Well at least Stalin isn't rounding up and genociding his own people just because they hate him anymore. I'd call that a good thing.
Conservative or Liberal
- Thread starter Fizzycswag
- Start date
Well at least Stalin isn't rounding up and genociding his own people just because they hate him anymore. I'd call that a good thing.
Yeah, but that was like one chapter of the Soviet Union and their history which ended in the late 1950s with Stalins death. The Soviet Union was always a dictatorship, but the end of Stalinism wasn't an achievement of the US or the collapse of the Soviet Union which happend in the 1990s. It's simply that Stalin died and the people under him decieded to more or less quietly abandon his policies, like Nikita Khrushchev.
I doubt anyone here said it was.
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
I would say it could be but most likely not. You would have to have one benevolent person who is incapable of corruption, maybe a person living alone on an island with some sort of device to read there brain. No benefits to it for them could be allowed, I think I am ripping this off of some Douglas Adams books though.....
TheGM
The voice of reason
I raise you Cincinnatus.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Last edited:
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Buddies.
Even better buddies.
Also very good friends.
Friendship is magic!
Isnt it just
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_Mannerheim_recording
TheGM
The voice of reason
No room to talk.
If and when this topic gets split, can the new one be called America REEEEE: An idiot's guide to international discussion of history.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
I thought Stalin was worse because the US free market ecomony folks hate socialism more than they hate nazism.
Plus with the Trump-Putin -love affair USA and Russia are buxom buddies again.
To be fair, from what politicans like Rosevelt said Stalin was a pretty damn good politican and had a friendly personality in the sense that if he had to, he knew what to say and how to play people, Stalin has been around for quite some time. Churchill, who was likewise an old-timer in politics, warned everyone that Stalin was mothafucka barely better or more trustworthy than Hitler - he said it in British of course. But I guess, just like the Fins you can't be always picky about your allies.
*And in the case of the Fins and their history with the Nazis, well they kinda have been the only nation that made some serious attempts to actually support them with weapons at some point. Pretty much everyone, including Britain thought the Fins would be dead and it wasn't worth the trouble with the Soviet Union to support them. And during the attack on the Soviet Union by Nazi-Germany the Fins simply saw a chance to get their lost territories back.
*And in the case of the Fins and their history with the Nazis, well they kinda have been the only nation that made some serious attempts to actually support them with weapons at some point. Pretty much everyone, including Britain thought the Fins would be dead and it wasn't worth the trouble with the Soviet Union to support them. And during the attack on the Soviet Union by Nazi-Germany the Fins simply saw a chance to get their lost territories back.
iridium_ionizer
Mildly Dipped
If a war popped up in your backyard with 2 enemies. Would you side with the one that was winning and had the greater technical capabilities (but the more vile philosophical underpinnings)? Or the side that was against the ropes, had less technical capabilities (with more mild philosophical underpinnings - ignoring what they might be in practice)? The UK and the US had to make a choice. And so did the Finns.
Regarding Churchill's position, he wanted a military showdown with the USSR very soon into the post-war era. And that's why the UK voted him out - he seemed like a warmonger at the time (to the general public). But even in 1945 military, intelligence, and diplomatic circles in both the UK and the US, most people knew that Stalin wanted to expand his sphere of influence past just East Europe. Still in 1946 the US probably would have lost a conventional war against the USSR - the US had just started making halfway decent tanks among other things. And the A-bombs were too weak and limited in number to make much difference (they would still be sending them by bombers at that point to).
Besides that there was still the idea that the US was trying to maintain the moral high ground (which it didn't always do - see installing terrible dictators) by not instigating a war. And people needed a break from war for a bit, right? But overall if peace and prosperity is what you want for the world, it's hard to argue against the Cold War being a good thing especially since we didn't let a nuclear war happen. Not that small bad things didn't happen during the Cold War, but imagine the scale if it were WW3 even without nuclear weapons.
Anyway, regarding how good or bad Stalin was. To me the more interesting question is what would have happened if Lenin lived a bit longer, or purged Stalin, or put Trotsky firmly in place as a successor? Lenin was pulling back from his more hard-line tendencies in his later years (some market-based farm reforms, etc.). Would a USSR not led by Stalin have been strong enough to repel Nazi Germany's advances in 1941? It seems like Stalin by cult of personality / fear, organization / forethought, or willingness to led Russian blood be spilled for the goal of national unity / strength, was able to strengthen the USSR's industrial base in the 1930's (although there is probably some good evidence that he weakened its agricultural sector). What do you think?
Regarding Churchill's position, he wanted a military showdown with the USSR very soon into the post-war era. And that's why the UK voted him out - he seemed like a warmonger at the time (to the general public). But even in 1945 military, intelligence, and diplomatic circles in both the UK and the US, most people knew that Stalin wanted to expand his sphere of influence past just East Europe. Still in 1946 the US probably would have lost a conventional war against the USSR - the US had just started making halfway decent tanks among other things. And the A-bombs were too weak and limited in number to make much difference (they would still be sending them by bombers at that point to).
Besides that there was still the idea that the US was trying to maintain the moral high ground (which it didn't always do - see installing terrible dictators) by not instigating a war. And people needed a break from war for a bit, right? But overall if peace and prosperity is what you want for the world, it's hard to argue against the Cold War being a good thing especially since we didn't let a nuclear war happen. Not that small bad things didn't happen during the Cold War, but imagine the scale if it were WW3 even without nuclear weapons.
Anyway, regarding how good or bad Stalin was. To me the more interesting question is what would have happened if Lenin lived a bit longer, or purged Stalin, or put Trotsky firmly in place as a successor? Lenin was pulling back from his more hard-line tendencies in his later years (some market-based farm reforms, etc.). Would a USSR not led by Stalin have been strong enough to repel Nazi Germany's advances in 1941? It seems like Stalin by cult of personality / fear, organization / forethought, or willingness to led Russian blood be spilled for the goal of national unity / strength, was able to strengthen the USSR's industrial base in the 1930's (although there is probably some good evidence that he weakened its agricultural sector). What do you think?
WeissYohji
Still Mildly Glowing
I'd say my political views are a blend of left-libertarianism, anarcho-socialism, technocracy, and some bits of Maoism.
Rheios
Mr. House's Employee of the Apocalypse
So far as the Conservative-Liberal scale I'd say I'm conservative, although perhaps moderately so compared to some of my ardent relatives. So far as the Libertarian-Authoritarian scale goes, I'm Libertarian 99% of the time but if given immense power over others I'd probably end up Authoritarian. I don't like to think that'd happen, I'd like to think I'd be the picture of beneficent nobility, but I know myself too well to state that with any certainty. As far as markets go I'd say free but I'm aware there's places it doesn't work (Often because we governmentally installed regulated monopolies, on at least some level, and it fucks up the pond without some seriously expensive cleanup but that's a whole different conversation)
So far as some weird insinuations that every free market capitalist is down with nazism (and skipping over what that name originally meant) over socialism, while I think socialism supports people and things I may have no interest in paying for, I'm friends and on good terms with enough people who classify themselves as such that I certainly wouldn't prefer nazis over them (wow had to fix THAT mistake quick - I had initially written it the opposite way). Now, I think nazis can spew their stupid all over the public sphere if they so wish - free speech and all of that - but I certainly don't think they're right or even worth listening to. At least most socialists just want to take care of people, albeit on a much longer list than I care to.
So far as some weird insinuations that every free market capitalist is down with nazism (and skipping over what that name originally meant) over socialism, while I think socialism supports people and things I may have no interest in paying for, I'm friends and on good terms with enough people who classify themselves as such that I certainly wouldn't prefer nazis over them (wow had to fix THAT mistake quick - I had initially written it the opposite way). Now, I think nazis can spew their stupid all over the public sphere if they so wish - free speech and all of that - but I certainly don't think they're right or even worth listening to. At least most socialists just want to take care of people, albeit on a much longer list than I care to.
Last edited:
Fall Out Boy
Unbeliever
Honestly don't know. I'd say I'm centre, rightish.