags, imprisoned, or worked low-position jobs with their bright minds. LOL, I saw it, and my dad knows well too. He fought in the Afghan war of 1980s, he knows fully well the shit of the Sovietism. What the West saw was a result of millions of people's blood, forced labour (gulags were a cheap and easy source of labour to build roads, factories, railroads, schools, military bases, canals, etc.) and when Soviet Union collapsed, the entire house of cards went down as well. Today Russia is barely back to the economic levels before the soviet economic collapse of late 1980s.

US has been industrializing since the early 19th century with formation of textile mills. By the time that a trans-national railroad across the US was built in the 1850's - along with the entire Eastern half of US being crisscrossed with rails, the Russians were still deciding if it even was worth building railroads. US invented the telegraph, electrical current and the mass assembly line - all key components of industrialization. So let's not act that Russia was even close to par. It was decades behind in its technological start and Stalin brought it to par in 2 decades. By 1957, USSR put the first man made object in space and by 1961, USSR put the first man in space.

Furthermore, I find it hilariously absurd that you have the gall to blame Stalin for Soviet problems with grain imports, a decade after Stalin has been dead.

Now let's get back to the real issue of Soviet collapse. We started this thread out by arguing for the great leader USSR had ever had. If your choice is Gorbachev then quite possibly he was the worst leader out of that list. Not only was his rule pockmarked by his absolute subservience in the diplomatic arena to the West, but he also presided over one of the largest and messiest collapses of a state in modern history, even though he never intended to break up the Union. How is that exactly a great leader?


So what constitutes a great leader? And I don't mean a leader that the West was the happiest with, but a leader who was the most beneficial to his people?

I stand by Stalin, a man who not only who built a country from a peasant society to a world power in a record amount of time, but a man who restored the country's pride via technological accomplishments, a man who staved off and triumphed over imminent annihilation from the Nazis, thereby saving not only his people, but quite possibly the rest of humanity and a man who lead his people back to pinnacle of global respect.

Now cry to me about your dead. Your tears and lamentations fall on deaf ears. Then cry some more.

If anything good is going to come out of this post, I hope it's that the more moderate lefties here begin to see what the religion of marxism can do to a person's concept of morality. The immense evil that Stalin brought upon the world can be ignored and even justified by some people, because Stalin was a fellow "comrade" in a struggle for a just cause.

The fact that there are intelligent and articulate people here who can praise a man responsible for tens of millions of deaths is proof of just how badly the socialist "faith" twists perceptions.

Personally I don't see much difference between Stalin and G.Bush right now. Is that another proof of how badly the democractic "faith" twists perceptions?

No, unfortunately the differences between them are getting smaller by the day.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller Is that another proof of how badly the democractic "faith" twists perceptions?

no. thats just moral relativism, and it's really no way to affect whatever change you want for the greater good aside from just merely sounding like an intellectual.

no offence.

see i don't have to prove anything that democracies are the greatest concepts of self rule, however you have to stretch it pretty thin to convince others that faith in democracies are a detriment to the same.

Stalin really got 8 votes?

I guess that'd be different if you're family was victim of a forced famine.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza