WARS UPDATE

THE MIDDLE EAST +

EUROPE +

SUB SAHARAN AFRICA +

ASIA +

THE AMERICAS +

INTERNATIONAL +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Stalinesque

January 2, 2009:  The commercial corruption in Russia is among the worst in the world (China being a close second). The companies of both nations are most often trying to use bribes when operating overseas. In Russia, the culture of bribery is seen as a defense against government attempts (often successful) to take over companies. Russia is returning to czarist days in that respect, where the czar (or his chief ministers, in most cases) could override commercial contracts and seize assets almost at will. But the government cannot run these seized firms as well as their managers, so the bureaucrats look about for new temporary owners (who can operate the firms as long as they make a lot of money for the bureaucrats, and themselves.) It's not an efficient system, and now that Russia is competing on world markets, this is becoming a problem.

Many Russians understand that, if you bring back all the apparatus of the communist police state, you also bring back poverty and tyranny. But most Russians believe they need the "strong man" methods to keep order while a truly free and efficient society is built. A tricky business, but that attitude helps most Russians tolerate the growing despotism of the government. In recent opinion polls, Josef Stalin, who played a large role in getting a third of all Russians killed during the communist period, was voted one of the most admired Russian leaders.

Russia (and China) deny they are the center of the Internet crime world, but they are. Both nations tolerate large Internet crime organizations. The ones in Russia specialize in credit card and bank fraud, while those in China concentrate on stealing data. The gangs in both countries are believed to do jobs to the government, in return for their protection. Russia is also trying to control what Russians see on the Internet, with less success. So the police go after news sources inside Russia that report things the government would rather remain unreported. It's all becoming rather Stalinesque.

Faced with its first recession in ten years, the government warned employers to limit firings as much as possible (those who displease the government in this respect can expect to see their firm taken over by the government).  Economic growth, at about 8 percent a year until recently, is suddenly at zero, or worse. Russia gets most of its export revenue, and government income, from oil exports. After 2000, as the booming economies of India and China demanded more oil. The $20 a barrel (average) price (which has been pretty steady since the end of World War II, when adjusted for inflation), skyrocketed to $70 a barrel by 2006, and spiked at $117 in mid-2008. Since then it has tumbled to below $40 a barrel. The last spike, peaking in late 1979 at  $106, declined through the 1980s and played a role in bankrupting the Soviet Union. Some Russian bureaucrats have a déjà vu feeling about this. Thus Russia is cooperating with OPEC in cutting oil shipments, and is considering joining OPEC (which controls 36 percent of world production, with Russia being the largest single producer, at nearly 10 million barrels a day, outside the cartel.) Russian politicians are jealous of their Chinese counterparts, who have created a system that keeps the business community productive, and in line politically, while keeping the communist bureaucrats in power. Russia is having a hard time with its business people, and is suffering more popular unrest than China. The current Russian crackdown on dissent is mainly intended for those protesting legitimate economic grievances.

The government is bracing for a recession, one that could see a million or more people losing their jobs, and many other suffering declines in income. Militarily, this money shortage threatens the government program to revive the strategic nuclear missile program. Currently, Russias ICBM arsenal is dying of old age. New missiles are being built at a rate that will leave Russia with a smaller (a few hundred missile) force of ICBMs in a decade or two. In practical terms, that's adequate. But in terms of pride, it's humiliating.

Iran says it is receiving parts of the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system from Russia. Meanwhile, Russia denies that Iran is getting the S-300, but admits it is shipping unnamed "defensive weapons" to Iran.

January 1, 2009: Russia has cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine. Russia is demanding that Ukraine pay $2.1 billion in back charges, and higher rates for future shipments. Months of negotiations failed to achieve an agreement, so Russia is playing hardball. Ukraine says it has enough reserves to last until April, and will not divert gas passing through on its way to Western Europe. Russia has threatened war if Ukraine did that.

December 31, 2008:  Russia adopted a six year presidential term, to replace the four year term. The new measure went through the parliament in record time.

December 30, 2008: A rebel attack in Dagestan (which is next to Chechnya) left a police general dead.

December 25, 2008: A police operation in Ingushetia (which is next to Chechnya) left twelve rebels dead. Government corruption, and lack of economic growth, has led to an increase in crime, and outright rebellion, in the Caucasus. This is nothing new, but has been a common pattern in the region for centuries.

December 20, 2008: There was an explosion in an open air market in Moscow, leaving nine injured. Police investigators said it was caused by a fire that reached a stock of holiday fireworks. No terrorist group took credit for the explosion.

December 18, 2008: The government is donating (at a nominal price to cover shipping and training) ten MiG-29 fighters to Lebanon. The MiG-29 is a Cold War era competitor for the U.S. F-16, and is seen as a loser inside Russia (the winner being the Su-27/3x series).

December 15, 2008: The parliament has voted to eliminate juries in treason and terror cases. Anyone the government doesn't like, and wants to punish or intimidate, is usually charged with treason. But juries have seen through this, and defied government threats and acquitted some of the victims. No more. It's easier for the government to order the judges to find treason defendants guilty after a show trial. This sort of thing was big during Soviet times, and now it's back. Another old policy that has been revived is sharp restrictions on public demonstrations. Police are quick to halt any protests that the government finds particularly irksome.

December 10, 2008:  Russian farmers had one of the best crops in history this year, producing 31 percent more grain (112 million tons) than last year. But the rest of the world had a good year as well (up about ten percent over last year), and that brought prices down. So the government is buying up millions of tons of Russian grain, to prevent many Russian farmers from going bankrupt. Russian farming is finally recovering from decades of communist decline, and returning to the pre-World War I era when Russia was one of the major grain exporters. By the time the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, Russia had become a major grain importer.

December 8, 2008: All MiG-29 fighters were grounded until the cause of a recent crash could be determined. That MiG-29 went down for unknown reasons, and it's believed possible there is a design flaw (common to all MiG-29s) responsible.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article NAVAL AIR: China Builds A Pair

Make A Comment     View Comments (17)
Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
Panzers    Panzers   1/4/2009 1:52:35 PM
The Red Chinese govt. tried to do the same by "re-habilitating" Chairman Mao's "legacy" over 10 years ago!
 
Russia is now an FSB state.
 
Quote    Reply

Lance Blade       1/11/2009 10:58:44 AM

The Red Chinese govt. tried to do the same by "re-habilitating" Chairman Mao's "legacy" over 10 years ago!

 

Russia is now an FSB state.

Now I believe that to be a gross oversimplification ;)
 
"Plutocracy" would be a much more fitting description in my opinion. As for Stalin's popularity, I have the following view on it. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, there is no doubt about that. However, from the beginning he believed in what he stood for. He was committing acts of terrorism at age 17. Right up until his death/assasination, he truly believed with all his being in the worldwide communist revolution. And, in an age where all Russians see around them is greedy people chasing money, I can understand how the idea would appeal to them.  One of the first things they built straight after World War II in the ruins of Russia wasn't Gazprom or some money-making conglomerate - it was Moscow State University. Investing in the future generations. Stalin turned Russia from a backwater of Europe into one of the world's two superpowers. We can always question the methods but there is no denying that at the very least, Stalin cared for the country. All Russians see today is self-serving officials stealing money at every level. Communism is nearly dead in Russia as a political ideology, but the fact Russians view Stalin in a favourable light only suggests, to me, that there is a demand for people who will not be afraid to stand up and selflessly work to make a difference.
 
Quote    Reply

afrc       1/13/2009 12:22:44 AM


The Red Chinese govt. tried to do the same by "re-habilitating" Chairman Mao's "legacy" over 10 years ago!
Russia is now an FSB state.


Now I believe that to be a gross oversimplification ;)

"Plutocracy" would be a much more fitting description in my opinion. As for Stalin's popularity, I have the following view on it. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, there is no doubt about that. However, from the beginning he believed in what he stood for. He was committing acts of terrorism at age 17. Right up until his death/assasination, he truly believed with all his being in the worldwide communist revolution. And, in an age where all Russians see around them is greedy people chasing money, I can understand how the idea would appeal to them.  One of the first things they built straight after World War II in the ruins of Russia wasn't Gazprom or some money-making conglomerate - it was Moscow State University. Investing in the future generations. Stalin turned Russia from a backwater of Europe into one of the world's two superpowers. We can always question the methods but there is no denying that at the very least, Stalin cared for the country. All Russians see today is self-serving officials stealing money at every level. Communism is nearly dead in Russia as a political ideology, but the fact Russians view Stalin in a favourable light only suggests, to me, that there is a demand for people who will not be afraid to stand up and selflessly work to make a difference.
I sure hope you try to explain Russian people's opinion and not yours, because I totally disagree with this opinion. This is an opinion of a sheep trying to explain it's love for a wolf. I don't think that Stalin believed in Worldwide Communist Revolution. He believed in terror, death, power and being a communist hitman gave him all that. He happen to get lucky because communists won in the end because of people like Lenin and Trotsky. Then Stalin utilized his ability to manipulate and terrorize people to achieve his goals and he came to power... and he got rid of most people that put him there in 1930s. He saw country as his toy and people as his tools to achieve glory for himself, because he was the country.
Stalin ordered to build Moscow State University because it was supposed to be a part of his new grand city of Moscow, not unlike Hitler's plans for new Berlin after WW2 - the monument to himself. The university he build was grand and expensive - good for show, while people had to live in "komunalka" apartments - several families per apartment.
Stalin did not build Gazprom because he was Gazprom himself... there was no need for companies. He build mines to export ore, while there was not enough demand for oil to justify building expensive pipelines.
Stalin did not care for people. He was prepared to sacrifice millions to make himself a bit more powerful and glorious. People were sheep to him. Stalin did not care for the country, but only for the things that country brought him. And Stalin was corrupt... he was corrupt by power. He did not need to steal anything, because he had no need - he could take whatever he wanted whenever he wanted it. Same goes for Hitler. He was prepared to sacrifice all German people if Germany lost the war, because it meant to him that German people failed the test and were unworthy to live on. Stalin and Hitler did not care for people, they only cared for their agenda.
 
Here's some Hitler's quotes: "What luck for rulers, that men do not think"; "We will not capitulate - no, never! We may be destroyed, but if we are, we shall drag a world with us - a world in flames"; "The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it"; "Germany will either be a world power or will not be at all"; "Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless".
Now let's see about Stalin: "A single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a statistic; "Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem"; "Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach"; "Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs"; "I trust no one, not even myself"; "The only real power comes out of a long rifle".
 
My god! They are like twin brothers! They have the same view of the world and same ideas. Those quotes sound like they came from the same mouth. There is very little difference between them - they both utilized ideology to promote their own power and goals, disregarding people, seeing only tools and sheep in them. Stalin inherited the ideology that was a bit more international and he still managed to turn even this ideology into divisive force and force whole nations into exile and even planning his own "final solution to the Jewish question" in 1950s. I am sorry, but Russian people's love for Stalin is the love of slaves that cannot achieve anything without being forced forward under the knife like sheep. Hmm, I wonder if Germans regard Hitler the same way... probably not because he was the big loser of the big game, unlike Stalin.
  
 
Quote    Reply

Lance Blade    afrc reply   1/13/2009 2:31:39 PM
As if Lenin and Trotsky cared for individual people. Maybe Stalin was the worst of the lot; I don't believe in this idea that, had Trotsky come to power, things would have been very different. The worldwide communist revolution from the very beginning hinged on this idea of a society in which greed and laziness did not exist - it doesn't work otherwise. They tried to breed this society by eliminating anyone who didn't fit the criteria. The approach was utterly devoid of things like morals or regard for human life from the very beginning. And in a world without such morals, a human life is worth only as much as it can give to the Revolution - living or dead. They all believed in that, and while it's easy to just blame Stalin for everything, I believe it's oversimplification. He was the product of that system, and he pushed the system to exactly where Trotsky or Lenin would have no doubt wanted it to go. If you ask most people from that time, they will probably remember it as a time of great happiness. There was the Revolution, the personality cult; freedom of expression was (in certain directions) unlimited, and because Stalin kept conducting his purges, there was huge social mobility. People were encouraged to only look in one direction - forward. Anyone who happened to look any other way was quickly removed from the system. In a way, it's utopia. It's forced happiness, but happiness nontheless. Of course it was unsustainable, but otherwise...
 
Hitler and Stalin were quite different, though they both held next to no regard for human life and believed the end always justified the means.  Hitler was a hysteric who used emotions to vex people; Stalin was cold and calculating. Hitler wanted the world dominance of Germany at the expense of everyone else; Stalin essentially wanted to take over the world and spread the Revolution everywhere. Finally, they stood for radically opposite ideologies. Communism is inclusive and a class war, while fashism is exclusive and built on racism.
 
I personally don't have an opinion on Stalin. I don't know if he was a man utterly consumed by an idea and simply had his human tendencies - paranoia, a lust for power - emerge sometimes as a result of being human; or if he was simply a manipulative maniac who used the Revolution for personal gain. Maybe it was a bit of both. He didn't leave Moscow when his generals had an armoured train standing by and the Germans looked poised to break through, for example. I think he can be cast in more than one light. I can appreciate why Russian people might actually like him, though. To me it shows that they're pissed with their government. Maybe they associate a Strong Leader with Great Success. Which is understandable. He did win after all, and as Russians say "you don't judge the winners".
 
Quote    Reply

Lance Blade    On Treason   1/14/2009 2:05:18 PM
"December 15, 2008: The parliament has voted to eliminate juries in treason and terror cases. Anyone the government doesn't like, and wants to punish or intimidate, is usually charged with treason. But juries have seen through this, and defied government threats and acquitted some of the victims. No more. It's easier for the government to order the judges to find treason defendants guilty after a show trial. This sort of thing was big during Soviet times, and now it's back. Another old policy that has been revived is sharp restrictions on public demonstrations. Police are quick to halt any protests that the government finds particularly irksome."
 
Surely there's similar measures for terror trials in the US and Europe? I'm sure everyone is aware of the benefits of this approach, as well as its risks. In theory I don't see how it should pose a significant problem in an aware society. If the public doesn't like the way a trial is conducted, there is an uproar and public pressure forces a new trial to take place, no?
 
Quote    Reply

afrc       1/15/2009 1:24:13 AM

As if Lenin and Trotsky cared for individual people. Maybe Stalin was the worst of the lot; I don't believe in this idea that, had Trotsky come to power, things would have been very different. The worldwide communist revolution from the very beginning hinged on this idea of a society in which greed and laziness did not exist - it doesn't work otherwise. They tried to breed this society by eliminating anyone who didn't fit the criteria. The approach was utterly devoid of things like morals or regard for human life from the very beginning. And in a world without such morals, a human life is worth only as much as it can give to the Revolution - living or dead. They all believed in that, and while it's easy to just blame Stalin for everything, I believe it's oversimplification. He was the product of that system, and he pushed the system to exactly where Trotsky or Lenin would have no doubt wanted it to go. If you ask most people from that time, they will probably remember it as a time of great happiness. There was the Revolution, the personality cult; freedom of expression was (in certain directions) unlimited, and because Stalin kept conducting his purges, there was huge social mobility. People were encouraged to only look in one direction - forward. Anyone who happened to look any other way was quickly removed from the system. In a way, it's utopia. It's forced happiness, but happiness nontheless. Of course it was unsustainable, but otherwise...

I never said that Lenin cared (maybe a little LOL) and I never claimed that things would be different under Trotsky. But I do believe that Trotsky and Lenin were more about ideology and less about personal power. They won the revolution and brutal Civil War. I also think they believed in communist ideals and Worldwide Communist Revolution. And I also know that Lenin was not as blind as some think. Have you heard about Lenin's NEP program (very limited capitalism) and his steps to invite foreign capital when country needed a different approach to improve situation after Civil War? Now I think that Stalin was simply enjoyed being a terrorist and having power and justification to rob and kill. He simply utilized Lenin's victory and Marx's ideology to propel himself to power and stay there. I never saw any indication that Stalin in private actually cared about anything but his power. As far as looking in one direction... people were forced to look forward to mirage, while there was barbed wire to the left and right and machine guns in the rear. May I remind you that Stalin's system put such geniuses as Tupolev and Korolev in Gulag system where they lost their health for nothing. Stalin believed in slavery (not communism) and that's why he promoted Gulags and he took passports from farmers (collective farmers to be exact) to prevent them from fleeing dire situation on the farms to the slightly better life in a city. Khruschev actually was more into ideology and "bright future" idea. USSR achieved a lot under him: Tupolev and Korolev made planes and rockets... people began to get housing (so called "Khruschev apartments"), etc - and it all happened without millions of deaths. Now Khruschev also tried to meddle with internal affairs without necessary knowledge. Eventually he managed to destroy the progress he made in the farm industry and he pushed for missile technology everywhere and send military down the wrong track.   
  

Hitler and Stalin were quite different, though they both held next to no regard for human life and believed the end always justified the means.  Hitler was a hysteric who used emotions to vex people; Stalin was cold and calculating. Hitler wanted the world dominance of Germany at the expense of everyone else; Stalin essentially wanted to take over the world and spread the Revolution everywhere. Finally, they stood for radically opposite ideologies. Communism is inclusive and a class war, while fashism is exclusive and built on racism.

Were they really so different? The PR and execution of power maybe was different, but their personal ideology was nearly the same. Stalin was forced to work in the system that preached equality of people (Stalin inherited the system from others before him, while Hitler installed his own system of choice) and he still managed to project his racism into it. Have you heard the term "traitor nations"? He sent entire nations into exile (Crimean Tatars for example). Are you familiar with a term "no-motherland cosmopolitans"? He got rid of many Jewish intellectuals while fighting with these "cosmopolits" and he was organizing a total cleansing of Jews to be sent into exile in 1950's (read about it... Hitler probably smiled in hell). He definitely was smarter than Hitler and knew how to play people and countries to appear good. He used Jews whenever he could (foreign Jewish organizations to get help during war and he hoped to use Israel to project his power to the Middle East, but it failed), but inside he was a true racist, anti-Semite and people-hater. At least Hitler liked some people... I could not find any evidence that Stalin truly liked anybody. And Stailn only cared about World Revolution because it could project his personal power further out, not because he believed in Communism.   
 

I personally don't have an opinion on Stalin. I don't know if he was a man utterly consumed by an idea and simply had his human tendencies - paranoia, a lust for power - emerge sometimes as a result of being human; or if he was simply a manipulative maniac who used the Revolution for personal gain. Maybe it was a bit of both. He didn't leave Moscow when his generals had an armoured train standing by and the Germans looked poised to break through, for example. I think he can be cast in more than one light. I can appreciate why Russian people might actually like him, though. To me it shows that they're pissed with their government. Maybe they associate a Strong Leader with Great Success. Which is understandable. He did win after all, and as Russians say "you don't judge the winners".
 
Well, you are an adult now. Start forming your opinion about things already LOL. BTW Stalin was so shocked by war that he did leave Moscow right after war started and his inner circle people had to ask him to return (he even got scared for a second thinking that they came to arrest him). He only stayed in Moscow because he knew that his retreat will signal for others to flee as well and if Moscow was lost he would have nowhere to run and he would be killed either way. And I assume he could still take a plane out of Moscow if things got really bad. Anyway, I see no success or victory that Stalin can claim for himself. He made Red Army bleed to make it helpless in the beginning of the war. Blood of Russian people and military leadership of people like Zhukov brought victory. Stalin only gave blind faith, while people did all the work. I guess it means that Russians cannot believe in themselves and have to create idols to worship and ask for rain :(


 
Quote    Reply

afrc       1/15/2009 1:33:58 AM

"December 15, 2008: The parliament has voted to eliminate juries in treason and terror cases. Anyone the government doesn't like, and wants to punish or intimidate, is usually charged with treason. But juries have seen through this, and defied government threats and acquitted some of the victims. No more. It's easier for the government to order the judges to find treason defendants guilty after a show trial. This sort of thing was big during Soviet times, and now it's back. Another old policy that has been revived is sharp restrictions on public demonstrations. Police are quick to halt any protests that the government finds particularly irksome."

 
Surely there's similar measures for terror trials in the US and Europe? I'm sure everyone is aware of the benefits of this approach, as well as its risks. In theory I don't see how it should pose a significant problem in an aware society. If the public doesn't like the way a trial is conducted, there is an uproar and public pressure forces a new trial to take place, no?

Hmm, is there a difference between terror and treason? What is Russian definition of treason? Who makes the determination? Who falls under definition of a traitor? Is there press covering the trials? If no press then how do people know if trial is fair?
I guess the difference is that US citizens and legal residents enjoy full protection of US laws and Constitution and they have normal trials. Everyone else is considered a POW and US laws do not apply to them, so they should get military tribunal or simply wait for the war to end like all POW. Of course the War on Terror is a flexible term and this war may last forever:)
  
 
Quote    Reply

Lance Blade       1/15/2009 7:01:34 AM
I never said that Lenin cared (maybe a little LOL) and I never claimed that things would be different under Trotsky. But I do believe that Trotsky and Lenin were more about ideology and less about personal power. They won the revolution and brutal Civil War. I also think they believed in communist ideals and Worldwide Communist Revolution. And I also know that Lenin was not as blind as some think. Have you heard about Lenin's NEP program (very limited capitalism) and his steps to invite foreign capital when country needed a different approach to improve situation after Civil War? Now I think that Stalin was simply enjoyed being a terrorist and having power and justification to rob and kill. He simply utilized Lenin's victory and Marx's ideology to propel himself to power and stay there. I never saw any indication that Stalin in private actually cared about anything but his power. As far as looking in one direction... people were forced to look forward to mirage, while there was barbed wire to the left and right and machine guns in the rear. May I remind you that Stalin's system put such geniuses as Tupolev and Korolev in Gulag system where they lost their health for nothing. Stalin believed in slavery (not communism) and that's why he promoted Gulags and he took passports from farmers (collective farmers to be exact) to prevent them from fleeing dire situation on the farms to the slightly better life in a city. Khruschev actually was more into ideology and "bright future" idea. USSR achieved a lot under him: Tupolev and Korolev made planes and rockets... people began to get housing (so called "Khruschev apartments"), etc - and it all happened without millions of deaths. Now Khruschev also tried to meddle with internal affairs without necessary knowledge. Eventually he managed to destroy the progress he made in the farm industry and he pushed for missile technology everywhere and send military down the wrong track.   
  
NEP was hypocrisy. Lenin simply saw that communism wasn't working and enacted it as an emergency measure to stop another revolution. Glushko threw Korolev into the Gulag, and Tupolev suffered a similar fate. Stalin simply provided the means, the apparatus, the fear and paranoia that made it possible for people to do that to each other. Both were later aquitted because they were important to the Revolution. As for Khruschev, it's pretty easy to build planes, rockets and new apartments when your country has railroads, mines, factories... all of which were built by the free slave labour of millions of people because of Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin & Co. Pre-Revolution Russia was really Europe's backwater, a pathetic country by any measure. The Commie Crew then revolted, deposed the Tzar, threw the place into eleven years of chaos and had to deal with the consequences, which included making it into a modern nation in very little time. They probably couldn't have done it without the slave labour and the repressions.
As for ideology, well, what can I say. We both know that it's usually the idealists who lose out to the pragmatics. I've been doing a bit of reading up, and it turns out I was wrong in thinkin Stalinism is about the worldwide communist revolution - that's actually Trotskyism. With ideals like that, I can understand why Trotsky lost.

Were they really so different? The PR and execution of power maybe was different, but their personal ideology was nearly the same. Stalin was forced to work in the system that preached equality of people (Stalin inherited the system from others before him, while Hitler installed his own system of choice) and he still managed to project his racism into it. Have you heard the term "traitor nations"? He sent entire nations into exile (Crimean Tatars for example). Are you familiar with a term "no-motherland cosmopolitans"? He got rid of many Jewish intellectuals while fighting with these "cosmopolits" and he was organizing a total cleansing of Jews to be sent into exile in 1950's (read about it... Hitler probably smiled in hell). He definitely was smarter than Hitler and knew how to play people and countries to appear good. He used Jews whenever he could (foreign Jewish organizations to get help during war and he hoped to use Israel to project his power to the Middle East, but it failed), but inside he was a true racist, anti-Semite and people-hater. At least Hitler liked some people... I could not find any evidence that Stalin truly liked anybody. And Stailn only cared about World Revolution because it could project his personal power further out, not because he believed in Communism.   
 
Stalin did not discriminate, he hated everyone :)) Though you're right in that both were dominated by paranoia and a lust for power. Both got what they deserved, though I feel Stalin got better treatment after his death. Hitler was burned and his ashes were thrown in a river. Stalin was buried and they put down a massive concrete slab down after him to make sure he'll never climb back out again :) As for who Stalin was inside, I don't know because he didn't leave many memos. I don't believe he was a true racist in a way Hitler was, though. More like a power-hungry maniac plain and simple.
 
Well, you are an adult now. Start forming your opinion about things already LOL. BTW Stalin was so shocked by war that he did leave Moscow right after war started and his inner circle people had to ask him to return (he even got scared for a second thinking that they came to arrest him). He only stayed in Moscow because he knew that his retreat will signal for others to flee as well and if Moscow was lost he would have nowhere to run and he would be killed either way. And I assume he could still take a plane out of Moscow if things got really bad. Anyway, I see no success or victory that Stalin can claim for himself. He made Red Army bleed to make it helpless in the beginning of the war. Blood of Russian people and military leadership of people like Zhukov brought victory. Stalin only gave blind faith, while people did all the work. I guess it means that Russians cannot believe in themselves and have to create idols to worship and ask for rain :(
 
Feeling sick at every time the name is mentioned doesn't really count as a valid opinion LOL. I think Stalin left Moscow to see what his inner circle would do without him - would they be helpless enough? Would they try to overthrow him? It's the constant paranoia again. I do agree with you on the idea that he stayed in Moscow because he knew the game would be up otherwise. Same reason for why Hitler killed himself in the end - he knew the game was over. What I do "like" in a way was how he purged the military of the old career generals. Many say that was a mistake; I think by getting rid of the old guard who lost WW1, he paved the way for fresh young blood to come in with new ideas. I think the military ended up being more ready and capable (for what it was) after WW2 as a result.
At the end of the day, Hitler had to sell his image to the people and the Germans still retched when they found out the truth about him. Stalin didn't do much selling and wasn't a very charismatic figure, yet he still has a large following, despite the fact that everyone knows he killed 40 million people. His supporters don't deny it like neo-Nazis deny the Holocaust. They think it was nesessary. I'm inclined to agree sometimes. After what they did, it was either to do that or perish. Soon after the Revolution, the Germans started advancing, Brits, Americans and the Japanese landed in various parts of the country, and the Russian Empire soon became in a very real danger of being munched up by various opportunist powers. And while I think sometimes that at that point, the end of Russia the nation would have been beneficial for everyone, I'm aware that most Russians wouldn't agree with me. And without Stalin, I don't believe Russia would have survived the 1920s and then Hitler. So Russia owes its national identity to Stalin, whether we like it or not. I believe that we must never forget that. It's all very well talking about freedom and democracy but when you are a world-class dump and your enemies surround you and encroach at your doorstep, your priorities do change. It doesn't nesessarily mean Russians want Stalin back. What it does mean is that Russian national identity and Stalin are inseparable, and Russians recognise that fact.
As for Russians not believeing in themselves, gm.. it's funny. Russians are very patriotic, and having been systematically screwed over by their leaders for the past... well, forever, they seem to adapt by saying that Russia is one thing, its leaders are something different. Russians refuse to take full responsibility for their leaders - which is understandable - with the result that leaders can do what they want and the people will take it. Their actions will thus further reinforce the people's beliefs. Catch-22.
 
Quote    Reply

Lance Blade       1/15/2009 7:14:46 AM



Hmm, is there a difference between terror and treason? What is Russian definition of treason? Who makes the determination? Who falls under definition of a traitor? Is there press covering the trials? If no press then how do people know if trial is fair?

They're working on it. FSB recently (literally beginning of this week) suggested to the Duma to include the broadest definition possible (apparently to make sure terrorists can't blag their way out of jail) and it was about to be passed in the first session (we all know what Duma voting proceedings are like, Putin say, monkey do). According to Nezavisimaya, people close to Medevedev then intervened and the law is now being reworked to narrow down the boundaries to something more reasonable. Here is the source:
hXXp://www.ng.ru/politics/2009-01-14/1_image.html 

As for press freedom and influence, that's the real problem in my opinion, not this law. In theory, things like that should encourage people to question their government even more than usual. I find it a problem that people don't seem to care. However, after the Constitution-rewriting incident,  it doesn't surprise me any more.
 
I guess the difference is that US citizens and legal residents enjoy full protection of US laws and Constitution and they have normal trials. Everyone else is considered a POW and US laws do not apply to them, so they should get military tribunal or simply wait for the war to end like all POW. Of course the War on Terror is a flexible term and this war may last forever:)

So if a US citizen is charged with treason, he gets a full trial with juries and everything? 

 
Quote    Reply

afrc       1/17/2009 1:05:14 PM
NEP was hypocrisy. Lenin simply saw that communism wasn't working and enacted it as an emergency measure to stop another revolution. Glushko threw Korolev into the Gulag, and Tupolev suffered a similar fate. Stalin simply provided the means, the apparatus, the fear and paranoia that made it possible for people to do that to each other. Both were later aquitted because they were important to the Revolution. As for Khruschev, it's pretty easy to build planes, rockets and new apartments when your country has railroads, mines, factories... all of which were built by the free slave labour of millions of people because of Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin & Co. Pre-Revolution Russia was really Europe's backwater, a pathetic country by any measure. The Commie Crew then revolted, deposed the Tzar, threw the place into eleven years of chaos and had to deal with the consequences, which included making it into a modern nation in very little time. They probably couldn't have done it without the slave labour and the repressions.
As for ideology, well, what can I say. We both know that it's usually the idealists who lose out to the pragmatics. I've been doing a bit of reading up, and it turns out I was wrong in thinkin Stalinism is about the worldwide communist revolution - that's actually Trotskyism. With ideals like that, I can understand why Trotsky lost.
 
Trotsky lost because he could not play "office politics" and was in the rush to implement World Revolution without paying attention to brewing competition and political games inside. NEP was a bit of hypocrisy, but maybe it was a course toward China-style economy - limited capitalism in economy with communist ideology in politics. Russia before revolution was developing rapidly and had a chance to catch up eventually. Solving development problem with slave labor does not make sense because slave labor is very inefficient. Korolev spent 6 years in Gulag system and lost his health (and this eventually caused his death because of a broken jaw by NKVD). So he was eventually parolled (not aquitted), but as you correctly stated - Stalin set up atmosphere of distrust and terror and he "deservs" full credit for every victim of this system. How many talented people died in prisons without giving back to the country? Stalin's Russia is a model of inefficiency. Things were build during Khruschev as well by volunteer excited motivated labor, not by hungry dying slaves. I am pretty sure that it was possible to develop country this way in 1930's.   
 
 
Stalin did not discriminate, he hated everyone :)) Though you're right in that both were dominated by paranoia and a lust for power. Both got what they deserved, though I feel Stalin got better treatment after his death. Hitler was burned and his ashes were thrown in a river. Stalin was buried and they put down a massive concrete slab down after him to make sure he'll never climb back out again :) As for who Stalin was inside, I don't know because he didn't leave many memos. I don't believe he was a true racist in a way Hitler was, though. More like a power-hungry maniac plain and simple. 
 
Both tyrants hated people, but Hitler was blinded by his hate (he even pulled trains and troops to finish Jews when resources were required to sustain war effort) while Stalin used people first and killed them later - he used jewish organizations during WW2 for support abroad and killed them after war. He was pragmatic racist and he won PR campaign inside and abroad. Stalin was a true racist judging from his comments, but he could wait for the right moment unlike Hitler. Interestingly enough, arrests picked in 1950's and NOT in 1930's.   
 

Feeling sick at every time the name is mentioned doesn't really count as a valid opinion LOL. I think Stalin left Moscow to see what his inner circle would do without him - would they be helpless enough? Would they try to overthrow him? It's the constant paranoia again. I do agree with you on the idea that he stayed in Moscow because he knew the game would be up otherwise. Same reason for why Hitler killed himself in the end - he knew the game was over. What I do "like" in a way was how he purged the military of the old career generals. Many say that was a mistake; I think by getting rid of the old guard who lost WW1, he paved the way for fresh young blood to come in with new ideas. I think the military ended up being more ready and capable (for what it was) after WW2 as a result.

Stalin left Moscow to test the government? This is an absurd idea. Leaders never leave during war: war is not time for tests - it's time for actions. Stalin probably left because he did not know what to do and he thought that his country will crumble and die (he did not believe in his people after all). His circle brought him back to his senses. Stalin also was lousy war commander (just like Hitler) and made many strategic mistakes, while his best generals had to fix his mess. And there was practically no "old guard that lost WW1". I mean how many generals carried over from WW1? And what about purging junior officer ranks? Army had to replace them with unqualified inexperienced people from below and they could not do the job right. Stalin "dumbed down" his own army and made it another model of inefficiency, just like his whole country. His army became more capable after WW2 because of the war experience and not because of the purges.   
 
 
 
At the end of the day, Hitler had to sell his image to the people and the Germans still retched when they found out the truth about him. Stalin didn't do much selling and wasn't a very charismatic figure, yet he still has a large following, despite the fact that everyone knows he killed 40 million people. His supporters don't deny it like neo-Nazis deny the Holocaust. They think it was nesessary. I'm inclined to agree sometimes. After what they did, it was either to do that or perish. Soon after the Revolution, the Germans started advancing, Brits, Americans and the Japanese landed in various parts of the country, and the Russian Empire soon became in a very real danger of being munched up by various opportunist powers. And while I think sometimes that at that point, the end of Russia the nation would have been beneficial for everyone, I'm aware that most Russians wouldn't agree with me. And without Stalin, I don't believe Russia would have survived the 1920s and then Hitler. So Russia owes its national identity to Stalin, whether we like it or not. I believe that we must never forget that. It's all very well talking about freedom and democracy but when you are a world-class dump and your enemies surround you and encroach at your doorstep, your priorities do change. It doesn't nesessarily mean Russians want Stalin back. What it does mean is that Russian national identity and Stalin are inseparable, and Russians recognise that fact.
As for Russians not believeing in themselves, gm.. it's funny. Russians are very patriotic, and having been systematically screwed over by their leaders for the past... well, forever, they seem to adapt by saying that Russia is one thing, its leaders are something different. Russians refuse to take full responsibility for their leaders - which is understandable - with the result that leaders can do what they want and the people will take it. Their actions will thus further reinforce the people's beliefs. Catch-22.
 
Stalin set up a system that did PR for him - he was this mysterious shadowy omnipotent figure behind the Kremlin wall - image that was just as effective as charismatic Hitler. Even Germany did not have a system when people were sent to Gulag for media typos and accidental dropping of the portraits of leaders. Germans rejected Hitler in the end because they only lived about a decade under him and he lost the war, while russians lived 25 years with Stalin and he won the war. Think about how many traitors and nazi-collaborators Russia had during WW2, despite propaganda and purges. So many people pretended to love Stalin and this is all his system achieved - forced love. Some people were fanatical, but so were many Germans. So after living for so long under Stalin's propaganda system and winning victory with blood people naturally want to believe that all that sacrifice was necessary (hey, neo-nazis also think that 6 mil of Jews in the ovens was a necessity).
Now about credit for Civil War victory. Stalin does not deserve this. He did not do much. Trotsky and field commanders won this victory when country was in ruins after revolution. So why does Stalin deserve the credit for Civil War victory and why couldn't people win against Germany without him?
Russians were screwed by their leaders or both sides screwed each other? LOL It just seems like many Russians are waiting for "the good tzar" that will come and will make everything better. Putin was IT until this crisis -  now he lost some of his popularity, but still hold an advantage over the competition because there is no good competition for whatever reason.
   
 
Quote    Reply

afrc       1/17/2009 1:06:47 PM
So if a US citizen is charged with treason, he gets a full trial with juries and everything? 
 
Do you have evidence to the contrary?   
 
Quote    Reply

Lance Blade       1/24/2009 6:34:30 PM
Trotsky lost because he could not play "office politics" and was in the rush to implement World Revolution without paying attention to brewing competition and political games inside. NEP was a bit of hypocrisy, but maybe it was a course toward China-style economy - limited capitalism in economy with communist ideology in politics. Russia before revolution was developing rapidly and had a chance to catch up eventually. Solving development problem with slave labor does not make sense because slave labor is very inefficient. Korolev spent 6 years in Gulag system and lost his health (and this eventually caused his death because of a broken jaw by NKVD). So he was eventually parolled (not aquitted), but as you correctly stated - Stalin set up atmosphere of distrust and terror and he "deservs" full credit for every victim of this system. How many talented people died in prisons without giving back to the country? Stalin's Russia is a model of inefficiency. Things were build during Khruschev as well by volunteer excited motivated labor, not by hungry dying slaves. I am pretty sure that it was possible to develop country this way in 1930's.   
 
What's the use of having a China-style country when you're trying to build communism? Xiaoping compromised when he saw that his/Mao's/Stalin's model was a model of inefficiency, like you said. It still is, because political pressure isn't allowed, and as we both know, political pressure exists for a reason. Russia before revolution, as far as I'm aware, was a disaster area where soldiers had to share rifles and public patience was stretched far beyond the limit which was why the revolution happened in the first place. Stalin set up his system of fear, and that was because everyone went along with it or was too busy fighting amongst themselves to stop him. Similar to how Putin came to power incidentally, because the opposition was (and still is) too busy arguing about who's the most democratic oppositionary underdog, to actually do anything useful. What's the point of blaming one man for the suffering of millions? The communists did their revolution, then proved incapable of governing, fell to petty bickerings, dragged the land through a decade of anarchy so that in the end, most were happy with Stalin where finally, someone held the reins. Slave labour may be inefficient, but it's free, and all the big players at the time advocated its use because it meant you could get big things done very quickly. As far as I'm aware it doesn't take great skill or motivation to lay down railway tracks or mix cement. The end result is ramshackle, but at least it's quick and cheap. And people in Stalin's time were very motivated. I have O.K.Antonov's autobiography from the time and not once does he critisize Stalin or the system. Look at all the wonderful inventions the USSR made in Stalin's days - T-34, Katysha, Il-2, AK-47... Inefficient? Maybe, but then you get the maximum brute force out of the system. Like I said, the main problem was it being unsustainable, and I'm sure Stalin had plans for fixing that (total war).
 
Both tyrants hated people, but Hitler was blinded by his hate (he even pulled trains and troops to finish Jews when resources were required to sustain war effort) while Stalin used people first and killed them later - he used jewish organizations during WW2 for support abroad and killed them after war. He was pragmatic racist and he won PR campaign inside and abroad. Stalin was a true racist judging from his comments, but he could wait for the right moment unlike Hitler. Interestingly enough, arrests picked in 1950's and NOT in 1930's.   
 
Wasn't Stalin planning on carrying out another purge in the 1950s, right before his death? Purges made perverse sense - they increased social mobility and got people motivated, while at the same time making them fear doing or saying the wrong things. Stalin was cold and calculating, while Hitler was a hysteric. I don't know about him being a racist. I doubt people like him care about things like race all that much. 

Stalin left Moscow to test the government? This is an absurd idea. Leaders never leave during war: war is not time for tests - it's time for actions. Stalin probably left because he did not know what to do and he thought that his country will crumble and die (he did not believe in his people after all). His circle brought him back to his senses. Stalin also was lousy war commander (just like Hitler) and made many strategic mistakes, while his best generals had to fix his mess. And there was practically no "old guard that lost WW1". I mean how many generals carried over from WW1? And what about purging junior officer ranks? Army had to replace them with unqualified inexperienced people from below and they could not do the job right. Stalin "dumbed down" his own army and made it another model of inefficiency, just like his whole country. His army became more capable after WW2 because of the war experience and not because of the purges.   
 
Let's bear in mind that Stalin probably feared his own people more than he feared Hitler. And in such a situation, testing his inner circle, again, made perverse sense. I have the feeling that he never doubted the outcome of the war for some reason. I think he was surprised when Hitler attacked, but let's see - Hitler's army would run on stretched supply lines throughout the whole campaign; he probably trusted his people to fight for the defence of the Motherland to the last; he'd moved all the important factories to the Urals very early on, where Hitler never had any intention of going (he was going to just grab lands west of the Volga and use them as living space) and in a war of attrition, Russia simply had more men. I doubt that he was that worried. As for the old guard, well, the generals may not have been there any more, but the doctrines taught by them were probably still around. Stalin probably didn't like them at all, I'm guessing they contained stuff like morals and war etiquette that were not called for in his new utopia. He wanted a completely new everything - new tactics, new generals, who would also be completely loyal to him. Now he made exceptions, for example he kept Zhukov who critisized him, because he was a good general. Was the new army better than the old army? Well, the new one defeated Germans, while the old one consistently lost battles to them. History would seem to point in that direction.
 
Stalin set up a system that did PR for him - he was this mysterious shadowy omnipotent figure behind the Kremlin wall - image that was just as effective as charismatic Hitler. Even Germany did not have a system when people were sent to Gulag for media typos and accidental dropping of the portraits of leaders. Germans rejected Hitler in the end because they only lived about a decade under him and he lost the war, while russians lived 25 years with Stalin and he won the war. Think about how many traitors and nazi-collaborators Russia had during WW2, despite propaganda and purges. So many people pretended to love Stalin and this is all his system achieved - forced love. Some people were fanatical, but so were many Germans. So after living for so long under Stalin's propaganda system and winning victory with blood people naturally want to believe that all that sacrifice was necessary (hey, neo-nazis also think that 6 mil of Jews in the ovens was a necessity).
Now about credit for Civil War victory. Stalin does not deserve this. He did not do much. Trotsky and field commanders won this victory when country was in ruins after revolution. So why does Stalin deserve the credit for Civil War victory and why couldn't people win against Germany without him?

Neo-nazis thing 6 millions Jews were nesessary?? I thought that was the end, not the means to the end if you get me. Stalin was in there with the rest of them in the Civil War, and yes, Trotsky did far more. But Trotsky then legged it and Lenin died. Stalin remained the only figure firmply tied to the Revolution. He made it that way. In WW2, he was the guy in power. Could Russians have defeated Germany without him? I'll have to say it again - Germans consistently defeated Russians pre-WW2. Right after the Revolution, when Germany was bitterly embattled in the West, they started advancing into Russia threatening St Petersburg until the commies panicked and scrambled to sign the ridiculus Brest-Litovsk treaty. That's not decent defence by any measure. It was under Stalin that Russians reversed history with the Germans and it was as a direct result of his influence (which was massive and all-pervasive). So I can understand it when Russians look up to the man - he managed to squeeze more out of the country than anyone else before him had. And Russian identity is firmly tied to Stalin. It's fully acceptable to claim that, without Stalin, there would be no Russia. Plenty of evidence points that way.
 
Russians were screwed by their leaders or both sides screwed each other? LOL It just seems like many Russians are waiting for "the good tzar" that will come and will make everything better. Putin was IT until this crisis -  now he lost some of his popularity, but still hold an advantage over the competition because there is no good competition for whatever reason.
 
You are completely right - the main problem with that approach is, as we've seen, when you're used to someone pushing you all the time, you forget how to push yourself. Gorbachev gave everyone freedom - and what did Russians do? They stole, fought, cheated and backstabbed each other for ten years, and/or simply left. Companies only ceased the practices of delaying wage payment and tax evasion after 1998, when this caused the Russian economy to collapse. Doesn't sound like the most socially aware country to me LOL. For all the critisism, Putin has one hell of a task on his hands. Have you seen this vid of him in 1996? I don't envy the guy.
hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y45ATEf9bW0&feature=channel_page
 
Quote    Reply

Lance Blade       1/24/2009 6:48:41 PM

So if a US citizen is charged with treason, he gets a full trial with juries and everything? 

 

Do you have evidence to the contrary?   

No, I was just asking to clarify as I didn't know. I suppose my point is, it's acceptable to have that law in a normal society because a normal society has systems like independant media to ensure no injustice would be done. Then again, in a normal society you wouldn't need that law because you wouldn't have a situation where a terrorist or traitor could bribe his way out of a court case. In a normal society you woudn't have a situation where several men would be caught for terrorism or suspicion of terrorism, held for a short while, then released, and go on to seize a school full of children. In a normal society you wouldn't have a situation where very loud court cases get deliberately bogged down with semantics to the point where the chances of truth ever being found are next to nil. Where lawyers working on a case with huge public resonance and crucial for the stability of a nation, get killed in broad laylight in the middle of the capital (this one really gets to me, as a fan of Novaya Gazeta). In a normal society you wouldn't have most people take deliberate steps to avoid the court system because they know what it's like, and resolve disputes in more "traditional" ways.  Russia isn't a normal society, with all due consequences. And the threat of dictatorship is as high as the threat of anarchy. Which way to go? It's not an easy choice :(
 
Quote    Reply

afrc       1/26/2009 7:25:45 PM


So if a US citizen is charged with treason, he gets a full trial with juries and everything? 

Do you have evidence to the contrary?   


No, I was just asking to clarify as I didn't know. I suppose my point is, it's acceptable to have that law in a normal society because a normal society has systems like independant media to ensure no injustice would be done. Then again, in a normal society you wouldn't need that law because you wouldn't have a situation where a terrorist or traitor could bribe his way out of a court case. In a normal society you woudn't have a situation where several men would be caught for terrorism or suspicion of terrorism, held for a short while, then released, and go on to seize a school full of children. In a normal society you wouldn't have a situation where very loud court cases get deliberately bogged down with semantics to the point where the chances of truth ever being found are next to nil. Where lawyers working on a case with huge public resonance and crucial for the stability of a nation, get killed in broad laylight in the middle of the capital (this one really gets to me, as a fan of Novaya Gazeta). In a normal society you wouldn't have most people take deliberate steps to avoid the court system because they know what it's like, and resolve disputes in more "traditional" ways.  Russia isn't a normal society, with all due consequences. And the threat of dictatorship is as high as the threat of anarchy. Which way to go? It's not an easy choice :(
It looks to me like another way for government to control the legal system. As if judge cannot be bought or threatened. However it is much easier for government to press on the judge to get the needed verdict, while pressure on jury can come out and embarrass the government. In such a corrupt country as Russia (on all levels) the system have to be as transparent as possible or it becomes more and more corrupt.
 
Quote    Reply

afrc       1/26/2009 10:21:49 PM
What's the use of having a China-style country when you're trying to build communism? Xiaoping compromised when he saw that his/Mao's/Stalin's model was a model of inefficiency, like you said. It still is, because political pressure isn't allowed, and as we both know, political pressure exists for a reason.
 
China has it all, as far as I can tell. Communist Party controls all affairs of the state and politics, it milks western companies, it can squeeze businessmen if necessary, it sets the course of the currency to make it more profitable to buy Chinese goods. They have economy that feeds the party and it's agenda, while party can do whatever it likes. It's the perfect arrangement to stay in power, keep West dependent on China, have money for military and civil projects. China never was shy about kicking ass to pacify revolts. How is it not the prefect model for a totalitarian state?  
 
 
Russia before revolution, as far as I'm aware, was a disaster area where soldiers had to share rifles and public patience was stretched far beyond the limit which was why the revolution happened in the first place. Stalin set up his system of fear, and that was because everyone went along with it or was too busy fighting amongst themselves to stop him. Similar to how Putin came to power incidentally, because the opposition was (and still is) too busy arguing about who's the most democratic oppositionary underdog, to actually do anything useful. What's the point of blaming one man for the suffering of millions? The communists did their revolution, then proved incapable of governing, fell to petty bickerings, dragged the land through a decade of anarchy so that in the end, most were happy with Stalin where finally, someone held the reins.
 
Stalin inherited the system of political and military power that was set up before him and was loyal to whoever was in charge. He used the existing system to create a true slave state. I blame individual people because they were nuts and bolts of the system, but Stalin saw the whole picture and he controlled the direction of the system. And about decade of anarchy... the country went through horrible civil war and several years of power struggle when Trotsky and Stalin fractions fought each other and there was no agreement on how to govern industry and economy. Stalin won in the end and had his way. He killed off most of his supporters and opponents and consolidated all power around himself. He deserves the blame for the deeds of his system.
And Russian soldiers also had to share rifles when WW2 began, while they were supposed to have more tanks and planes than Germans. They certainly did not have the shortage of rifles during civil war, so the stories are probably embelished a little bit... not that they did not have problems.
  
 
 
Slave labour may be inefficient, but it's free, and all the big players at the time advocated its use because it meant you could get big things done very quickly. As far as I'm aware it doesn't take great skill or motivation to lay down railway tracks or mix cement. The end result is ramshackle, but at least it's quick and cheap. And people in Stalin's time were very motivated. I have O.K.Antonov's autobiography from the time and not once does he critisize Stalin or the system. Look at all the wonderful inventions the USSR made in Stalin's days - T-34, Katysha, Il-2, AK-47... Inefficient? Maybe, but then you get the maximum brute force out of the system. Like I said, the main problem was it being unsustainable, and I'm sure Stalin had plans for fixing that (total war).
 
Slave labor can be free, but for the same input you can have better productivity with free labor. No one will trust a slave with a bulldozer, while one free guy with a bulldozer will do the work of hundred slaves... and he will be happy. Slaves don't care about quality of work, especially when they are dying of hunger and cold and sickness and overworking - and most of them were. The product of slave labor is barely useful. American Civil War kinda hinted at the advantages of free labor versus slave labor. And finally once you create a class of (presumably) disillusioned slaves - you have to constantly watch them and be afraid of them.
As far as inventions... T-34 is a Kristy design that was rejected by US Army. It was very simple. USSR could not produce reliable engines for tanks and it did not have precise machines to manufacture good engines and parts. Steel for tanks was made in US supplied furnaces with US technology. US also supplied USSR with factory equipment and steel, among other things. Il-2 was a good plane tailored to Eastern front needs, but it was nothing special. Americans had overall better planes and many more of them. AK-47 is a good design inspired by German assault rifle. Americans mass-produced semi-automatic Garand M1 when it was necessary for war. M16 is a good modular upgradeable rifle that needed a few improvements (Army was slow to move to implement them). None of these things require any extraordinary engineering or science base. None of them are true inventions. Brute force is good, but it usually stumbles against efficient opponent. Germany fought war on two fronts, it made many military mistakes, while USSR was supplied by US... and Germany still kicked butt for 2 years and bit hard for 2 more... outnumbered, outproduced, encircled. So who did win the war? Stalin? RussianWinter? Mass of Russian corpses? Allied help?
  
 
 
Let's bear in mind that Stalin probably feared his own people more than he feared Hitler. And in such a situation, testing his inner circle, again, made perverse sense. I have the feeling that he never doubted the outcome of the war for some reason. I think he was surprised when Hitler attacked, but let's see - Hitler's army would run on stretched supply lines throughout the whole campaign; he probably trusted his people to fight for the defense of the Motherland to the last; he'd moved all the important factories to the Urals very early on, where Hitler never had any intention of going (he was going to just grab lands west of the Volga and use them as living space) and in a war of attrition, Russia simply had more men.
 
Immediately after Hitler attacked Stalin said: "Lenin gave us the country and we lost it"... and he left without any declarations to the public (it had to be done by someone else). Stalin only returned after his circle came to beg him to come back. They knew that the whole country was reliant on the myth that he created - that only he could lead country to victory. It has nothing to do with the "test".  And Stalin knew that Hitler was gonna invade - he had plenty of intelligence reports about the date. Only he thought that Hitler tried to provoke him into the war. Stalin thought that he could outsmart Hitler. Stalin wanted to postpone the war (because he knew that he bleed his army dry) and he treated all the reports as provocation. He even initially tried to stop his army from responding to the attack, by standing in place and returning fire only when fired upon, because he did not want to feed the provocation into the full-out war. As far as his strategy for the war... isn't it the usual Russian strategy since the war of 1812? Crawl back and hope for the winter. Worked for Napoleon and until them no one could defeat him on land. Does it mean that Russian czar was military genius or Russia had an advanced industry? Russia even had slaves (surfs) just like under Stalin. Stalin used the same trick. Some genius leader he is - used an old trick that worked before.  
 
 
I doubt that he was that worried. As for the old guard, well, the generals may not have been there any more, but the doctrines taught by them were probably still around. Stalin probably didn't like them at all, I'm guessing they contained stuff like morals and war etiquette that were not called for in his new utopia. He wanted a completely new everything - new tactics, new generals, who would also be completely loyal to him. Now he made exceptions, for example he kept Zhukov who critisized him, because he was a good general. Was the new army better than the old army? Well, the new one defeated Germans, while the old one consistently lost battles to them. History would seem to point in that direction.
 
See above. He seemed pretty sure that the war was lost. If Stalin wanted everything new then why did he keep in charge Voroshilov and Budenov? These two were still stuck in the civil war more than anyone else: machine guns on horse carts... horsemen charges with sabers. And Russian army did not lose WW1. It was in a stalemate (just like with other countries), but it was no worse than Red Army in the beginning of WW2. Communists used war time to instill dissent in the military and the regime did not respond the way Stalin would - with executions and guard troops shooting deserters and retreating troops. Before WW1 Russia enjoyed some victories: over Turks, Napoleon, Prussia (and some defeats). 
 
 
 
Neo-nazis thing 6 millions Jews were necessary?? I thought that was the end, not the means to the end if you get me.
 
Necessary to save the master race. It was the means AND the end.  
 
 
Stalin was in there with the rest of them in the Civil War, and yes, Trotsky did far more. But Trotsky then legged it and Lenin died. Stalin remained the only figure firmply tied to the Revolution. He made it that way. In WW2, he was the guy in power. Could Russians have defeated Germany without him? I'll have to say it again - Germans consistently defeated Russians pre-WW2. Right after the Revolution, when Germany was bitterly embattled in the West, they started advancing into Russia threatening St Petersburg until the commies panicked and scrambled to sign the ridiculus Brest-Litovsk treaty. That's not decent defense by any measure. It was under Stalin that Russians reversed history with the Germans and it was as a direct result of his influence (which was massive and all-pervasive). So I can understand it when Russians look up to the man - he managed to squeeze more out of the country than anyone else before him had. And Russian identity is firmly tied to Stalin. It's fully acceptable to claim that, without Stalin, there would be no Russia. Plenty of evidence points that way. 
 
Trotsky was too busy building his true communism and spreading revolution around. He lost "office war" to Stalin who was smart enough to build alliances, conspire with people behind curtains and he finally made sure he was chosen to lead, while Trotsky was flying high in the clouds. After that Trotsky was exiled in 1927 I think (long after the Civil War)... he was alone against the system that he helped to build and it turned on him (and he knew it's danger).
Now as I mentioned before, Russia did not really lose WW1 - it simply withdrew due to political collapse and civil war. When Germans began to advance, the country was in the middle of the brutal civil war and in no position to respond to Germans, while Communists were fighting White Russians (and some other foreign forces). German Western front was secure and held Allies at bay. The Eastern front suddenly had no Russian opposition and was free to advance. The bad peace in this case was the best option I guess. It is not an indication of the defeat.
  
 
You are completely right - the main problem with that approach is, as we've seen, when you're used to someone pushing you all the time, you forget how to push yourself. Gorbachev gave everyone freedom - and what did Russians do? They stole, fought, cheated and backstabbed each other for ten years, and/or simply left. Companies only ceased the practices of delaying wage payment and tax evasion after 1998, when this caused the Russian economy to collapse. Doesn't sound like the most socially aware country to me LOL. For all the critisism, Putin has one hell of a task on his hands. Have you seen this vid of him in 1996? I don't envy the guy.
hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y45ATEf9bW0&feature=channel_page
 
Gorbachev not only give freedom, he lost control of the order... he lost control of the corrupt system that was holding by force. It's like Iraq after Saddam - suddenly wolves had free hand while law-abiding citizens were left to the mercy of the gangs and corrupt cops (they were probably corrupt before). It's interesting that Putin speaks of democracy and fear of the regime change, while he found a way around it - he will stay in power himself or through his puppets as long as possible, he (presumably) will steal enough money to have a comfortable life even if he has to leave. Putin also realized that Russians will respect dictators more than freedom givers (Russians think they are weak and dumb, while Stalin is respected even by those that hate him) and so he was safe to become a semi-dictator. Power corrupts.  
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy