Reminder: Europeans literally cannot accept that imperialism was bad.

[213374U]

So, 213374U, would you agree with the following statement: "Spanish colonial rule was unequivocally a net negative to humanity at large"?

Yep. The Spanish empire was pretty nefarious. It had some bright points (Lepanto) but mostly it was a reactionary blight.

 

Your point?

 

 

the net effect of Stalin was the defeat of the Nazi menace, a monstrosity far greater and more terrible than the Great Purge.

Only Uncle Joe's crimes don't end at the Purge.

 

 

"Stalinism" was a net good for the world.

This is ridiculous and absurd. Prove that only Stalin's genocidal policies could have lead to a defeat of the Wehrmacht, or conversely that without these policies, Germany would have prevailed in the Eastern front. Russia had historically been a power and a very serious worry for European and especially German leaders (Bismarck: "The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia."), so it's insane to suggest that Stalinism helped defeat Hitler, when it's actually most likely the opposite as Stalin's policies were fundamentally conceived to cement his own power, regardless of the cost. Early Soviet history is a contest between national socialists and international socialists to see who can kill the most Russians (and minorities).

[lord of flies]

Yep. The Spanish empire was pretty nefarious. It had some bright points (Lepanto) but mostly it was a reactionary blight.

 

Your point?

None if you agree with the statement.

This is ridiculous and absurd. Prove that only Stalin's genocidal policies could have lead to a defeat of the Wehrmacht, or conversely that without these policies, Germany would have prevailed in the Eastern front. Russia had historically been a power and a very serious worry for European and especially German leaders (Bismarck: "The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia."), so it's insane to suggest that Stalinism helped defeat Hitler, when it's actually most likely the opposite as Stalin's policies were fundamentally conceived to cement his own power, regardless of the cost. Early Soviet history is a contest between national socialists and international socialists to see who can kill the most Russians (and minorities).

I never said that only Stalin's genocidal policies could have lead to a defeat of the Wehrmacht. However, his economic policy in 1928 - that is, collectivization - lead to the rapid industrialization of Russia. Before Communism, Russia was a country that got its ass beat by Japan (and Japan's economy in 1905 was not that good; it had potential for growth that propelled it forward, but in 1905 it was at around Russia in per-capita levels). It was the economic rear end of Europe. Yeah, it had a lot of manpower, but as technology advanced, manpower became less and less important.

 

And before you make any ridiculous claims about a White Russia being able to industrialize just the same: Russia did not have the potential to industrialize as Japan did, because it had completely different economic conditions. Japan had textile factories that could compete internationally without government intervention; Russia had a ****load of farmland that wasn't due for any technical innovation until after WW2. Russia industrialized because collectivization lead to urbanization, as production in the countryside was rationalized, thus causing excess manpower to move into the cities. If a different leader had emerged who also pushed this economic policy, that would have been excellent, since they probably would not have delved into Stalin's paranoia. But there wasn't a different leader; Bukharin wanted to maintain NEP (which was coming apart at the seams by 1928), Zinoviev criticized collectivization repeatedly, and Trotsky had all the political skills of a dead fish (and also criticized collectivization). With any one of these guys, collectivization would have come much slower, if at all - and without collectivization (and thus urbanization and thus industrialization), Russia would not have been able to stand up against the Nazi menace and what few "untermenschen" survived would be speaking German.

Edited July 4, 2010 by lord of flies

[I want teh kotor 3]

So... Let me see if I understand this...

 

You condemn the classical European powers for colonizing and therefore screwing over a great deal of the world, but also therefore planting the seeds of developed economy in places where previously there had mostly been rural agrarian societies.

 

You also ****ing worship Stalin, a mass-murdering maniac who set the precedent for almost 75 years of oppressive Soviet dictatorship.

 

This does not make sense.

[lord of flies]

So... Let me see if I understand this...

 

You condemn the classical European powers for colonizing and therefore screwing over a great deal of the world, but also therefore planting the seeds of developed economy in places where previously there had mostly been rural agrarian societies.

ha. This is incorrect, they did not "plant the seeds of developed economy" nor turn countries away from "rural agrarian" social structures. Contact with Europeans may have accomplished that, but Europe focused far more on extracting natural resources from its colonies than giving the "savages" industry. Rulership of the Europeans created division where once there was none, creating ethnic conflicts which still mire these societies and serve as a great hindrance to development.

You also ****ing worship Stalin, a mass-murdering maniac who set the precedent for almost 75 years of oppressive Soviet dictatorship.

I don't worship Stalin, I have a nuanced view of him, and because I am capable of understanding nuance I am capable of understanding that Stalin was a net benefit to the world because the awareness of the Great Purge and his other excesses does not prevent me from recognizing his vital role in destroying the Nazi threat.

[Oblarg]

but also therefore planting the seeds of developed economy in places where previously there had mostly been rural agrarian societies.

 

And those societies are so much better off for it, amirite?

 

Here's a thought: many of the economic systems that the Europeans planted in Africa simply do not work in that environment. That's not a good thing,

[Monte Carlo]

This thread is freaking hilarious, a petri dish of stupidity.

[Zoraptor]

Here's a thought: many of the economic systems that the Europeans planted in Africa simply do not work in that environment. That's not a good thing,

The economic system is still working pretty much as intended- it's just that any benefits for the inhabitants has almost always been (and remain) circumstantial and limited to a favoured elite, and it's primarily designed to gain maximum profit for outside parties rather than benefit internal ones.

[Meshugger]

but also therefore planting the seeds of developed economy in places where previously there had mostly been rural agrarian societies.

 

And those societies are so much better off for it, amirite?

 

Here's a thought: many of the economic systems that the Europeans planted in Africa simply do not work in that environment. That's not a good thing,

 

Please elaborate.

[Oblarg]

but also therefore planting the seeds of developed economy in places where previously there had mostly been rural agrarian societies.

 

And those societies are so much better off for it, amirite?

 

Here's a thought: many of the economic systems that the Europeans planted in Africa simply do not work in that environment. That's not a good thing,

 

Please elaborate.

 

Not necessarily economic systems, but:

 

Much of the deaths due to Malaria are due the the Europeans imparting a way of life that doesn't work in much of sub-Saharan Africa. Large, densely-populated cities are a really bad idea. Malaria was much less of a problem when the population was dispersed and agrarian.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Oblarg

[Raithe]

Not necessarily economic systems, but:

 

Much of the deaths due to Malaria are due the the Europeans imparting a way of life that doesn't work in much of sub-Saharan Africa. Large, densely-populated cities are a really bad idea. Malaria was much less of a problem when the population was dispersed and agrarian.

 

Hm, isn't that basic disease vs civilization areas, rather then just specific diseases in that environment? Any urban centers with large populations and poor/low standard sanitation is going to have greater troubles with the spread of disease...

 

Part of the economic troubles are the large incidents of endemic graft in the majority of the government/civil systems. Heh, some of my family have worked for some of the big charity organisations that do a lot of work out in Africa and the internal reports about how much (or rather, what low percentage of) money/medicine/food/"whatever needed product" actually makes it to the intended places once it's docked is freaking hilarious or massively depressing (depending on your perspective on human nature).

[Walsingham]

LOL coming from an admirer of Stalin.

Yes, I do admire the man who industrialized the Soviet Union and lead it against the Nazis. Certainly the Great Purge was overzealous, but the net effect of Stalin was the defeat of the Nazi menace, a monstrosity far greater and more terrible than the Great Purge. I'll remind you that in four short years the Nazis killed over twenty million Soviet citizens, and they would have done far, far more if they'd had the opportunity. Stalin (alongside the Soviet peoples, of course) denied them that opportunity. It had its price, greater than it needed to be, but "Stalinism" was a net good for the world.

 

*chuckles*

 

You're saying Stalin, the man whose purges (pre-requisites of communism as they were) crippled the Red Army on the eve of battle... The man who personally over-rode the warnings of invasion even when it was happening... the man who went into a catatonic funk when the Nazis reached Moscow... This man and his system that was so terrible Russians in their millions surrendered at the first oportunity until they realised the Nazis were unaccountably even worse... This man was the reason for victory?

 

Russia did not win because of Stalin, it won in spite of Stalin.

 

On the other hand you could argue that without Stalin communism could not have survived the debacle.

 

And incidentally, I don't deny there were crimes committed by the Raj. But since I have only heard about them from a man whose concept of history is doubtful, I'm not wasting time looking into them.

[lord of flies]

*chuckles*

 

I really ought to know better by now, but your total absence of historical awareness never gets old.

 

You're saying Stalin, the man whose purges (pre-requisites of communism as they were) crippled the Red Army on the eve of battle... The man who personally over-rode the warnings of invasion even when it was happening... the man who went into a catatonic funk when the Nazis reached Moscow... This man and his system that was so terrible Russians in their millions surrendered at the first oportunity until they realised the Nazis were unaccountably even worse... This man was the reason for victory?

Yes. Try reading about Soviet industrialization and its huge effect on the Soviet war effort.

And incidentally, I don't deny there were crimes committed by the Raj. But since I have only heard about them from a man whose concept of history is doubtful, I'm not wasting time looking into them.

lmao 29 million people were knowingly starved under your ****ty system and you won't "[waste] time looking into them," not because "you have only heard about them from a man whose concept of history is doubtful," but because you romanticize the British Empire and knowing that the leaders of the British Raj in India got angry whenever famine relief was attempted by local administrators would absolutely destroy your resolute, nationalistic picture of your awful country's awful history.

[Blarghagh]

Yes, Wals obviously did a lot to romanticize the British Empire. I like how the only way you can debunk someone is by putting words in their mouth first.

 

Your point?

None if you agree with the statement.

Even when you agree with him LoF is still pointless.

[Cycloneman]

Yes, Wals obviously did a lot to romanticize the British Empire. I like how the only way you can debunk someone is by putting words in their mouth first.

What's this, if not romanticization of the British Empire?

Not another attempt to whitewash the entire British Empire as a fiendish exercise in brutality. The simplest possible rebuttal is that if it HAD been it would never have existed in the first place. Britain never possessed sufficient military power to exert its will by pure force of arms. Whether we like it or not they maintained control by a mix of methods which included making life better for many whose lives previously (and since) consisted of eternal tribal violence. Although the relevance to a modern question of corporate accountability totally escapes me.

1. If you think the Raj or anywhere else we conquered (with the exception of the poor bloody hottentots and bushmen) were peaceful harmonious peoples then I think that says everything it needs to about your historical scholarship.

[Walsingham]

Obviously you feel those statements make me equivalent to a Belgian apologist. Very well. Let us suppose they do.

 

Where does that leave us?

 

It leaves us precisely where we began, with you posting hypocritical articles and trying to label all Europeans as deluded.

 

It is hypocritical because you yourself fantasise about the glorious of communist regimes who are themselves steeped in blood, and you call it 'nuancing'. Is this not more nuancing of the Belgian empire?

[Blarghagh]

What's this, if not romanticization of the British Empire?

 

The truth?

[lord of flies]

It leaves us precisely where we began, with you posting hypocritical articles and trying to label all Europeans as deluded.

 

It is hypocritical because you yourself fantasise about the glorious of communist regimes who are themselves steeped in blood, and you call it 'nuancing'. Is this not more nuancing of the Belgian empire?

Imperialism is not like communism, in particular:

 

a) Because imperialism is about resource extraction, any humanistic accomplishments which may occur being purely accidental and rare.

b) Because imperialism is sexist, racist, homophobic, and transphobic while communism is anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-homophobia, and anti-transphobia.

c) Because imperialism divides a society, stratifies classes and creates social orders where the rich oppress the poor, while communism unites it and destroys the class system.

 

The revolution and the counter-revolution are not the same because their results and goals are completely different.

[Thorton_AP]

The Red Army killed the vast majority of Nazi troops. 5.5:1 ratio of Nazis killed by the Soviet Union to Nazis killed by the entire rest of the allies.

 

I am not one to take the contributions of the Soviets in WW2 lightly. They far and away incurred the largest cost. I attribute this more to the Russian people than a necessity of it being Joseph Stalin in charge.

 

A large part of the Russian pooch-screw at the start of Operation Barbarossa was a result of Comrade Stalin's purging of the military ranks. It was trial by fire for a lot of the chain of command, and their failure to execute an effective defense in depth against the initial German offensive is in large part on Stalin's hands, as it was a result of him purging his military officers.

 

Fortunately for us, the Russian Winter is old faithful. It's not really a surprise that the Russian counter-offensives always came in the winter. Seems to be the usual recourse for how Russia would fight its wars.

 

 

 

(This is of course ignoring things like Lend-Lease and multi-front conflicts for the Germans, as well as Hitler blowing a gasket and relieving his most capable and senior Generals and replacing them with lapdogs like Himmler).

Edited July 5, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Raithe]

Imperialism is not like communism, in particular:

 

a) Because imperialism is about resource extraction, any humanistic accomplishments which may occur being purely accidental and rare.

b) Because imperialism is sexist, racist, homophobic, and transphobic while communism is anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-homophobia, and anti-transphobia.

c) Because imperialism divides a society, stratifies classes and creates social orders where the rich oppress the poor, while communism unites it and destroys the class system.

 

The revolution and the counter-revolution are not the same because their results and goals are completely different.

 

Hm, yes.. I'd say communist russia really managed that.. How many homosexuals ended up in the gulags? Communisms wonderfully "united population" where the common man had meager possessions while the Commisar's had villas... Yes it destroyed the class systems that were present before hand.. it then created new ones in the form of "party faithful" and "everyone else who does all the work".

 

I visited Russia back around '91/92 when it was starting to run into Glasnost.. And there was a strange mix of humour in how even the common traffic cop would happily sell pieces of his uniform to tourists for a few dollars because that would provide a few luxuries...

 

As to the death tolls during WW2, do you have records that divide those into german soldiers killed by the russians, and those killed by the russian winter which they didn't have equipment to survive in? After all, I'd hate to see mother nature slighted.....

[lord of flies]

Hm, yes.. I'd say communist russia really managed that.. How many homosexuals ended up in the gulags?

One of the very first things Lenin did was legalize homosexuality.

Communisms wonderfully "united population" where the common man had meager possessions while the Commisar's had villas...

And Uzbeks and Turkmen could walk the streets, side by side... It had its flaws, but even the "rich" in the Soviet Union were far less wealthy in comparison to the common man than they are/were in the West.

Yes it destroyed the class systems that were present before hand.. it then created new ones in the form of "party faithful" and "everyone else who does all the work".

That is not a class system and "party faithful" made up a huge part of society, including soldiers, workers, and peasants.

I visited Russia back around '91/92 when it was starting to run into Glasnost.. And there was a strange mix of humour in how even the common traffic cop would happily sell pieces of his uniform to tourists for a few dollars because that would provide a few luxuries...

"91/92" wasn't Glasnost, it was the collapse of the Soviet Union. '92 was after the Soviet Union was dead, actually.

[213374U]

Yeah, it had a lot of manpower, but as technology advanced, manpower became less and less important.

Russia's huge manpower and the ability to mobilize very quickly was most certainly the reason the Soviet Union was able to keep on fighting after the Germans captured or killed more than four million Soviet soldiers in 1941, which all but destroyed the RKKA standing forces in the west by that point.

 

But yeah, I guess manpower didn't really matter.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Tigranes
Careful with those handbags, they might hit someone.

[lord of flies]

I'm sick and tired of discussing collectivization with lof, as for him, rampant mismanagement is increasing efficiency, a genocidal famine is rationalizing production and deporting or executing anyone declared a "kulak" or their agent and making life generally impossible for rural populations is driving excess manpower to the cities. It's like bizarro world, really.

Sick and tired of discussing it? Have you ever? You have absolutely no conception of how Soviet economic policies worked. Try reading "Farm to Factory."

 

Russia's huge manpower and the ability to mobilize very quickly was most certainly the reason the Soviet Union was able to keep on fighting after the Germans captured or killed more than four million Soviet soldiers in 1941, which all but destroyed the RKKA standing forces in the west by that point.

 

But yeah, I guess manpower didn't really matter.

With the advance of technology, it became possible for a much smaller force to wipe out a much larger force, as you just demonstrated with your example. Without Soviet industrialization, the next batches of soldiers would have been worse equipped and by 1945, the Soviet Union would have been even more hamstrung to fight back the Nazi menace.

[213374U]

With the advance of technology, it became possible for a much smaller force to wipe out a much larger force, as you just demonstrated with your example.

No. In fact, Axis forces outnumbered Soviet troops during the initial stages of Barbarossa, while the Germans still had the initiative. So it wasn't a "much smaller force" at all, more like the opposite.

 

Oh, and by the way, you still have to prove that without Stalinism, industrialization would have been impossible.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Tigranes
Careful with those handbags, they might hit someone.

[Gorgon]

Soooo.. the usual.

 

 

I can't get involved, life's too short.

[Thorton_AP]

With the advance of technology, it became possible for a much smaller force to wipe out a much larger force, as you just demonstrated with your example. Without Soviet industrialization, the next batches of soldiers would have been worse equipped and by 1945, the Soviet Union would have been even more hamstrung to fight back the Nazi menace.

 

Don't forget the Soviets that drove around in vehicles with USA marked on them, or were shipped along the miles and miles (and miles) of rail lines provided by the Western Nations. Or those that didn't go hungry because food stores were supplemented by shipments coming in through Murmansk, Vladivostok, and the Middle East. Heck, 14% of all tanks built by the UK were sent over to the Soviet Union. I'm sure that the Russian people shooting at Krauts with Sherman tanks weren't too worried about the evils of the Capitalist machine known as the United States.

 

A large part of the Soviet Union's industrial successes came from the fact that a large part of their manufacturing supplies were shipped in via Lend-Lease, from machine parts to natural resources, in addition to industrial streamlining that could be done because factories were not needed to construct various components.

 

If you wish to trivialize the contributions of other nations, then you spit on the memories of those Soviet soldiers that valiantly fought back the German War Machine with those very contributions. I'm sure the brave Russians that fought in the war are very grateful to have you in their corner twisting the facts just like the Premier did.

 

 

No, you moron. In fact, Axis forces outnumbered Soviet troops during the initial stages of Barbarossa, while the Germans still had the initiative. So it wasn't a "much smaller force" at all, more like the opposite.

 

Don't forget the boondoggle that was placing large numbers of your men and equipment within close proximity of the border, despite the realization that SHOULD have been learned from the humiliation that was The Winter War that your military isn't what you think it is. Although I'm sure the Germans didn't mind encircling millions of Russian soldiers and forcing them to surrender.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Thorton_AP