NationStates Jolt Archive

At the debates the other night, Obama and McCain had some tough talk about Russia. McCain a little harsher than Obama (yet the softer talk about Pakistan) But anyway. Both sides don't want Cold War II but.... did they just start it?

If it came down to it, can we really put troops in the Ukraine & Georgia? To even concider it would require a military draft and about 100 trillion dollars to spare.

At the debates the other night, Obama and McCain had some tough talk about Russia. McCain a little harsher than Obama (yet the softer talk about Pakistan) But anyway. Both sides don't want Cold War II but.... did they just start it?

If it came down to it, can we really put troops in the Ukraine & Georgia? To even concider it would require a military draft and about 100 trillion dollars to spare.

Why would the United States put troops there? Why risk a war (possibly nuclear) over possible Russian action in two small countries whose existence is far from essential to US interests?

No they didn't, and no it wouldn't.

It wouldn't be the best idea, and it would be hell for our economic state to expand our military into Ukraine and Georgia, and if we go to Russia.... Well, I can't imagine that ending good.

Yes we can put troops in Georgia. We can physically do it. It just wouldn't be the wisest thing to do. We would not require a draft, US commanders would never invade Russia, just defend Ukraine Georgia. If worse came to worst, And we found our selves with a war on our hands, Yes It would cost Alot of money, and alot of effort, but we could handle it and win. We would not need a draft, because all we would have to do would use The United State's superior airforce, to completley destroy their infrastructure, and nuclear detterence. Then we would basically deny them of shipping lanes, by demolishing their rather small navy. All that's left would be their large conventional army, which the US military is designed to fight. Our superior technology would win the day. Quality over Quanity. And if it came down to it, we still have more numbers. Even with the drop in economy, The US would prevail, after all, all the supplies that would be needed, for a war, would create thousands of jobs, and jumpstart the economy again, like WW2 did.

Augmark this is not WW II. Sure there would be jobs to build up the war machine but the money would run up the national debt too high. Then you have to figure, if NATO troops go to Georgia & Ukraine, Putin will just nuke em. Remember he is KGB. KGB are the ones that thought Russia could survive a full scale nuke war. (they might still believe that)

Augmark this is not WW II. Sure there would be jobs to build up the war machine but the money would run up the national debt too high. Then you have to figure, if NATO troops go to Georgia & Ukraine, Putin will just nuke em. Remember he is KGB. KGB are the ones that thought Russia could survive a full scale nuke war. (they might still believe that)

Did I say it was World War 2? Somehow I knew that would be the only part of my comment that people would reply to, I mean its sooooo Audacious. putin wouldn't be crazy enough to nuke troops in Ukraine and Georgia. Why would he risk the lives of everyone in the world by nuking troops. Maybe that could be where the proposed missle defense system in Easter Europe comes into play.........

Why would the United States put troops there? Why risk a war (possibly nuclear) over possible Russian action in two small countries whose existence is far from essential to US interests?

this

I'm not saying we should put troops in Georgia, and Ukraine we have no obligations to, as they are not NATO yet. I'm just saying, If it came down to a conflict with Russia, they would not have military fortitude to take us on, as they are believed to have.

Yes we can put troops in Georgia. We can physically do it. It just wouldn't be the wisest thing to do. We would not require a draft, US commanders would never invade Russia, just defend Ukraine Georgia. If worse came to worst, And we found our selves with a war on our hands, Yes It would cost Alot of money, and alot of effort, but we could handle it and win. We would not need a draft, because all we would have to do would use The United State's superior airforce, to completley destroy their infrastructure, and nuclear detterence. Then we would basically deny them of shipping lanes, by demolishing their rather small navy. All that's left would be their large conventional army, which the US military is designed to fight. Our superior technology would win the day. Quality over Quanity. And if it came down to it, we still have more numbers. Even with the drop in economy, The US would prevail, after all, all the supplies that would be needed, for a war, would create thousands of jobs, and jumpstart the economy again, like WW2 did.

Technology is more expensive than manpower, unfortunately. Russia could invade Georgia if they wanted, let us attack them for a month, and then accept the peace we offered because we couldn't afford to fight any more.

More to the point perhaps, since you mentioned WW2, you know we're not going to chase Russian troops back over the border.

The US will not go to war with Russia over Georgia.

We should have helped the Germans wipe them out back in 41'...

We should have helped the Germans wipe them out back in 41'...

Obviously this is a joke, but not a very good one...

Obviously this is a joke, but not a very good one...

Genocide is always funny

Obviously this is a joke, but not a very good one...

We would have likely aided Germany to defeat the Soviet Union, or at least keep them from defeating their regime had the Japanese never attacked Pearl Harbor. The Soviets had the Germans beat when it came to sheer extent of their crimes against humanity, and came pretty close on the offensive war side as well. It wasn't organized genocide, at least outside the Ukraine, but it made them no better than the Nazis. Neither side in that war had any moral advantage over the other and that was an underlying component of our strategy.

Realistically, though, aiding both sides was generally the strategy prior to US entry in to WWII; the goal was to tire out both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to the point where both could be easily defeated and democratic regimes put in their place.

We should have helped the Germans wipe them out back in 41'...

Then we'd be complaining about Heinrich Müller, the ex-SS German Bundespräsident.

The Soviets had the Germans beat when it came to sheer extent of their crimes against humanity, and came pretty close on the offensive war side as well. It wasn't organized genocide, at least outside the Ukraine, but it made them no better than the Nazis.

Hardly, had the Germans one the war with Hitler's ideology intact (admittedly, that would be quite hard for them to do) there would be no Russian people today (at least, this side of the Urals) for us to even worry about at the moment. I don't see how the two can be compared. While the Soviets killed people on huge scales it was purely for pragmatic reasons, the Nazis did it for the very sake of killing people.

Then we'd be complaining about Heinrich Müller, the ex-SS German Bundespräsident.

True, although I do not believe the Nazis could have survived in power for much longer than they did; I think the US and the UK along with the other Allied nations would have been able to defeat the Axis powers without the Soviet Union. Getting rid of both the Nazis and the USSR would've enabled a much stronger tide of democratization, although God only knows how difficult that would've been.

Ultimately, it's all moot though. That route would've likely been far costlier to us and would've resulted in serious postwar occupation challenges, although given the lack of a Cold War it might have been beneficial in the end.

Who knows, though?

We would have likely aided Germany to defeat the Soviet Union...

Oh, you were for real?

I think you're talking out of your ass. Not least because the Japanese involvement was a year in the coming... but certainly because the US was never going to back Nazi Germany in a war against Russia.

You have to hope not, anyway - it's bad enough Hitler hadn't learned the 'you don't march into Russia' lesson, it's just too depressing to imagine America would have been stupid enough to back it.

Hardly, had the Germans one the war with Hitler's ideology intact (admittedly, that would be quite hard for them to do) there would be no Russian people today (at least, this side of the Urals) for us to even worry about at the moment. I don't see how the two can be compared. While the Soviets killed people on huge scales it was purely for pragmatic reasons, the Nazis did it for the very sake of killing people.

No, the Soviets quite clearly tried to exterminate as many Ukrainians as possible as well as forcibly deport and kill Jews, Poles, and other minorities. There was a very, very strong current of anti-Semitism in Soviet ideology that made it quite likely they could have pursued a policy similar to that of Hitler had they not been attacked by the Nazi regime. In the postwar period, the Doctors' Plot and other anti-Semitic propaganda came dangerously close to triggering genocide; it was only Stalin's fortunate death that prevented another round of purges.

They even wanted to join the Tripartite Pact, but the Germans didn't allow it because they were planning their invasion a few months later. Overall, Stalin's regime was as bad as Hitler's in all aspects.

True, although I do not believe the Nazis could have survived in power for much longer than they did; I think the US and the UK along with the other Allied nations would have been able to defeat the Axis powers without the Soviet Union. Getting rid of both the Nazis and the USSR would've enabled a much stronger tide of democratization, although God only knows how difficult that would've been.

Ultimately, it's all moot though. That route would've likely been far costlier to us and would've resulted in serious postwar occupation challenges, although given the lack of a Cold War it might have been beneficial in the end.

Who knows, though?

The lack of the Cold War would have been beneficial? The Cold War was basically the engine of innovation for most of the 20th century...

Oh, you were for real?

I think you're talking out of your ass. Not least because the Japanese involvement was a year in the coming... but certainly because the US was never going to back Nazi Germany in a war against Russia.

You have to hope not, anyway - it's bad enough Hitler hadn't learned the 'you don't march into Russia' lesson, it's just too depressing to imagine America would have been stupid enough to back it.

Not 100% real, since German victory in the USSR would've resulted in colossal genocide far beyond that even possible with the Soviets in power. Generalplan Ost was probably the most dangerous plan for mass genocide ever conceived, and it made the Holocaust as it was executed look like a trifle in comparison.

The general plan from our standpoint was to play both sides against each other to wear them both down. If both were weakened, both could fall and those threats to the United States would both be resolved; to that end, we would support our allies, aid resistance efforts in occupied territories, and even directly aid them as needed to ensure that the balance of power remained relatively equal and ended up wearing them down. Same with the Japanese, which is why we both embargoed them and aided the resistance in China and other parts of southeast Asia. We didn't like either of them; both were murderous threats to freedom, national sovereignty and democracy and if we could have engineered such an outcome it would've been in our interest as well as that of the people forcibly conquered and occupied by those two regimes.

The lack of the Cold War would have been beneficial? The Cold War was basically the engine of innovation for most of the 20th century...

It also wasted trillions of dollars and millions of human lives that could have been spent elsewhere. The thing is, the idea that war is somehow economically beneficial is generally a fallacy; every dollar spent on military technology is one that could be spent somewhere else, likely more efficiently. War can only help if you've got a colossal gap between supply and demand, and even then it comes at the cost of other possible projects or spending.

Not to mention the Cold War damaged a lot of research rather than helped; it stifled scientific cooperation and rerouted the priorities of many government research organizations to military rather than civilian applications. The USSR had some of the most brilliant scientists in the world and they were effectively off limits because the two countries felt it better to have a pissing contests between each other for no other reason than ideology. For every advance made, as many or more were probably lost because of that lack of good scientific cooperation and pooled resources.

And of course, lastly, we came so close to nuclear war a few times that it wasn't guaranteed that new technology would ever have a meaningful impact.

Japan & the Nazis are wussies compared to Russia then and now.

Not only do we not need a war with Russia, we don't even need the harsh talk. Georgia & the Ukraine are idiots if they don't sign back on with Russia. The US & Russia are trying to get the international space station built and we need to build on that. Russia & America could easily team up to find the correct answers to alt energy and many other problems.

Ridiculous. We only started emargoing them and cutting them off after the Nanjing Massacre. Prior to that we were just fine with selling them oil and scrap metal and such.

Seriously, the far more likely result is that we'd have stayed out completely, especially if Roosevelt had been voted out of office, which, while unlikely, was still somewhat possible. Certainly more so than the idea that we'd support Nazi Germany.

No, the Soviets quite clearly tried to exterminate as many Ukrainians as possible as well as forcibly deport and kill Jews, Poles, and other minorities. There was a very, very strong current of anti-Semitism in Soviet ideology that made it quite likely they could have pursued a policy similar to that of Hitler had they not been attacked by the Nazi regime. In the postwar period, the Doctors' Plot and other anti-Semitic propaganda came dangerously close to triggering genocide; it was only Stalin's fortunate death that prevented another round of purges.

They even wanted to join the Tripartite Pact, but the Germans didn't allow it because they were planning their invasion a few months later. Overall, Stalin's regime was as bad as Hitler's in all aspects.

The Nazis unlike the Soviets intended not just to repress the Poles and Ukranians (and if in doing so kill a lot of people, meh) they intended to wipe them off the face of the earth for the barbarian untermenschen they were. And when it came to the Jews, sure there was a lot of anti-semitism in the Soviet Union, but any purge would have been more opportunistic scapegoating. There wasn't the systematic extermination planned out, no-one was calling for total extermination.

There's no comparison.

It isn't remotely comparable at all.

It also wasted trillions of dollars and millions of human lives that could have been spent elsewhere. The thing is, the idea that war is somehow economically beneficial is generally a fallacy; every dollar spent on military technology is one that could be spent somewhere else, likely more efficiently. War can only help if you've got a colossal gap between supply and demand, and even then it comes at the cost of other possible projects or spending.

Not to mention the Cold War damaged a lot of research rather than helped; it stifled scientific cooperation and rerouted the priorities of many government research organizations to military rather than civilian applications. The USSR had some of the most brilliant scientists in the world and they were effectively off limits because the two countries felt it better to have a pissing contests between each other for no other reason than ideology. For every advance made, as many or more were probably lost because of that lack of good scientific cooperation and pooled resources.

And of course, lastly, we came so close to nuclear war a few times that it wasn't guaranteed that new technology would ever have a meaningful impact.

I didn't say that the Cold War was financially beneficial... I was more talking about the progress, which you seem to be kind of claiming didn't happen. The only reason someone stepped on the surface of the moon in 1969, is the Cold War.

The Nazis unlike the Soviets intended not just to repress the Poles and Ukranians (and if in doing so kill a lot of people, meh) they intended to wipe them off the face of the earth for the barbarian untermenschen they were. And when it came to the Jews, sure there was a lot of anti-semitism in the Soviet Union, but any purge would have been more opportunistic scapegoating. There wasn't the systematic extermination planned out, no-one was calling for total extermination. .

They weren't calling for it any more than they called for the Ukrainian genocide, but it happened and would've happened at a much more horrid pace had Stalin not died before initiating another round of purges. Total extermination of all groups that opposed Communism or Stalin's methods of rule was their goal, and if they could Russify the regions in the process, even better. Cultural imperialism was as strong in the USSR as in Nazi Germany; the only difference was that they never made such sentiments public like they did across the Oder-Neisse.

The Nazis killed because they felt it would produce some kind of meaningful outcome for their "master race". The Stalinists killed because they wanted everyone who didn't fit their dreams of a future Communist society, most of which were as anti-Semitic and racist as the Nazis', dead. If there's a huge moral difference there, I'm not seeing it. The goals were the same; they both wanted a purified society that was free of the influences and cultures they didn't like.

The Cold War both harmed and hurt. On one hand, it funneled a huge amount of money into military expenditures, retarded cooperation amongst the peoples of the USSR and their fellow human beings in the USA, caused a continuation of the right-wing shift in the USA rather than it taking the natural left-wing course it had begun in World War II, and resulted in a lot of potential horribleness.

On the other hand, it was extremely beneficial, because it allowed for a number of scientific advances and super-speed into things like space travel, as well as essentially become the forefront to finally eliminating dictatorial control of states once and for all and encourage a world that is all about inter-cooperation and human rights, etc etc.

The world is not perfect, but considering all the potential outcomes of the Cold War, or even World War II, I find the overall result far more favorable than, say, Soviets winning the Cold War, or the Axis winning World War II, etc etc.

I didn't say that the Cold War was financially beneficial... I was more talking about the progress, which you seem to be kind of claiming didn't happen. The only reason someone stepped on the surface of the moon in 1969, is the Cold War.

My point isn't that progress never occurred, but that the Cold War likely stifled more than it triggered since it forced us to focus on military applications above everything else. Getting to the moon would've likely occurred without the Cold War, as would anything involving space exploration because interest in that field and its potential was known well before the two nations found it to be a good way to nuke each other from the skies.

The only reason someone stepped on the surface of the moon in 1969, is the Cold War.

Or because of something that happened in Roswell NM in 1947.

At the debates the other night, Obama and McCain had some tough talk about Russia. McCain a little harsher than Obama (yet the softer talk about Pakistan) But anyway. Both sides don't want Cold War II but.... did they just start it?

If it came down to it, can we really put troops in the Ukraine & Georgia? To even concider it would require a military draft and about 100 trillion dollars to spare.


We all know that no American leader would ever try confronting Russia. They should just focus on the resurging Taliban in Afghanistan and the stability of post-Saddam Iraq. Leave East Europe to Russia :D

I didn't say that the Cold War was financially beneficial... I was more talking about the progress, which you seem to be kind of claiming didn't happen. The only reason someone stepped on the surface of the moon in 1969, is the Cold War.

But moon-walking isn't the pinnacle of human achievement. Even if NASA was never created, we could have done plenty of other things with the time wasted on things like Star Wars or finding a way to shave Castro's beard.

There was an op-ed piece in the Washington Post last Sunday about Russia's health crisis; it's abyssmal. The country has a tuberculosis rate above the definition of an epidemic, not to mention HIV and malnutrition. I don't know if it has gotten stronger militarily, although it's certainly gotten more assertive, but the country itself is in shambles. Of course, none of this is too different than the situation in 1964, and that didn't stop people from worrying about it.
In conclusion, Russia may be a threat, or it may not be. I hope this post has been enlightening.

My point isn't that progress never occurred, but that the Cold War likely stifled more than it triggered since it forced us to focus on military applications above everything else. Getting to the moon would've likely occurred without the Cold War, as would anything involving space exploration because interest in that field and its potential was known well before the two nations found it to be a good way to nuke each other from the skies.

Nope. War is the mother of innovation. Even Cold War. Without the conflict with Russia, the gains in WW2 would never have turned into huge NASA projects destined to throw us through the atmosphere. That's where that impetus came from - not from well-meaning individuals, or zeitgeist - but from governments both sides of the wall throwing MASSIVE budgets at getting something done.

if Ukraine and Georgia joins NATO we could station troops there and use the base as a staging point for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. pretty much like we use Germany. In fact we could move the troops from Germany to those countries. It wouldn't risk a war since it would be a defensive move. likely have to make Georgia give up those break away areas but let it be know they wont lose an inch more land after that.

if Ukraine and Georgia joins NATO we could station troops there and use the base as a staging point for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But what about the next 5 minutes after that?

But what about the next 5 minutes after that?

Russia wont do anything to someone once they join Nato. they will bully them not to before hand. And cry and whine about it. But in the end their only really weapon is cutting off the gas pipeline to western Europe and they will starve themselves if they do that.

Russia wont do anything to someone once they join Nato. they will bully them not to before hand. And cry and whine about it. But in the end their only really weapon is cutting off the gas pipeline to western Europe and they will starve themselves if they do that.

That's 80s Russia. This is KGB Russia.

Russia wont do anything to someone once they join Nato. they will bully them not to before hand. And cry and whine about it. But in the end their only really weapon is cutting off the gas pipeline to western Europe and they will starve themselves if they do that.

But if Russia does do something, how will NATO respond? (rhetorical question) Do we really want to bind ourselves in an agreement that will force us to attack Russia? (less rhetorical, more thoughtful question)

But if Russia does do something, how will NATO respond? (rhetorical question) Do we really want to bind ourselves in an agreement that will force us to attack Russia? (less rhetorical, more thoughtful question)

thats why we station troops there before hand. If we are there we have to respond. And to be honest Russia knows the end response will be to a Russian land war. Tactical nukes followed by Strategic nukes if they counter with tactical nukes. That's why if we station troops there the situation wont end up like ti was before.

But if Russia does do something, how will NATO respond? (rhetorical question) Do we really want to bind ourselves in an agreement that will force us to attack Russia?
John McCain sure does.

thats why we station troops there before hand. If we are there we have to respond. And to be honest Russia knows the end response will be to a Russian land war. Tactical nukes followed by Strategic nukes if they counter with tactical nukes. That's why if we station troops there the situation wont end up like ti was before.

Okay, but I think everyone would like to avoid nukes of any kind, and most people aren't even too keen on a land war in Russia.

thats why we station troops there before hand. .

So we station troops within the 233,090 square miles of the Ukraine. And Georgia. And try to get the hell of Iraq. And get the job done in Afghanistan. And do whatever were going to have to do in Pakistan. And don't forget about the warlords of Africa & druglords in South America. WTF? Why not just shoot the leader of China while were at it?

No, the Soviets quite clearly tried to exterminate as many Ukrainians as possible as well as forcibly deport and kill Jews, Poles, and other minorities. There was a very, very strong current of anti-Semitism in Soviet ideology that made it quite likely they could have pursued a policy similar to that of Hitler had they not been attacked by the Nazi regime. In the postwar period, the Doctors' Plot and other anti-Semitic propaganda came dangerously close to triggering genocide; it was only Stalin's fortunate death that prevented another round of purges.

They even wanted to join the Tripartite Pact, but the Germans didn't allow it because they were planning their invasion a few months later. Overall, Stalin's regime was as bad as Hitler's in all aspects.

Umm, Nazis generally wiped out 10 percent of the population, and in some places as much as 50 percent (or 90% if you're Jewish). The Soviets - if you didn't declare war on them, it was about 1%. So are you trying to redifine math here or have you not read the statistics?

Russia wont do anything to someone once they join Nato. they will bully them not to before hand. And cry and whine about it. But in the end their only really weapon is cutting off the gas pipeline to western Europe and they will starve themselves if they do that.

Oh, really? http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C09%5C13%5Cstory_13-9-2008_pg4_1

"NATO candidate: Medvedev said that Russia would have gone to war with Georgia even if the ex-Soviet nation had been a NATO candidate. “Let’s think what would have happened if Georgia had had MAP (Membership action plan). I would not have hesitated for a second to take the same decision,” Medvedev said, according to Kremlin media consultant Angus Roxburgh."

So we station troops within the 233,090 square miles of the Ukraine. And Georgia. And try to get the hell of Iraq. And get the job done in Afghanistan. And do whatever were going to have to do in Pakistan. And don't forget about the warlords of Africa & druglords in South America. WTF? Why not just shoot the leader of China while were at it?

ROFL! A+! I laughed. Except China has leaders, it's collective there, but still, quite good :D Ahh, it's hard for some people to get that US squandered its superpower status trying to go after Iraq.

As to the actual post: unless Yushenko does something extraordinarily stupid, like shoot civillians from rocket launchers, Russia isn't going to go into Ukraine. If you want to solve the Ukranian Crisis, here's what you do: Get Yushenko to declare mandatory election in Ukraine, have the UN (not NATO and/or OSCE but the UN) monitor these elections, and have these election say two lines:

"I vote for president [name from list of candidates or a write-in]"

"Ukraine [should/should not] join NATO"

Problem fucking solved!

As for Georgia - wow, that place is just a mess and the US really shouldn't get involved. Also, Saakashvili's troops FIRED ON THE RUSSIAN ARMY FIRST, and the Russian Army has a tendency to shoot back, and use tanks in doing so. Moral of the story: If you see a Russian Flag and an AK on a soldier, don't shoot at him while waving a Georgian Flag and expect him to go "uhh, geez, I shouldn't really shoot back, it wouldn't be politically correct..."

Umm, Nazis generally wiped out 10 percent of the population, and in some places as much as 50 percent (or 90% if you're Jewish). The Soviets - if you didn't declare war on them, it was about 1%. So are you trying to redifine math here or have you not read the statistics?

Stalinism killed about 30 million people...that's not exactly 1% of the USSR's population. Even the Holodomor alone killed somewhere around 3 million people, which is well over 1% of the entire population of the USSR. Not to mention the people sent to German territory following the invasion and annexation of Poland or the forced repatriation of Jews to the Autonomous Oblast out in Siberia.

unless Yushenko does something extraordinarily stupid, like shoot civillians from rocket launchers, Russia isn't going to go into Ukraine.

So McCain saying "Ukraine right now, is in the sights of Vladimir Putin" is just a scare tactic you think?

Nope. War is the mother of innovation. Even Cold War. Without the conflict with Russia, the gains in WW2 would never have turned into huge NASA projects destined to throw us through the atmosphere. That's where that impetus came from - not from well-meaning individuals, or zeitgeist - but from governments both sides of the wall throwing MASSIVE budgets at getting something done.

The problem is, though, we have no idea whether or not that would happen without those wars. Even so, the application of military technologies to civilian uses and their development in to world-changing innovations only really took off once the threats themselves were gone, so it's not guaranteed that war really benefits scientific discovery.

War might produce innovation, but it stifles the application of those discoveries until the threats are sufficiently neutralized. Plus, it also requires the nation involved to be relatively unscathed by the conflict; in many nations, the devastation caused by WWII basically crippled their research until their economies recovered. The only reason the USSR was able to avoid such setbacks was because they had a lot of manpower, a centrally planned economy capable of forcing through such recovery, and a lot of industrialized territories in Europe from which they could loot considerable amounts of economic resources for use.

The Cold War, thankfully, didn't ever turn in to a true conflict but I would say the freezing of real cooperation between the states involved ultimately produced huge cost overruns and redundancy that negatively impacted scientific research.

Stalinism killed about 30 million people...that's not exactly 1% of the USSR's population. Even the Holodomor alone killed somewhere around 3 million people, which is well over 1% of the entire population of the USSR. Not to mention the people sent to German territory following the invasion and annexation of Poland or the forced repatriation of Jews to the Autonomous Oblast out in Siberia.

I may have been underscoring Stalin, my apologis and thank you for the correction. While I agree that Stalin was bad for the USSR, Hitler would have been much, much worst. If you for example compare the Seige of Leningrad's overall effect on the population, to that of the Holodomor, you will see the HUGE difference between Stalin and Hitler.

So McCain saying "Ukraine right now, is in the sights of Vladimir Putin" is just a scare tactic you think?

McCain's a Neocon. Let's recap another Neocon - Bush:

"Saddam Hussein...WMDs...Osama bin Laden...threat to Israel"

Riiiight. I've called the Russian election exactly as it turned out. Putin's no dictator, he needs popular support. I welcome you to ask any 1,000 Russians what they think of the South Ossetian War - and you'll see how popular Putin is. However, Russia cannot go to war with Ukraine, without a necessary cause. Yushenko opening his mouth, while comedic, is not a necessary cause. Ukraine selling weaponry to Georgia is not a necessary cause. The only way that Putin can annex Ukraine, is by providing Russian citizens with a much higher standard of living then Ukrainian citizens have, and showing these results to the Ukrainian Citizens, thus getting Ukranians to vote for Union with Russia. That's why I'm pushing for UN monitored elections in Ukraine, because nobody truly knows how they'll turn out. But barring Yushenko using rocket launchers, or firing upon Russian Military, or provoking conflict in the Caucasian Region, (not just be mere weapon sales,) Russia's not going to invade.

Oh and can someone please tell Obama that Russia's not in the Middle East.

Edit: Medevedev as President of Russia delegated the Caucasian Region to Putin, because he didn't know how to deal with it.

Are you counting deaths due to famine? I was referring to direct results of Stalin's action. While I agree that Stalin was bad for the USSR, Hitler would have been much, much worst. If you for example compare the Seige of Leningrad's overall effect on the population, to that of the Holodomor, you will see the HUGE difference between Stalin and Hitler.

Stalin was certainly aware of those famines, but was more than willing to accept them to pursue his policy of forced collectivization; in the Ukraine, that was nothing less than genocide and it killed 3 million people, a number equal to about 25% of the victims of the Nazi Holocaust. In addition, famine was used as a weapon to punish the "kulaks" who resisted collectivization as well as regions not supportive of the Communist regime. The actual mass killings themselves were only a small portion of the people killed through engineered famine and economic mismanagement.

It wasn't like those famines were an accident or the result of bad weather (although some, like the one in 1948, certainly was); those issues might have impacted production, but would not have happened were it not for Soviet policies. The differences between the two were solely ideological. In terms of personal morality, they are no different; the only thing making the Soviet Union as a whole more morally right than Nazi Germany was that it was the defender in an unprovoked war of aggression.

The differences between the two were solely ideological. In terms of personal morality, they are no different; the only thing making the Soviet Union as a whole more morally right than Nazi Germany was that it was the defender in an unprovoked war of aggression.

I love the contradiction.

Also, Soviets weren't racist pigs. Nazis were. To me, this is a huge difference. In addition, Stalin killed 30 million (according to your data) over his entire reign of 31 years. Hitler killed 30 million during his genocidal invasion that lasted 4 years. See the difference?

I love the contradiction.

Also, Soviets weren't racist pigs. Nazis were. To me, this is a huge difference. In addition, Stalin killed 30 million (according to your data) over his entire reign of 31 years. Hitler killed 30 million during his genocidal invasion that lasted 4 years. See the difference?

The Soviets weren't institutionally racist, but those attitudes were very common and were an underlying motivation behind a lot of the crimes committed against their victims. That being said, I'm not attempting to somehow say that the Germans were morally superior to the Soviets, especially not given the brutal images of them murdering innocent civilians in occupied regions, just that neither of those two nations had any kind of moral superiority other than that stemming from the Nazi regime's war of aggression. Had the Western Allies not been involved in this war, I highly doubt the Soviets would have refrained from inflicting similar mass murder on Germany.

It's also very important to note those 30 million didn't die over 31 years. The vast majority were killed in a very short period, maybe a decade, and of them the majority during the First Five Year Plan. The war and the subsequent postwar reconstruction postponed further killings out of necessity, which is why Stalin's death in 1953 was so fortunate for everyone involved. By that point, the nation had recovered enough for Stalin to prepare another round of purges.

Vetalia, I am agree with you that Stalinist regime was not morally superior to the Nazi regime, but I think that you are forget that ideological difference may be important too. The main problem with Nazi ideology is that it is not just allows genocide, but it is requires it. There was no such requirement in communism, even in its Stalinist variant. After the death of Stalin, government of the USSR starts to become less and less atrocious. Such evolution was impossible for the Nazi regime. Extermination of “wrong” races was not just a big dream of Hitler; it was one of the main goals of the Nazi party, so continuation of the practice of genocide was a big must for any possible successors of Hitler.

Sorry for a slightly off-topic comment, just thought that it is worth to mention.

But if Russia does do something, how will NATO respond? (rhetorical question) Do we really want to bind ourselves in an agreement that will force us to attack Russia? (less rhetorical, more thoughtful question)

You have been in such agreement since 1949, just new countries have been added to list.

Augmark this is not WW II. Sure there would be jobs to build up the war machine but the money would run up the national debt too high. Then you have to figure, if NATO troops go to Georgia & Ukraine, Putin will just nuke em. Remember he is KGB. KGB are the ones that thought Russia could survive a full scale nuke war. (they might still believe that)

Nonsense.

That's 80s Russia. This is KGB Russia.

Yeah, Russia has got a lot weaker since then.

Olmedreca;14086730']
Yeah, Russia has got a lot weaker since then.

Hard to sell words in Georgia.

Hard to sell words in Georgia.

Georgia fell for Russian provocations, started poorly planned operation, and payed the price. But that has little importance as while Georgia is already very tiny in large scale, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are still far smaller. In 80s whole Caucasus(including Georgia) belonged to Russia.

Olmedreca;14086762']Georgia fell for Russian provocations, started poorly planned operation, and payed the price. But that has little importance as while Georgia is already very tiny in large scale, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are still far smaller. In 80s whole Caucasus(including Georgia) belonged to Russia.

In the 1990's Russia couldn't win against the Chechens, until Putin came into power. Now Russia won a spectacular victory against Georgia. Also, you don't shoot a person that's provoking you with words, last time I checked that's still murder and allows self-defense.

In addition there were 3 people who got far into Russia, Napoleon, Hitler and the Mongols. The Mongols conquered China. Pretty damn hard to do. Napoleon was allowed to go far into Russian, as part of Kutozov's strategy. Hitler attacked the Soviet Army as it was UNPREPARED. Currently no country can conquer China, (China doesn't count, and it in the 1980's - 1990's couldn't conquer Vietnam) the Russians aren't going to let you in, and achieving surprise against the Russians is impossible.

Russia fucking SUCKED in the 90's. Practically no jobs, military was in such bad shape we got beat up pretty bad by some mountain goats, Yeltsin spending more money on Vodka then fixing the place up..

Then Putin came along, and now Russia's almost a superpower again[probably would be by now, if the global economy wasn't steadily collapsing..]



People always accredit Russia with Stalin, but he's actually from Georgia [I believe his hometown was Gori].

You make some valid points tovarish Chernobyl but Putin is a dictator who assassinates those who stand up to him and to the endemic corruption by th eKGB. Putin is pretty scary but nobody lasts forever. What do you call a system of government run by the KGB? A kleptocracy? Currently the Russians seem to be swallowing Putin's excessive nationalism but one day he will be gone. I wonder why the Russians are so tolerant of authoritarian leaders? (Some people say the same thing about Americans). Putin feeds off the imperialism of George Bush, the same way that the Islamists do.
I think that western culture is the best way to overthrow despots. The internet, democracy. The people of Serbia and the Ukraine had peaceful revolts that overthrew the despots. I'm confident that Russia will do the same.
Khleb i Volia! (Bread and Liberty! Long Live Anarchy!)

In the 1990's Russia couldn't win against the Chechens, until Putin came into power. Now Russia won a spectacular victory against Georgia. Also, you don't shoot a person that's provoking you with words, last time I checked that's still murder and allows self-defense.

Georgia tried to fight open war against far superior enemy, while being poorly prepared(like almost non-existant airforce). It would had been strange if they had not lost. Im pretty sure that if Russia would had tried to conquer whole Georgia(like Chechnya), and Georgians would had switched to guerilla warfare, then Russian performance would have become soon much less impressive. Also about "provoking", I did not mean words, but week long shooting between Georgians and Ossetians before full scale conflict started.

In addition there were 3 people who got far into Russia, Napoleon, Hitler and the Mongols. The Mongols conquered China. Pretty damn hard to do. Napoleon was allowed to go far into Russian, as part of Kutozov's strategy. Hitler attacked the Soviet Army as it was UNPREPARED. Currently no country can conquer China, (China doesn't count, and it in the 1980's - 1990's couldn't conquer Vietnam) the Russians aren't going to let you in, and achieving surprise against the Russians is impossible.

Actually I would add to that list Max Hoffmann, and as far as I can remember Poles/Lithuanians reached pretty far to east too, during middle ages, although cant remember details.
Saying that Soviet Army was unprepared is oversimplification. While Red Army at border was unprepared for defence due to Stalin's orders, totally massive military buildup was going on in USSR at that time. Btw, we could say that Hitler was also unprepared (no preparation for winter).

About surpise being impossible, most people would had said in 1940, that you can never achieve surprise against someone so paranoid as Stalin.

Russia fucking SUCKED in the 90's. Practically no jobs, military was in such bad shape we got beat up pretty bad by some mountain goats, Yeltsin spending more money on Vodka then fixing the place up..

Then Putin came along, and now Russia's almost a superpower again[probably would be by now, if the global economy wasn't steadily collapsing..]

Russia is not "almost superpower". Its not even close. Ability to act tough near your borders makes you regional power at best. Currently probably China has best potential to become second superpower, but even them have still long way to go and success is definitely not certain.

People always accredit Russia with Stalin, but he's actually from Georgia [I believe his hometown was Gori].

Stalin is most popular in Russia, as result Russia gets also most of "bonus" that glorifying such dictator provides.

Stalin wasn't the nicest person to have in power.

We should have helped the Germans wipe them out back in 41'...

This is why the world hates you.

Russia is not "almost superpower". Its not even close. Ability to act tough near your borders makes you regional power at best. Currently probably China has best potential to become second superpower, but even them have still long way to go and success is definitely not certain.

China gets a lot of it's military hardware from us. Our military hardware is superior than theirs in everyway. Our troops are also better trained have have much more experince than them, possibly more than any country.

Putin feeds off the imperialism of George Bush

That's the gist I was getting too.

Hey Soviet KLM. Whty brag about Russian might? Russia is not you - you are a conscious personwho can be independent of your military industrial complex. Read Tolstoy if you want to pursue admirable Ruskies.
On another note, I'd like to acknowledge the 20 million Russians who gave their lives in WWII but I won't remember Stalin fondly....never forget that Putin is a KGB assassin. If that's what it takes to make Russia great, a Stalin clone, then I pity Russia.

You make some valid points tovarish Chernobyl but Putin is a dictator who assassinates those who stand up to him and to the endemic corruption by th eKGB. Putin is pretty scary but nobody lasts forever. What do you call a system of government run by the KGB? A kleptocracy? Currently the Russians seem to be swallowing Putin's excessive nationalism but one day he will be gone. I wonder why the Russians are so tolerant of authoritarian leaders? (Some people say the same thing about Americans). Putin feeds off the imperialism of George Bush, the same way that the Islamists do.
I think that western culture is the best way to overthrow despots. The internet, democracy. The people of Serbia and the Ukraine had peaceful revolts that overthrew the despots. I'm confident that Russia will do the same.
Khleb i Volia! (Bread and Liberty! Long Live Anarchy!)

Putin the assassin? Umm, who did he assassinate? Cause KGB would've taken out Litvinenko, Putin or no Putin, KGB no likey when their agents go rogue, and they promptly take these agents out, or try to. Also, Medvedev - the guy who wrote Russia's current economic plan isn't from the KGB and has no ties to it. Putin has not once acted against the Russian Constitution. He has, (aside from 1999) won his presidency and party leadership Democratically. Even amongst Russians living in the US, Putin's United Russia beat out the SPS by a 2 to 1 margin. He's no despot. The Russian Constitution gives the president more power, whereas the US Constitution gives Congress more power. That's just a Constitutional Difference. The KGB tried to rule Russia in the 1990's, and failed, Putin had nothing to do with that.

As per the Khodarkovsky argument and Putin being undemocratic - umm, to qoute a Russian politician: "everyone stole, yet few like Khodarkovsky are in jail". Khodarkovsky committed a crime, he got busted for it. Everyone doing it isn't justification for innocence. Please show me once, just once, where this "dictator" Putin broke Russian Law. If a Dictator follow the Constitution and was properly elected, is he a dictator? Stop and think! And if you're looking for Nationalist Candidates, let's remember that Rogozin who lead the Nationalist wing of United Russia had his power cut, by Putin, and he was sent to a rather insignificant post of negotiating with NATO. And United Russia is midly nationalistic compared to the other parties, such as LDPR - who are fiercely nationalistic, CPRF - who are somewhat nationalistic and Fair Russia - who are mildly nationalistic as well.

Olmedreca;14087232']Georgia tried to fight open war against far superior enemy, while being poorly prepared(like almost non-existant airforce). It would had been strange if they had not lost. Im pretty sure that if Russia would had tried to conquer whole Georgia(like Chechnya), and Georgians would had switched to guerilla warfare, then Russian performance would have become soon much less impressive. Also about "provoking", I did not mean words, but week long shooting between Georgians and Ossetians before full scale conflict started.

Georgia forces' equiptment matched up with their Russian counterparts, and Georgia had superiority in numbers, but they got outmanuevered. Saying "but Russia could've thrown more force" isn't a valid argument. You analyze the battles how they happened, not how they 'would have happened'. In addition Russia had no trouble taking Senaki - clearly a Georgian military base, which was on Georgian soil. The difference is that Putin and United Russia have actually modernized the Russian Army to an acceptable fighting standard.

Olmedreca;14087232']Actually I would add to that list Max Hoffmann, and as far as I can remember Poles/Lithuanians reached pretty far to east too, during middle ages, although cant remember details.
Saying that Soviet Army was unprepared is oversimplification. While Red Army at border was unprepared for defence due to Stalin's orders, totally massive military buildup was going on in USSR at that time. Btw, we could say that Hitler was also unprepared (no preparation for winter).

As for the Poles and Lithuanians, that was due to the Mongols already weakening Russia. No such force as the Mongols exists today. Unless you are taking about the Polish taking of Moscow in early 1600's, which was when the Russians had a mini-revolution, again not applicable today.

In addition operation Barbarossa is responsible for slightly less then half the losses incurred by the Red Army throughout WWII. I doubt "general winter" is responsible for half of the Nazi losses. During WWII the Red Army managed a stunning feat, to reform while being under fire from at home (Stalin's idiotic orders) to abroad (fighting the Wehrmacht) a feat unmatched in military history, especially on such a vast scale.

Olmedreca;14087232']About surpise being impossible, most people would had said in 1940, that you can never achieve surprise against someone so paranoid as Stalin.

These most people didn't involve the Red Army commanders or Red Army spies, who repeatedly and to no avail warned Stalin. Today you also have satellite date, which shows that such a massive surprise is simply impossible. The same satellite date caught Georgians undressing their military dead, placing them in civillian clothes, and then reporting them a civillian dead. At least Thaci had the brains to do it indoors, when he did the same in Kosovo.

Olmedreca;14087232']Russia is not "almost superpower". Its not even close. Ability to act tough near your borders makes you regional power at best. Currently probably China has best potential to become second superpower, but even them have still long way to go and success is definitely not certain.

Cuba is near Russia's borders? I learn something new everyday. Also, Russia is currently ranked #3 on my Great Power Chart, behind China and the US. Yup - China's #1. I guess that makes China a Superpower. They don't have the technology, but with their pace of growth being the fastest in the World they soon will.

Olmedreca;14087232']Stalin is most popular in Russia, as result Russia gets also most of "bonus" that glorifying such dictator provides.

Actually Stalin's popularity is waning, especially when Putin and United Russia enabled Solzhenitsyn to come back and publish his scathing critique of Stalin. Myths die hard, but with Solzhenitsyn's rising popularity, Stalin won't stand a chance. And there's no bonus for Russia in glorifying Stalin. Saying "I wasn't as bad as Hitler" still doesn't get one brownie points. In addition Stalin's problems (such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia that he gave away to his native Georgia) are popping up, and this is also diminishing his popularity. With Putin and Medvedev, Russians have leaders that they're proud of, and this drives Americans who have Clintons and Bushes mad. It's kinda fun to watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Collectivity
Putin feeds off the imperialism of George Bush

That's the gist I was getting too.

Can't you say that about every leader though?

russia, like every place else on this planet, needs to rebuild its railways, especially the little ones, and stop being coerced into worshipping the automobile, which is screwing everything everywhere up.

solar power and narrow gauge railways are the salvation of humanity. that and something in the water to lower ALL human fertility accross the board (in EVERY country, without bias nor exception)

It's also very important to note those 30 million didn't die over 31 years.
Actually, they weren't killed at all.


This is one of the Cold War and early post-Cold War propaganda claims that no one ever even attempted to present any evidence for.

Any moderately realistic estimates range from 600,000 to 2,000,000. Not that it's any excuse, but at least it isn't as ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

solar power and narrow gauge railways are the salvation of humanity. that and something in the water to lower ALL human fertility accross the board (in EVERY country, without bias nor exception)

"Something in the water"??

Well and spring water, rain water, distilled and filtered water. Social engineering via the water supply just isn't going to work.

Georgia forces' equiptment matched up with their Russian counterparts, and Georgia had superiority in numbers, but they got outmanuevered. Saying "but Russia could've thrown more force" isn't a valid argument. You analyze the battles how they happened, not how they 'would have happened'. In addition Russia had no trouble taking Senaki - clearly a Georgian military base, which was on Georgian soil. The difference is that Putin and United Russia have actually modernized the Russian Army to an acceptable fighting standard.

Numbers matter relatively little then you have there also poorly trained conscripts. Also if going simply for numbers we could add to Russian side South-Ossetian and Abkhazian forces, plus volunteers. Anyway, as I said Georgia had practically no airforce, importance of air superiority has been growing since WW II. Georgian chances to succeed in open war were minimal.

In addition operation Barbarossa is responsible for slightly less then half the losses incurred by the Red Army throughout WWII. I doubt "general winter" is responsible for half of the Nazi losses. During WWII the Red Army managed a stunning feat, to reform while being under fire from at home (Stalin's idiotic orders) to abroad (fighting the Wehrmacht) a feat unmatched in military history, especially on such a vast scale.

I dont say that Red Army's achivement is not notable, just saying that it was unprepared is oversimplification.

Cuba is near Russia's borders? I learn something new everyday. Also, Russia is currently ranked #3 on my Great Power Chart, behind China and the US. Yup - China's #1. I guess that makes China a Superpower. They don't have the technology, but with their pace of growth being the fastest in the World they soon will.

Chinese power projection capability is pretty damn limited, especially then compared to US. So if you rank China as #1 then its totally pointless for us having any discussion about superpower status, as obviously our views are far too different here.

Actually Stalin's popularity is waning, especially when Putin and United Russia enabled Solzhenitsyn to come back and publish his scathing critique of Stalin. Myths die hard, but with Solzhenitsyn's rising popularity, Stalin won't stand a chance. And there's no bonus for Russia in glorifying Stalin. Saying "I wasn't as bad as Hitler" still doesn't get one brownie points. In addition Stalin's problems (such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia that he gave away to his native Georgia) are popping up, and this is also diminishing his popularity. With Putin and Medvedev, Russians have leaders that they're proud of, and this drives Americans who have Clintons and Bushes mad. It's kinda fun to watch.

Yeltsin did not allow Solzhenitsyn to return to Russia?
Anyway Stalin performed quite well in that Name of Russia contest (especially considering that he is not even ethnically russian). And Putin and co dont seem to dislike him (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051871/Stalins-mass-murders-entirely-rational-says-new-Russian-textbook-praising-tyrant.html) much either.

About Russians being proud over Putin and Medvedev, well good for them. I cant say that I am particularly proud over politicians in my country, and same probably applies to most western countries. But I would say that its pretty normal, even Churchill lost 1945 elections, and I definitely have no interest in replacing them with someone like Putin.

Olmedreca;14089393']And Putin and co dont seem to dislike him (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051871/Stalins-mass-murders-entirely-rational-says-new-Russian-textbook-praising-tyrant.html) much either.
Daily Mail, and that never supported "20 million" figure again. Though two words, "Daily Mail", kinda already say it.

Daily Mail, and that never supported "20 million" figure again. Though two words, "Daily Mail", kinda already say it.

I must admit that biases of different british newspapers is not really my strong point, anyway I originally read about it from Estonian media, just this was first result that google search gave.
About Stalin's victims, estimates range from 3 to 60 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Purges_and_deportations), according to wiki(from "Number of victims" part). Obviously depends also if you count holodomor in or not.

Olmedreca;14089556']I must admit that biases of different british newspapers is not really my strong point, anyway I originally read about it from Estonian media, just this was first result that google search gave.
It's not bias - Daily Mail is known for exaggerating information, accepting as shady sources as possible, and posting outright canards for the purpose of better sales.



About Stalin's victims, estimates range from 3 to 60 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Purges_and_deportations), according to wiki(from "Number of victims" part). Obviously depends also if you count holodomor in or not.
All actual research gives figures from 3 million to 4 million; the 2 million was for the 1937 purge. Higher figures generally result from speculation.

The usual train of thought there is like this:

"We have found evidence for 2.5 million, but some sources say half the archives were destroyed, so it's safely 5 million. And then, Ivan Ivanov says "Me and Michael Mikhailov were arrested at night... Michael was shot right away...", so half were shot right away, and it's 10 million. This is just the recorded ones from KGB, and surely GRU ran as big a business, with no less than 20 million in records. Also, as Vladimir Vladimirov points out, "...Three of the four victims died on the way to the camp...", so really it's just a small part of the 80 millions. And even in the camps, as Michael Ivanov says, "We all dreamed of running away... Half of us tried... They were shot. Accomplices were too. Their records were purged". As we see, 2/3 were shot while running, and as such we can't look at anything less than 240 million. Furthermore, almost all records are of men, as their barbaric culture surely did not bother to record women and children, and as Boris Borisov says, "...They always took the family...", so the real death toll is between 400 and 600 million."

All actual research gives figures from 3 million to 4 million; the 2 million was for the 1937 purge. Higher figures generally result from speculation.

Its unrealistic to expect that every death would be properly documented, especially in state like USSR. Its pretty impossible to prevent using some sort of rough estimations. Especially if stuff like Holodomor is counted in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Collectivity
Putin feeds off the imperialism of George Bush



Can't you say that about every leader though?

Not Bill Clinton. Not What Al Gore or John Kerry would have been.

Olmedreca;14089393']Numbers matter relatively little then you have there also poorly trained conscripts. Also if going simply for numbers we could add to Russian side South-Ossetian and Abkhazian forces, plus volunteers. Anyway, as I said Georgia had practically no airforce, importance of air superiority has been growing since WW II. Georgian chances to succeed in open war were minimal.

Georgia had 8,000 well trained troops with inept leaders, due to Saakashvili's purges, but the troops were rather well trained. It wasn't a bunch of "poorly trained conscripts". As for volunteers, they were doing reserve roles, like maintaining supply lines. A majority of the South Ossetian forces were routed and rallied behind the Russians and Abkhazian forces did not participate in the key Battle of Tskhinvali. In the Battle of Kodori Valley, it was primarily Abkhazians with Russian Air Support, and Spetznatz, but the main battle was the Battle of Tskhinvali.

Olmedreca;14089393']I dont say that Red Army's achivement is not notable, just saying that it was unprepared is oversimplification.

Losing half of your army in the first month of war - yeah that's unprepared.

Olmedreca;14089393']Chinese power projection capability is pretty damn limited, especially then compared to US. So if you rank China as #1 then its totally pointless for us having any discussion about superpower status, as obviously our views are far too different here.

Ok, which country is doing Spacewalks, and which country cannot get a Shuttle Launch again? Which country has a huge surplus, vs. a huge deficit? Which country is investing a shitload of money into education?

Olmedreca;14089393']Yeltsin did not allow Solzhenitsyn to return to Russia?
Anyway Stalin performed quite well in that Name of Russia contest (especially considering that he is not even ethnically russian). And Putin and co dont seem to dislike him (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051871/Stalins-mass-murders-entirely-rational-says-new-Russian-textbook-praising-tyrant.html) much either.

Did you read the quotes of the article, or just shepherd its viewpoints. In the article I found this:

"The manual informs teachers that the Great Terror of the 1930s came about because Stalin ‘did not know who would deal the next blow, and for that reason he attacked every known group and movement, as well as those who were not his allies or of his mindset."

That's basically calling Stalin a power hungry madman and equating him with the 2nd half of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. That's not a positive endorsement at all. "Great Terror" (umm, that's not good). "Stalin did not know" - failure of Stalin's intelligence service, that's not good. "well as those who were not his allies or of his mindset" - being completely closed off to any opposing viewpoints - that's not good. Doesn't look like a positive endorsement to me. I bet if you actually READ the textbook, I doubt you'll find it filled with love for Stalin.

Olmedreca;14089393']About Russians being proud over Putin and Medvedev, well good for them. I cant say that I am particularly proud over politicians in my country, and same probably applies to most western countries. But I would say that its pretty normal, even Churchill lost 1945 elections, and I definitely have no interest in replacing them with someone like Putin.

When the US had FDR/Ike/JFK years - these politicians were extremely popular, and the people loved them! They were proud of their leadership. When people aren't proud of their leadership - that shows a massive weakness in the system. Also, had Ike ran again, he may have lost the elections, but the people were still proud of him! A choice between FDR/JFK/Ike is a true choice. A choice between Bush and Kerry is bullshit. :mad:

Olmedreca;14089556']I must admit that biases of different british newspapers is not really my strong point, anyway I originally read about it from Estonian media, just this was first result that google search gave.
About Stalin's victims, estimates range from 3 to 60 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Purges_and_deportations), according to wiki(from "Number of victims" part). Obviously depends also if you count holodomor in or not.

Estonian Media? You mean the one that says Hitler was better then Stalin? Don't trust ANYTHING you read about Russia in the Estonian Media about Russia. Estonian Media actually thinks that Putin and this is hilarious believes that Estonia is a threat to Russia and that Russia will invade Estonia. Estonian Media - bah!

Here's an article by a newspaper that DESPISES Putin on Estonian and Latvian treatment of Russian Minorities: http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8576&IBLOCK_ID=35

Olmedreca;14090891']Its unrealistic to expect that every death would be properly documented, especially in state like USSR. Its pretty impossible to prevent using some sort of rough estimations.
But the vast majority was in some way documented. This is not similar to the Turks, the Japs or the Nazi, who operated in occupied foreign countries, carried out genocidal mass extermination semi-covertly, and then ran, being defeated, and destroying records to avoid trial. (And still, BTW, we've accounted for their victims). The Stalin purges were done in own territory, aimed at specific people who dared to criticize the regime or just made mistakes, and were glorified and rewarding as catching "enemies of the state", by a state that stood for 50 years after. There was no need to hide anything.

Besides, the ridiculousness of these 20-60-100-200 million estimates is well evidenced by census and personal histories, which show no such loss. Remember that Stalin purges didn't aim at random people, they killed the best people, those in position of any authority who either realized the stupidity of socialism, or happened to be descended from nobility bloodlines.


Especially if stuff like Holodomor is counted in.
"Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice."

You should separate the crimes of Stalin from the crimes of socialism. Holodomor was a result of governmental regulation, the tendency of bureaucrats, once given power, to believe they know better than the people themselves how to run their business.

Causes of Holodomor are so visible that attributing any malice is silly. The Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 happened amidst a drought and famine all across the USSR. It wasn't 2008, famines were still not an uncommon occurrence early in the 20th century.
Not, however, in the bureaucrats' minds. It was and is the belief of socialists that one can't possibly need more goods or more money than they consider needed. The solution in USSR was, of course, to simply take away everything above the "necessary amount", by first "tax" and then collectivization. And as the bureaucratic administration was living in their little pre-planned world, it continued to collect the products for the "common pool" even as not enough was grown. Then, 1931 drought struck, followed immediately by 1932 and 1933. But since keeping private reserves of grain and livestock was considered above the necessary by the socialists, there weren't any, and the "collective" pool was heavily mismanaged. The results are expectable.

What made Ukrainian famine hit harder than in other regions is that the nationwide droughts there were coincided with the most active phase of collectivization. It should be remembered as a lesson about the dangers of socialism and governmental regulation, which amplify crises into catastrophes.

Olmedreca;14090891']Its unrealistic to expect that every death would be properly documented, especially in state like USSR. Its pretty impossible to prevent using some sort of rough estimations. Especially if stuff like Holodomor is counted in.

According to the Russian Census the population actaully grew under Stalin, but fell drastically when Hitler invaded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union

If 30 million died under Stalin, the population of the USSR would not have grown under its normal rate.

January 1920 : 137,727,000*
January 1926 : 148,656,000*
January 1937: 162,500,000*
January 1939: 168,524,000*

So I think that the actualy numbers may be from 4 million to 8 million, not more. Otherwise, how do you explain the growth?

So I think that the actualy numbers may be from 4 million to 8 million, not more. Otherwise, how do you explain the growth?

Well, first and foremost, pretty much all statistics from the 1930's were complete fabrications or at least heavily and creatively slanted to avoid incurring the wrath of Stalin.

That being said, even if they were accurate, population growth in the USSR at that time was quite high, probably around 2% per year (I'd have to check to be sure but that's my recollection). So, if you look at the data provided for the census and calculate out what the population would be at that 2% growth rate, you get a deficit of about 37 million people, right in line with the estimates for Stalinist victims.

Of course, this doesn't control for other things such as deaths due to non-intentional causes; however, given the Stalinist era's remarkable progress on health, sanitation, and industrialization it's not likely these issues were significant enough to account for such a huge deficit between the two numbers.

What made Ukrainian famine hit harder than in other regions is that the nationwide droughts there were coincided with the most active phase of collectivization. It should be remembered as a lesson about the dangers of socialism and governmental regulation, which amplify crises into catastrophes.

Yeah, but what about the governmental requisitions that forcibly took food from that region to supply others? It's not like that famine was caused solely by bad harvests; food production was hardly booming during the period, but it wasn't declining anywhere near enough to produce those deaths on its own.

The Soviet government was not only aware of the issue, but it was more than willing to worsen that famine in that region in particular. Given the antipathy between the two groups, it is highly unlikely that they targeted the Ukraine so harshly simply out of legitimate, if misguided, needs. It's that fact that they were complicit in forcing these changes through, even when it was being halted or paused in other regions that really makes it hard not to see this as targeted genocide.

And, of course, there's also the data showing only Ukrainians and Kazakhs suffered population declines in the period; when viewed in the context of the relentless efforts to Russify Soviet populations, this entire process is clearly aimed at specific groups.

And, of course, there's also the data showing only Ukrainians and Kazakhs suffered population declines in the period; when viewed in the context of the relentless efforts to Russify Soviet populations, this entire process is clearly aimed at specific groups.

That can be said about any Empire. And everyone did that before WWII. So gimme a break here Vetalia, not like the Russians were the only ones doing it. The Brits controlled and Brittanized a quarter of the globe. You don't think English was imposed on the locals? How about Native American tribes, you think they loved the Smallpox Blankets? And the Russian Empire was just as guilty of Russifying as the USSR was. Now what's that one country trying to Americanize Iraq at the moment called, cannot think of that name, can you Vetalia?

As for the 37 million, how many of those would have occurred because the Allied Troops, along with Poland, the Baltic States, Japan, US, UK, attacked the USSR and aided the Whites in destroying the farms? That number cannot entirely be blamed on Stalin's actions, even most of it can't.

That can be said about any Empire. And everyone did that before WWII. So gimme a break here Vetalia, not like the Russians were the only ones doing it. The Brits controlled and Brittanized a quarter of the globe. You don't think English was imposed on the locals? How about Native American tribes, you think they loved the Smallpox Blankets? And the Russian Empire was just as guilty of Russifying as the USSR was. Now what's that one country trying to Americanize Iraq at the moment called, cannot think of that name, can you Vetalia?

The US isn't stealing food from the Iraqis to induce mass famines and putting them in camps because they're "enemies of the people", nor are we moving in Americans to displace the Iraqis and dilute their culture.

And besides, just because genocides happened in the past doesn't make it right. The thing is, the Soviets just weren't teaching those people about Russian culture and language, they were killing them and moving in their own people to dilute the existing cultures. That's a lot different from what the British did during the 19th century; it's more in line with the most brutal phases of colonization during the 17th and 18th centuries, or perhaps the Generalplan Ost embraced by the Nazis. The goal was to create one, uniform master Soviet culture.

As for the 37 million, how many of those would have occurred because the Allied Troops, along with Poland, the Baltic States, Japan, US, UK, attacked the USSR and aided the Whites in destroying the farms? That number cannot entirely be blamed on Stalin's actions, even most of it can't.

The Whites were hardly a threat by the 1930's, so it's not even accurate to compare the situation in the 1920's with that in the 30's, when Soviet power was well established across the country. Not to mention Stalin proceeded to annex the Baltic States and part of Poland illegally, and who knows how many people were deported and killed as part of consolidating his rule over them.

That being said, even if they were accurate, population growth in the USSR at that time was quite high, probably around 2% per year (I'd have to check to be sure but that's my recollection). So, if you look at the data provided for the census and calculate out what the population would be at that 2% growth rate, you get a deficit of about 37 million people, right in line with the estimates for Stalinist victims.
Right in the line with Cold War propaganda.

However, where have you found 2%, and why 2%, not 4% or 10%? If we use that 2% figure for 1920-1991 period, we get a figure of 558 million by 1991, and surely post-Stalin times were much better than Stalin's, so we have to conclude that Khruschev's, Brezhnev's and Gorbachev's secret purges have eliminated (558-293)-37=228 million people.

If we take the series of statistics provided by the source, and use linear interpolation, the results are as follows:
Linear interpolation 1920-1926->1937: 157.7 million (actual 162)
Linear interpolation 1926-1937->1939: 165.0 million (actual 168)
Quadratic and exponential interpolation yield results similarly differing from the reality.

Either way, the 2% doesn't result anywhere. 1920-1926 at 2% would be 155 million rather than 148 actually observed; 1926-1937 would be 184 million, not the 162 observed. All that was before the purges.
And 1937-1939 was the time of the Great Purges, so the population should have dropped there if it was in tens of millions, yet it has grown.



Yeah, but what about the governmental requisitions that forcibly took food from that region to supply others?
This is the abovementioned socialist taxation. Due to pre-planned command economy, the taxation was based on planned yields rather than actual yields, and when reality contradicted the bureaucratic plans, it was assumed to be theft or embezzlement. Ukraine has always been a grain-exporter region, and the plans included exports from it. The administration was struggling to keep up with these plans, overlooking what actually happened - their job was to fulfill the plan.

It's not like that famine was caused solely by bad harvests; food production was hardly booming during the period, but it wasn't declining anywhere near enough to produce those deaths on its own.
It was. The famine struck everywhere across the nation. However, the planned taxation forced regular producers to still export grain to other regions, thus concentrating the majority of damage to these exporter regions, since 5-year plans didn't have drought or famine in them.

This distribution is a failure of the socialism and regulation, not a result of malice.



when viewed in the context of the relentless efforts to Russify Soviet populations, this entire process is clearly aimed at specific groups. You do understand that Ukrainians have been the closest ethnicity to Russians (actually, virtually the same if one recalls that Kiev used to be the capital of Rus), and as such the last target for any genocidal action? The Tatars, for instance, would make a much better target, considering the 13th century occupation history.

The goal was to create one, uniform master Soviet culture. Again, you're missing that the Soviet Culture was as alien to the Russian Culture or any other human culture for that matter, as to any other culture of USSR. Remember how the Soviets were demolishing churches? The goal was to create an entirely new culture from scratch, in order to facilitate socialism and then possibly communism, not to spread any existing one.

The US isn't stealing food from the Iraqis to induce mass famines and putting them in camps because they're "enemies of the people", nor are we moving in Americans to displace the Iraqis and dilute their culture.

And besides, just because genocides happened in the past doesn't make it right. The thing is, the Soviets just weren't teaching those people about Russian culture and language, they were killing them and moving in their own people to dilute the existing cultures. That's a lot different from what the British did during the 19th century; it's more in line with the most brutal phases of colonization during the 17th and 18th centuries, or perhaps the Generalplan Ost embraced by the Nazis. The goal was to create one, uniform master Soviet culture.



The Whites were hardly a threat by the 1930's, so it's not even accurate to compare the situation in the 1920's with that in the 30's, when Soviet power was well established across the country. Not to mention Stalin proceeded to annex the Baltic States and part of Poland illegally, and who knows how many people were deported and killed as part of consolidating his rule over them.

Umm, if you think that white people weren't a threat in the 1930's - you may look into South Africa. Also Russification, or Americanization doesn't necessarily involve famine. Famine was due to the USSR having war for over six years on their soil! That's what caused the famine. Also I think Smallpox Blankets were quite brutal and the Brits still used them early 19th century.

I fail to see how Nazis and Soviets can even be compared. Nazis wanted to kill off everyone who didn't look as to what they considered good. They were sexists and loved slavery of the lesser races, the worst kind of slavery. Nothing like that ever took place in the USSR. While Stalin was undoubtedly brutal, he pales in comparion with Hitler and pales badly at that.

Vault 10 - I cosign your post.

the people of serbia and the ukraine had peaceful revolts that overthrew the despots.

the people of serbia and the ukraine had peaceful revolts

serbia and the ukraine had peaceful revolts

serbia peaceful revolts



Б_Б

Б_Б
meaning???:confused:
Okay, Chernobyl, I'm guessing that you disagree with me in saying that the Sebs got rid of Milosevik and the Ukrainians had their orange revolution.
This doesn't mean that their countries don't have problems but at least they demonstrated people power.

I don't deny that sometimes bloody revolutions are the only way to get rid of despots but bloody revolutions have a habit of remaining bloody while no longer remaining revolutionary. Just ask the Kronstadt sailors.

meaning???:confused:
Okay, Chernobyl, I'm guessing that you disagree with me in saying that the Sebs got rid of Milosevik and the Ukrainians had their orange revolution.
This doesn't mean that their countries don't have problems but at least they demonstrated people power.

I don't deny that sometimes bloody revolutions are the only way to get rid of despots but bloody revolutions have a habit of remaining bloody while no longer remaining revolutionary. Just ask the Kronstadt sailors.

I wouldn't call the Yugoslav civil wars peaceful revolutions..

Not the Yugoslav civil wars! Only the the serbs flocking to Belgrade and blocking the streets until Milosevic fled. The disintergration of Yugoslavia was a tragic and bloody mess.

Milosevic trial was interesting, along the lines of "if we cannot convict him, kill him". Yeah, he died of a heart attack just before trial. And then Kosovo declares, unilaterally, independence. And instantly there's a military base in Kosovo. I mean come on, at least make it look like you're covering it up, this is just plain pathetic. It's like mafia, only on a much bigger scale.

I'm not one to give Bush and his gang the benefit of the doubt with Iraq but with Kosovo? I haver to confess that I, with most of the rest of the worldare generally a little clueless about Balkan politics. There is a significant Serb minortity in Kosovo right? Yet the majority wanted independence from Serbia. It looked like becoming another Bosnian bloodbath. What Milosevic did there was a stain on humanity.
NATO's intervention in Kosovo was, in the light of Milosevic's track record, justified. Also, it's interesting that the US backed Moslems against Christians on this one. Maybe because Russia was backing serbia - I'm not sure.
All I know was that Mladic and Milosevic should have gone to the Hague to face war crimes trials. Ethnic cleansing is unforgivable - no matter who is doing it.
I don't think there is good and bad nationalism. All nationalisms contain both. I guess the thing about land is that you can always divide it so that everybody has some. Sometimes, however, peoplke still aren't happy. There's something about Balkan hatreds though. Mother's milk hatreds that run like an Old Testament curse:
"The sins of the fathers will be visited even unto the third and fourth generation.
Until the Balkan States grow up and have their national independence, only then can the rest of Europe deal with them.

In my opinion the Balkans are an extension of Africa.

Until the Balkan States grow up and have their national independence, only then can the rest of Europe deal with them.
And until Europe deals with them, they won't grow up.

The EU has actually been an extremely useful tool for regime change, much more so than US guns. Spain and Portugal were ruled by fascist dictatorships that freed up their countries because of the prospect of EU membership. The same with Greece. It also forced much more reasonable standards of governance on Italy, and a serious effort to a peaceful resolution on Cyprus.

Current laxity in Bulgaria and Romania notwithstanding, the carrot of EU membership is still the best hope of reaching a lasting settlement in the Balkans. And to the extent to which Russia has an interest in the region being stable and free of violence, it can play its part by not trying too hard to be divisive and portray itself as protector of Serbian interests against the EU.

Oh my God Neu Leonstein...we're starting to agree with each other!!!

Chernobyl, how exactly are the Balkans an extension of Aftrica (in the sense that European powers have been fighting over them for centuries?)

Maybe a reference to the concept of tribal warfare?

Umm, if you think that white people weren't a threat in the 1930's

Quick rectification, Vetalia was not referring to white people (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/), he was referring to the White Russians (-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_movement).

No. Not the drink.

I fail to see how Nazis and Soviets can even be compared. Nazis wanted to kill off everyone who didn't look as to what they considered good. They were sexists and loved slavery of the lesser races, the worst kind of slavery. Nothing like that ever took place in the USSR. While Stalin was undoubtedly brutal, he pales in comparion with Hitler and pales badly at that.


No, Stalin just wanted to kill off anyone who dissented from the orthodoxy of the state religion of the USSR.

No, Stalin just wanted to kill off anyone who dissented from the orthodoxy of the state religion of the USSR.

Non racist murderer is still better then racist murderer. On the other hand, how come Conservatives bring up Stalin in every Russia thread? And I don't recall Stalin ordering that babies be used as frisbees for target practice. If you actually bother to do a comparison of Hitler atrocities vs. Stalin atrocities, Hitler wins hands down.

Non racist murderer is still better then racist murderer.
How come?

And I don't recall Stalin ordering that babies be used as frisbees for target practice.
Babies don't exactly fly like frisbees, so do you have a source for this?

If you actually bother to do a comparison of Hitler atrocities vs. Stalin atrocities, Hitler wins hands down.
You can define atrocities, if you want, but fact of the matter is that Stalin is way up the list when it comes to how many deaths he caused (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin). In fact, the only person to beat him was Mao. Hitler was left way behind.

You can define atrocities, if you want, but fact of the matter is that Stalin is way up the list when it comes to how many deaths he caused (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin). In fact, the only person to beat him was Mao. Hitler was left way behind.
Dunno about that, World War two killed about 60 million people all in all, and you can't pin that on Stalin.

Dunno about that, World War two killed about 60 million people all in all, and you can't pin that on Stalin.
Not all of it, certainly, but a good amount of it, surely:

Fall Weiß (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_poland)


Not to mention that his source seperates civilians killed and military killed. If you take a look at civilians killed, Stalin is by far worse. Also, something I didn't know.....:


Keep in mind, most of these sources speak about the deaths AFTER the war had taken place:

Post-War Expulsion of Germans from East Europe (1945-47): 2 100 000 [make link]
Died being expelled from Poland:
Rummel: 1,585,000
Keegan, John, The Second World War (1989): 1,250,000
Kurt Glaser and Stephan Possony, Victims of Politics (1979): 1,225,000
Died, from Czechoslovakia:
Rummel: 197,000
Martin Sorge, The Other Price of Hitler's War (1986): 241,000 Sudeten Germans
Keegan: 250,000
Glaser & Possony: 267,000
TOTAL:
Kinder, Anchor Atlas of World History: 3,000,000
Britannica: 2,384,000 (This covers the years 1944-46, and it includes Germans who died fleeing while the war was still raging.)
Glaser & Possony: 2,111,000 (This includes 619,000 from "elsewhere" not listed above)
Keegan: 2,100,000 (This includes 600,000 from "elsewhere" not listed above; it does not include some 1,000,000 Germans who (by Keegan's estimate) died fleeing while the war was still raging.)
Rummel: 1,782,000

I think it would just be pointless. kind of analogous to the war in Iraq...

How come?


Babies don't exactly fly like frisbees, so do you have a source for this?


You can define atrocities, if you want, but fact of the matter is that Stalin is way up the list when it comes to how many deaths he caused (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin). In fact, the only person to beat him was Mao. Hitler was left way behind.

Yeah I do - Lodz Ghetto. Although some of it was caused by the Poles, it was Nazi soldiers using Jewish babies as frisbees for target practice. Actually if you read the Jewish Memoires on the Holocaust - you'd be surprised how much atrocities, imaginable and unimaginable you'd find there. The Nazis also used knives to cut off breasts from Soviet female spies, before killing them.

And according to the article you provide - Stalin's Regime caused 20 million deaths, WWII, started by Hitler, caused 55 million deaths. No more then 1-5 million occured in the Japanese theater. Hitler was worse then Stalin, much worse.

There is also the problem with racist murderors over non-racist murderors, because racism promotes violence, and therefore more killings.

Speaking of the Holocaust, here's just one year of it:

http://www.neveragain.org/1942A.htm

Of note: "July 10, 1942: The first Medical Experiments take place at Auschwitz. 100 Women are taken from their barracks and sterilized through a series of hideous experiments."

Yeah, I think Hitler clearly wins. Also, you can choose your ideology, you cannot choose your race.

You can define atrocities, if you want, but fact of the matter is that Stalin is way up the list when it comes to how many deaths he caused (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin). In fact, the only person to beat him was Mao. Hitler was left way behind.

From your source:
Stalin's regime
There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school. The two schools are generally associated with the right and left wings of the political spectrum, and they often accuse each other of being blinded by prejudice, stubbornly refusing to admit the truth, and maybe even having a hidden agenda. Also, both sides claim that recent access to former Soviet archives has proven that their side is right.
Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school: ...MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s
And from the Lower Numbers school: ...MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.
As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be a rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers, on the other hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to fight off the German invasion
Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness without straining credulity.

HITLER TOTAL:
Courtois: 25,000,000
Rummel: 20,946,000 democides
Brzezinski: 17,000,000
Urlanis: 15-16,000,000 (11-12M civilians + 3.9M POWs)
MEDIAN: ca. 15.5M
Our Times: 13,000,000 (6M Jews + 7M others)
Compton's: 12,000,000
Grenville: 10,000,000, including 2M children.
NOTE: These numbers only include outright murders, but keep in mind that some 28M civilians and 14M soldiers died in the European War. That's 42,000,000 deaths which can probably be blamed on Hitler to one extent or another.

Looks to me that they are pretty much similar. Even if you pick the worst (and unrealistic) numbers for Stalin.

Not defending Stalin here. I just expected more of you NL.

From your source:




Looks to me that they are pretty much similar. Even if you pick the worst (and unrealistic) numbers for Stalin.

Not defending Stalin here. I just expected more of you NL.

your taking a very simplistic view on the cause of WWII. Hitler had won the Sudetenland land in talks. And he was seeking the parts of Poland that were majority German and historically German. He was even willing to just accept telephone links with Germany between Poland so he could ensure the aera stayed culturally German.

Not to mention if Stalin had not signed the Soviet German Non aggression pact and taken their half of Poland it becomes subject to debate if WWII would have started in 1939 at all.

your taking a very simplistic view on the cause of WWII. Hitler had won the Sudetenland land in talks. And he was seeking the parts of Poland that were majority German and historically German. He was even willing to just accept telephone links with Germany between Poland so he could ensure the aera stayed culturally German.

Not to mention if Stalin had not signed the Soviet German Non aggression pact and taken their half of Poland it becomes subject to debate if WWII would have started in 1939 at all.

Doh?
Did I mention anything about the cause of WWII?

I think that Hitler and Stalin were both shocking. They desrved each other really. But I would argue that many of the Russian murders of Soviet citizens were often due to incompetence than warfare or intentional genocide. Having said that, the Ukrainian Famine can't be put down simply to neglect and I wouldn't put it past Stalin to use hunger as part of state policy. The purges of Tartars, intellectuals and the military that existed under Stalin were shocking. Can the Siberian labor camps be compared to Hitler's concentration camps. Maybe - but not to the death camps.
Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belsen, Dachau, Maidenek, Sobibor, Gross-Rosen, Treblinka were something else.
You can't blame Hitler for everything but his serious attempts at genocide and warmongering beat Stalin's less efficient brutalities.

And according to the article you provide - Stalin's Regime caused 20 million deaths, WWII, started by Hitler, caused 55 million deaths. No more then 1-5 million occured in the Japanese theater. Hitler was worse then Stalin, much worse.Not defending Stalin here. I just expected more of you NL.
I don't count the war, because that wasn't under the control of any one man and his politics. When he sends a few million people into death camps with the stroke of a pen, that's plainly the deed of him and his apparatus. When Hitler signs the order to invade Country X, he can't reliably predict what will happen from then on in. The degree of responsibility for deaths that occured due to a series of unpredictable events must surely be much smaller than that for deaths actually signed into law.

I know where you're coming from here, and I actually agree that the Holocaust was the worst genocide ever, even if some others killed more people (because I think the way it is done does say something about the moral value of the act).

But that doesn't change the fact that Stalin was initially a ruthless political operator who thought the Soviet end justified any means whatsoever, and later just a paranoid madman. He was around for a lot longer, and had a somewhat larger population to pick victims from. It's not surprising that, as far as political oppression is concerned, he produced a lot more victims than Hitler did. And, much worse, Stalin is still not properly recognised as the second-worst monster of the 20th century, especially in Russia itself, and that is despite a large number of people who are still alive and experienced life under the regime and had friends or family disappeared.