Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[SirQuiamus]

Saying "we would have been conquered by Nazis!" Doesn't make the USSR good, just that they were better than the alternatives. When every option is shitty, you don't take the least shitty option and say it's made of gold, you take it and work/wait/hope for an actually good one. And when you actually DO get a better (still shitty) option? You don't venerate the old least-shit option.

Thing is, USSR was better than both Nazi Germany and Russian Empire by a mile. In all Russian history, that period (Stalin's rule) is probably the one of maximum growth. From a war battered country with barely any industry, with mass famines every 5 years, with 90% of population being barely literal peasants, with an anti-intellectual ruling class, to a industrial powerhouse with close to zero famines afterwards, with mass literacy, and with people having a real chance to get a better quality of life through hard work.

I was about to post these, but you beat me to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[Digital Hellhound]

Alright, my bad, reading comprehension error. In retrospect, you wouldn't have gone as far as making that claim - should've thought that through.

[reality.auditor]

So, tell me how Russia will invade Baltic states which have NATO stationed troops and equipment in them without triggering WW3. I'm waiting.

By discrediting and dismantling NATO first. You will ask how. By testing Article V and suceeding in sense that test fails because no one wants to die for Riga (or other city that has Russians that suddenly discover they need protection like in Crimea or other made up pretext). When? I guess in 2020 or somewhere around that date. This depends of course what situation will be by then - a lot can change in five years.

TL;DR: like any criminal, he will do it if he thinks he will get away with that.

Because he is one of the most (if not most) genocidal dictators in history of mankind? I know you russians love him and I consider this utterly insane (and telling a lot). That kind of stance contributes to my opinion of Russians, that - as you can guess - is not very flattering.

If you think that a whole nation is insane

I wrote "I consider this (russian love for Stalin) utterly insane", not russians themself. But if you insist it makes russians themself crazy, I will not deny that.

and you're smarter than them all, it's not a sign that you're actually that smart - it's a sign that you're missing some important information about the world.

I can't help thinking you guys are crazy when I see statistics like "85%+ of russians support Putin". But I guess any negative consequences are blamed on West anyway. Up to and including Russia falling apart due to Putin rule.

Before you say anything: I do not consider it good thing, because only thing worse than one big nutty dictator with nukes is many small nutty dictators with nukes. Of course, "after Putin will be someone even worse" argument does not mean we have to roll over and let Putin do as he want.

This would be more convincing if you could prove that under different system or ruler situation would be still shit or no better. Ever heard about opportunity cost?

The alternative to USSR is "be conquered by Nazi Germany" and Generalplan Ost.

Alternative history is all fun and games, but since you seem to think Stalin's rule was best possible (so no opportunity cost) thing that happened to Russia, I really have no words.

But I will note one thing: you credit to Stalin good things that happened after his rule, yet opposite of these things happened during his rule. Like famines. I consider this kind of "credit" worthless.

[mainiac]

You have any other alternatives that can both give a life quality boost higher than what USSR did (compared to "90% of population are rightless peasants living in shit", USSR is better, yes) while also acquiring enough military/economical power to defeat Nazi Germany /w  help from the Allies?

Countless countries have industrialized, it's not like Stalin was some wizard for figuring that out.  As for protecting the Soviet Union from Germany, that ones rather easy.  Instead of signing an alliance with Hitler in 1939 and trying to conquer your neighbors, just dont sign an alliance with Hitler and preserve the balance of power in Europe.

Hitler was dangerous to the Soviets when it was Germany+Italy+Romania+Hungary+Finland against Soviets+UK alone.  If instead it's Germany against Poland+Soviets+France+UK then not one square mile of Soviet territory would be threatened.  But that doesn't fit nicely into a world of moral absolutes where it's all the fault of Germany and weak appeasers like Chamberlin.

[Sergarr]

So, tell me how Russia will invade Baltic states which have NATO stationed troops and equipment in them without triggering WW3. I'm waiting.

By discrediting and dismantling NATO first. You will ask how. By testing Article V and suceeding in sense that test fails because no one wants to die for Riga (or other city that has Russians that suddenly discover they need protection like in Crimea or other made up pretext). When? I guess in 2020 or somewhere around that date. This depends of course what situation will be by then - a lot can change in five years.

TL;DR: like any criminal, he will do it if he thinks he will get away with that.

I see you ignored the little problem of "NATO stationed troops and equipment" which are currently in place in Baltic countries.

This would be more convincing if you could prove that under different system or ruler situation would be still shit or no better. Ever heard about opportunity cost?

The alternative to USSR is "be conquered by Nazi Germany" and Generalplan Ost.

Alternative history is all fun and games, but since you seem to think Stalin's rule was best possible (so no opportunity cost) thing that happened to Russia, I really have no words.

But I will note one thing: you credit to Stalin good things that happened after his rule, yet opposite of these things happened during his rule. Like famines. I consider this kind of "credit" worthless.

Famines have ended by the end of Stalin's rule because of extensive work done in agricultural sector done during the 20s-50s period, including mechanization (tractors), actual science done in the area of what culture is better, cultivation and the sorts. It was done during Stalin's rule, and this is why USSR had no famines afterwards.

Khrushchev's agricultural politics were so infamously bad in comparison that giving credit to him for ending famines is beyond ridiculous.

You have any other alternatives that can both give a life quality boost higher than what USSR did (compared to "90% of population are rightless peasants living in shit", USSR is better, yes) while also acquiring enough military/economical power to defeat Nazi Germany /w  help from the Allies?

Countless countries have industrialized, it's not like Stalin was some wizard for figuring that out.  As for protecting the Soviet Union from Germany, that ones rather easy.  Instead of signing an alliance with Hitler in 1939 and trying to conquer your neighbors, just dont sign an alliance with Hitler and preserve the balance of power in Europe.

Hitler was dangerous to the Soviets when it was Germany+Italy+Romania+Hungary+Finland against Soviets+UK alone.  If instead it's Germany against Poland+Soviets+France+UK then not one square mile of Soviet territory would be threatened.  But that doesn't fit nicely into a world of moral absolutes where it's all the fault of Germany and weak appeasers like Chamberlin.

USSR tried allying with Britain and France in 1939.

Guess what happened.

[SirQuiamus]

Famines have ended by the end of Stalin's rule because of extensive work done in agricultural sector done during the 20s-50s period, including mechanization (tractors), actual science done in the area of what culture is better, cultivation and the sorts. It was done during Stalin's rule, and this is why USSR had no famines afterwards.

Khrushchev's agricultural politics were so infamously bad in comparison that giving credit to him for ending famines is beyond ridiculous.

The purges also ended by the end of Stalin's rule. We should therefore thank Stalin for the lack of subsequent genocide? Obviously.

EDIT:

Thing is, USSR was better than ... Russian Empire by a mile.

According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,366 persons, of whom 681,692 were shot - an average of 1,000 executions a day (in comparison, the Tsarists executed 3,932 persons for political crimes from 1825 to 1910 - an average of less than 1 execution per week). 

[Sergarr]

EDIT:

Thing is, USSR was better than ... Russian Empire by a mile.

According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,366 persons, of whom 681,692 were shot - an average of 1,000 executions a day (in comparison, the Tsarists executed 3,932 persons for political crimes from 1825 to 1910 - an average of less than 1 execution per week). 

In Russian Empire, 90% of people had no rights at all, were treated like "things" that could be bought or sold to another "dvoryanin", and you (if your father was a "dvoryanin") generally could do everything with them, including murdering them at your whim, and the law would do barely anything about it.

You just don't quite grasp the scale of everyday atrocities that were committed in Russian Empire that were considered as something "normal" and "right" by a disturbingly high percentage of ruling class. 0.7 million of killed people is bad, but it's not "90% of people are right-less "things" that are owned by the other 10%" bad.

[SirQuiamus]

EDIT:

Thing is, USSR was better than ... Russian Empire by a mile.

According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,366 persons, of whom 681,692 were shot - an average of 1,000 executions a day (in comparison, the Tsarists executed 3,932 persons for political crimes from 1825 to 1910 - an average of less than 1 execution per week). 

In Russian Empire, 90% of people had no rights at all, were treated like "things" that could be bought or sold to another "dvoryanin", and you (if your father was a "dvoryanin") generally could do everything with them, including murdering them at your whim, and the law would do barely anything about it.

You just don't quite grasp the scale of everyday atrocities that were committed in Russian Empire that were considered as something "normal" and "right" by a disturbingly high percentage of ruling class. 0.7 million of killed people is bad, but it's not "90% of people are right-less "things" that are owned by the other 10%" bad.

I don't doubt that wanton cruelty eventually became less widespread after the revolution (at least after the massacres of the civil war), but was it thanks to, or no thanks to Stalin and his blood-thirsty regime? Some of the party elite, like Beria for example, were allowed to behave exactly like feudal lords without having to answer for their crimes -- was it all that different from Tsarist Russia, I mean qualitatively different? 

[Descan]

...

I'll try again. The way things were, does not excuse the way things are. Just because the Russian Empire was shitty doesn't make the Soviet Union less shitty, through some hitherto unknown inverted transitive property of shit. There's plenty of shit to go around, man. Empire didn't suck it all up and leave the Soviet Union pristine and shit-less.

[Sergarr]

Just because the Russian Empire was shitty doesn't make the Soviet Union less shitty

What the fuck.

[Cthulufaic]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Just because the Russian Empire was shitty doesn't make the Soviet Union less shitty

What the fuck.

2true4you

Anyway, I think the last on-topic(maybe) comment was by Owlbread.  I always assumed that the general consensus in Germany was that "Our grandparents were assholes, and we realize that they were assholes, let's try not to be assholes," and then they would just go on and do more important things than dwelling on the past.

O'course the closest thing to German people I know was the Cristkindle-mart I went to, and it was amazing!

[Descan]

I have no idea how that statement could be controversial. Well I guess I can, but only through misunderstanding.

To clarify, I don't mean that they were equal in terms of how awful they were, but only that the Soviet Union was as awful as it was, no more or less - the actions of the Russian Empire don't excuse the Soviets.

[scrdest]

Famines have ended by the end of Stalin's rule because of extensive work done in agricultural sector done during the 20s-50s period, including mechanization (tractors), actual science done in the area of what culture is better, cultivation and the sorts. It was done during Stalin's rule, and this is why USSR had no famines afterwards.

Khrushchev's agricultural politics were so infamously bad in comparison that giving credit to him for ending famines is beyond ridiculous.

Err... Lysenkoism rings a bell?

[Sergarr]

I have no idea how that statement could be controversial. Well I guess I can, but only through misunderstanding.

To clarify, I don't mean that they were equal in terms of how awful they were, but only that the Soviet Union was as awful as it was, no more or less - the actions of the Russian Empire don't excuse the Soviets.

Oh okay.

But I wasn't talking about how "Stalin's rule is good", I was talking "Stalin's rule has achieved the highest rate of "shit to not-shit" conversion in Russian history", explaining why he's considered a great person in Russia.

Saying "we would have been conquered by Nazis!" Doesn't make the USSR good, just that they were better than the alternatives. When every option is shitty, you don't take the least shitty option and say it's made of gold, you take it and work/wait/hope for an actually good one. And when you actually DO get a better (still shitty) option? You don't venerate the old least-shit option.

I think I answered that one. You don't understand why Russians venerate Stalin. That's not because his rule was not shitty, that's because he was the most efficient person at turning shit to not-shit.

Famines have ended by the end of Stalin's rule because of extensive work done in agricultural sector done during the 20s-50s period, including mechanization (tractors), actual science done in the area of what culture is better, cultivation and the sorts. It was done during Stalin's rule, and this is why USSR had no famines afterwards.

Khrushchev's agricultural politics were so infamously bad in comparison that giving credit to him for ending famines is beyond ridiculous.

Err... Lysenkoism rings a bell?

Yes. What are you at?

[SirQuiamus]

But I wasn't talking about how "Stalin's rule is good", I was talking "Stalin's rule has achieved the highest rate of "shit to not-shit" conversion in Russian history", explaining why he's considered a great person in Russia.

Converting shit to not-shit justifies any amount of murder and oppression? You are one hell of a utilitarian.