This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Bigpop
1
« on: February 07, 2010, 06:43:46 AM »
Exactly. Just as it is absurd to say that we should ban the Soviet hammer and sickle because it was "just as bad" as the Nazi swastika.
Well, like I said I don't think any of them should be banned. Just my opinion though. I know not all the world works on freedom of speech like we do. I don't agree with your line of reasoning that just because these two regimes shared a common attribute, in this case fear of a group of people, that it immediately implies that they are comparable in their crimes. The US "feared" Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction - is the US lumped with Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany? Obviously not. It is therefore important and not irrelevant to discuss the reasons for the fear and its consequences.
The way in which each regime dealt with this fear is crucial, and in our specific case I would say pivotal in distinguishing the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. For the Soviet Union it was the fear of the political dissident or anyone who would challenge Soviet rule. Whether they were Russian, Ukrainian, Tajik, or Chechen - it didn't matter. There was no systemic or permanent concentration of hate towards a group. In other words one would first have to become a dissident to become hated or killed (unless of course you were unlucky enough to be killed out of random chance due to Stalin's paranoia). In no way was a specific group in the Soviet Union identified, targeted, persecuted, and killed in the same way as was done by the Nazi regime.
In the case of Nazi Germany however, it did not matter if you were a dissident or not, if you were a Slav, Jew, Black, mentally ill, or homosexual - you felt the consequences immediately. This difference is crucial, and I believe instrumental, in distinguishing how each regime dealt with "fear". It is simply folly to lump the Soviet Union which committed crimes (ones being committed throughout history and even today) to those of a regime that "raised the bar" so to speak and institutionalized violence against specific ethnic groups.
I'm gonna crash for the night because I am tired but I don't want you to think I am dodging out. You made a coherent, thought out response and I will do the same in return so think of this as a "spot holder" lol I will revise tomorrow. But the short of it is, Stalin ordered whole sale slaughter, so did Hitler. By many estimates Stalin actually killed MORE than Hitler. I'll reply in more detail tomorrow. Thanks for the great debate thus far though 
2
« on: February 07, 2010, 05:23:38 AM »
One would be a hypocrite if they were to lump the Soviet regime and the Nazis as "the most foul governments" but not the American or British governments. Do you agree?
I disagree.
While the U.S. Government may have issues of corruption, it is not nearly as bad as Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. In my mind the sheer volume of blatant murders by both of those governments is not even comparable to England, America, France, etc etc. A murder is a murder, all murder is wrong, but what they did is past murder in the sense that it was a crime against humanity. I don't think America has ever fought one of those  lol
But to say that English or American governments are innocent of wrong doing is obviously nuts as they have secrets as well.
Your line of thought contradicts the thread starter's:
Ok so there is difference one is for political and other is for racism reason BUT!!! there is only one result = Death and you cant say one is smaller and one is bigger evil its only one evil = evil...
Therefore we have agreed all along. There IS a difference between the murders of governments since you acknowledge that America's crimes are "different" in nature.
Well, I would obviously never say that the U.S. Government is squeaky clean. But to say they are as bad as Russia or Germany during WWII is absurd.
That being said comparing Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia isn't far off. Their reasons may have differed slightly but the overall opinion of many historians is that both did what they did because of fear. The debate of what fear is irrelevant (imo) if you agree with this line of thinking. Stalin also targeted Gypsies and other ethnics in the area, so it isn't like he was just killing men who were all caught trying to, for example, over throw him and take Russia over, then make peace with Nazi Germany.
Does that make any sense?
3
« on: February 07, 2010, 05:06:04 AM »
Alright, then I misunderstood?
One would be a hypocrite if they were to lump the Soviet regime and the Nazis as "the most foul governments" but not the American or British governments. Do you agree?
I disagree. While the U.S. Government may have issues of corruption, it is not nearly as bad as Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. In my mind the sheer volume of blatant murders by both of those governments is not even comparable to England, America, France, etc etc. A murder is a murder, all murder is wrong, but what they did is past murder in the sense that it was a crime against humanity. I don't think America has ever fought one of those lol But to say that English or American governments are innocent of wrong doing is obviously nuts as they have secrets as well.
4
« on: February 07, 2010, 04:47:11 AM »
Alright, then I misunderstood?
5
« on: February 07, 2010, 03:52:44 AM »
I understand what you mean. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that particular issue of the subject.
Ultimately, Hitler did what he did because he hated and feared the Jews. Stalin did what he did because he hated and feared anyone who stood in his way.
Hitler was afraid of Jews, Stalin afraid of being Usurped. I still don't think either side is less or more villainous than the other. I personally think both regimes are two of the single darkest most foul governments ever in place in human history. The blood on both of their hands is horrifying.
Hitler at least did us a favor and killed himself.
So I assume you would rank American terror and murder in the same category as Nazi and Soviet crimes, yes?
lol if your asking me if I think America is innocent of committing war crimes (regardless of if in WWII or any other war) then I would say no, most certainly NOT. We have soldiers who admit to killing German POWs in WWII and obviously in Iraq and such there has been tons of innocent casualties.
6
« on: February 07, 2010, 03:31:16 AM »
I'm not religious, what-so-ever, but for those of you who believe in God (or A God), do you think if you killed one man who was black because you don't like blacks, or killed a Caucasian who just happened to be the CEO of a rival company, the punishment would be any different? A man, woman, child, person was killed. Their life ended. It doesn't matter if you starved them to death or shot them or beat them to death. They are still dead because of you.
I don't think you understood the distinction I made. Yes, I agree with you that there is no difference if a black man or a Caucasian man was killed - they are both murders. However, there IS a difference if a government institutionalizes and devotes itself to systematically wiping out an entire people. I would rank that a little more sinister than simply killing a man because you're afraid he is going to usurp your power.
I understand what you mean. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that particular issue of the subject. Ultimately, Hitler did what he did because he hated and feared the Jews. Stalin did what he did because he hated and feared anyone who stood in his way. Hitler was afraid of Jews, Stalin afraid of being Usurped. I still don't think either side is less or more villainous than the other. I personally think both regimes are two of the single darkest most foul governments ever in place in human history. The blood on both of their hands is horrifying. Hitler at least did us a favor and killed himself.
7
« on: February 07, 2010, 03:15:28 AM »
All of these are easily connected, sorry if that upsets anyone. Murder is murder, no matter how you cut it, define it in your own mind, make excuses etc etc.
I'm not religious, what-so-ever, but for those of you who believe in God (or A God), do you think if you killed one man who was black because you don't like blacks, or killed a Caucasian who just happened to be the CEO of a rival company, the punishment would be any different? A man, woman, child, person was killed. Their life ended. It doesn't matter if you starved them to death or shot them or beat them to death. They are still dead because of you.
To justify or reason with what the Nazis or Communists did in WWII is silly. You can't moralize whole sale murder. You can't defend it on any level, regardless of the motive. The fact that someone was murdered, regardless of the reason is a terrible thing.
As far as the Swastika in game, I couldn't care less one way or the other but no one in this topic said it should be in the game.
As for the swastika or hammer and sickle issue in general, neither should be outlawed. Censorship is the easy way to get past what happened and let people forget. These symbols are important to WORLD history and should never be banned. Hence why I argued for the Swastika to be unbanned! History can be ugly. People should never forget it, less the same mistakes be made.
8
« on: February 07, 2010, 01:26:48 AM »
Because the Western Allies were friends with the hammer and sickle through WWII. Because of that, we have turned a blind eye to bad things done. Sadly, The world was so worried about Nazi Germany that we closed our eyes to Stalinist Russia.
It's always been a pet peave of mine as well, that the swastika is outlawed. I mean, what they did was wrong, but the swastika was used and had many other important meanings in it's history than just Nazi Germany. Everyone knows Hitler got it from Rome. So any Roman symbolism with a swastika is also outlawed. It's very sad.
Not trying to be an ass here, but I think the German government has done a real dis-service to the country's history and put more of a burden on it's younger generations by outlawing the damn symbol. Outlawing it doesn't mean it's going to go away. That time for Germany is a dark sad time, they know that but they have moved on. It's not like having the symbol there is going to cause Hitler to pop out of the sky and take Germany over again. And outlawing CERTAINLY doesn't mean what happened is going to go away.
Somethings about history are bad, but you can't just ignore them. What was done, was done. All people should be able to read about it, learn about it and most importantly learn FROM it.
9
« on: February 05, 2010, 06:52:57 PM »
There was no exact "criteria" given to gain these awards. Also just to correct a common misconception, The Iron Cross and Knights Cross are two different awards.
The Iron Cross or Eisernes Kreuz in German, came in two classes, First Class (I) and Second Class (II). To aquire the EK I the soldier had to first have earned the EK II. Both awards (if they were earned) were worn on the tunic (II class in the 2nd buttonhole of the tunic, I class on the left breast pocket).
The Knights Cross (Ritterkreuz) was worn around the neck and was a higher grade award. The actual cross it's self was also larger than I and II class Iron Crosses. On rare occasions these awards could be given simultaneously to the recipient.
All of them are awarded for varying degrees of bravery. The Knights Cross of the Iron Cross was presented and after that a recipient could earn Oaks, Swords and Diamonds (in that order), each which was presented separately and added to the Knights Cross.
10
« on: January 26, 2010, 07:21:48 AM »
The Irony of Russians claiming US 'Propoganda' against the USSR is so thick i could smear it on toast and sell it.
Exactly! It's funny as hell. Funny how Russians forget, after the war was dying down and Hitler committed suicide, Stalin accused the Western Allies of harboring Hitler and hiding him away so that he didn't have to face Russia's wrath. I mean, if that isn't laughable, what is?! Then later they claimed they had found his body in his bunker and burned it. But Hitler's own guards claim THEY burned it. lol Clearly this whole thing is US propaganda.....  
11
« on: January 21, 2010, 08:11:07 AM »
I think Relic gave up when all the cheaters started showing up.
As for balance, well, it's a game. Sure, a general balance is
preferable, but absolute balance cannot be achieved unless
all units are the same : AKA : Chess.
We want flavor? So balance is a lot harder to achieve.
Reminds me of something blizzard said :
Balance shall be achieved the day everyone complains equally 
I agree, there will always be a mild amount of "unbalanced" issues. My problem with companies like Blizzard and such that say that shit is, they can't find a happy medium themselves let alone for games. They make a game and act like people aren't going to complain. They drag their feet about making changes. Then do these SWEEPING changes that weren't needed and screw everything up. Then get pissy with people when they scream again about new issues. In MMOs classes get nerfed, in RTS units get nerfed, in FPS weapons get nerfed. The companies can mock the public (who buys their product, keeps them employed and allows them to sit their fat asses behind their desk) all they want for crying about unbalanced stuff but it seems to me if they really cared about their fan base they would listen to what the supporters said and also have an excellent team of testers (not these scrubs, like seriously good players in the communities, depending on the game) to play and give feedback and test new ideas. The way companies do stuff nowadays it's like "We'll leave "X" feature broken for "X" time and then nerf it, and make something else OP so we can nerf that later". It's very frustrating with these big companies. Where as with smaller "grass roots" operations like these, people seem to care more.
12
« on: January 19, 2010, 07:13:57 AM »
I do think though that there are two events which could've given Germany victory.
People have always criticized Hitler’s move to split the panzer armies from army group centre. By sending Guderian south to Kiev and bagging 660,000 prisoners before Moscow had been taken. This had its obvious advantages, but one thing that I have never seen discussed is what instead of instead of sending those panzers and panzer grenadier division north to Leningrad, if they had of used them to continue the advance on Moscow from the northern flank? To me, in sending them to Leningrad they could have been a use to help any assault, though he didn’t opt for this and instead sieged it so that the Russians would be burdened rather than them, by the need to feed the massive civilian population over winter. To me if he had of ordered the assault and the city fell, it would of freed up an enormous amount of troops necessary to go on to Moscow the following spring, whilst bagging over 500,000+ prisoners, I know about then having to feed the civilians but to me this would of been worth the effort.
So to me he should have either let them continue to Moscow while it was largely undefended, or take the casualties losses in an assault on Leningrad. I have always believed that if Hitler would have allowed Guderian and Hoth to attack Moscow when they were on the door step they could have taken Moscow. A minimum of 3 weeks passed before Hitler gave the order for Operation Typhoon and by then the Russians had dug trenches, holes, fortified, reinforced and strengthened the overall position diligently. This along with the fact that the men's morale had dropped somewhat because of the weather and the fact that Moscow was the original target, only to be halted with lead elements just 5 miles away, combined to ruin the German chances. If Hitler would have stuck to his very own plan and time table the Wehrmacht could very well have crushed Russia. Barbarossa had gone nearly as well as it had been written up (which rarely ever happens in war lol). The fact that the Germans even had a CHANCE in '42 to still win must attest to the superb discipline, training, and leadership those men had. To be honest (and some will argue, and hindsight is 20/20!) Barbarossa was only scheduled to take 6 weeks and then by 1942 when the Germans STILL hadn't won I can't believe they didn't offer Russia peace. They were out manned, produced and in a foreign country, executing an offensive that was originally designed to last only into the early fall of 1941. Pretty crazy. The 2nd grand mistake was in operation blue (the 1942 offensive into the causacus). When the Germans were advancing towards Stalingrad they encountered virtually no resistance, so Hitler ordered the 4th Panzer army to crossover the path of Paulus's 6th Army group and head towards the Baku oilfields. What resulted was vehicles being congested, breaking down, units taking the wrong roads etc, and as a result Paulus's advance was virtually brought to a standstill for 3 weeks. And it was only in these last 3 weeks that the Russians built their defences and were reinforced around Stalingrad, hence had they not been delayed, they would of easily defeated the Russians there just like they did for every other major city. The reason why this is so important is not because of the reduced German casualties in men and tanks (who would also now be freed to counter any Russian historical envelopment attacks). But because the Volga was the only way left for the Russians to ferry all of their fuel being produced from the Baku oil fields into Russia. And with the Germans now easily able to prevent any ferries going up the river, Russia's economy/armies would of been brought to a standstill, and Stalin would have been forced to surrender. Ya these logistic nightmares were common for the Germans in Russia. They couldn't believe the lack of infrastructure lol. Hoepner, 4th Panzer Group commander, had been haulted in the initial invasion at least once for an extended period (perhaps twice, can't recall right off my head) because Hitler was afraid they would penetrate too deep into Russia. While this could be a concern, the boldness of Barbarossa in the first place, would suggest that the field commanders needed also to be bold but were continually handcuffed by Hitler himself. Other contributing but not sole factors I think were Hitler’s decision not to put the economy onto a full time war production until after Feb 1943 was pretty dumb.
The Germans had the necessary winter clothing for the men, at the rail yards, but due to the extremely limited amount of trains that they were able to operate, it was a decision of "do we send them ammunition/fuel or clothes?". So it may very well of been Russia's use of different size gauge rail tracks that won them the war. The rail gauge was believed to be a major reason the Russians were beaten back by Germany in WWI so certainly it would be a reason in the reverse situation as well. The real problem was supply officers seemed to be crapping out on their jobs IMO. A story is related that around Christmas of 1941 a rail car brought up much needed supplies to one of the forward divisions. It was rumored they were getting some food stuffs and winter issue clothes. When they opened it, it was a massive car packed full of wine and champagne to celebrate the new year. And because of the weather...it was all frozen solid. Though I wouldn’t entirely blame Hitler for their defeat either. Up until October 1942 he had achieved outstanding success in Europe, that is highly unlikely to of been unmatched by any other individual. He was able to lift Germany’s economy from the great depression and huge debt owed to the Allies for WW1, and it was he who encouraged and approved the blitzkrieg doctrine, against the advice of nearly all his senior army staff. He was responsible for the promotion and greater responsibilities given to relatively unknown generals in Von Manstein, Guderian, Rommel etc, and did away with the trench warfare loving old guard generals. He went for the close bomber support over the favoured strategic bombing (which was post-war realised to have been grossly over exaggerated). He favoured submarines over a surface fleet wanted by the admirals. He annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia without a shot fired, an amazing political manoeuvre.
Many thought Poland would withstand the German attack for 6 months (is why the French did not react initially), yet Hitler chose the plan responsible for Poland’s surrender in a matter of 5 weeks.
The senior German staff wanted to re-use the schliffein plan to invade France, though Hitler overrode them and went with the unknown commander Erich Von Mansteins plan with a few adjustments. A stroke of genius. Also at the time very few could criticize him for the halt order at Dunkirk. The German high command had wanted to halt Guderian’s advance for a number of days preceding it, however Hitler overrode them and let Guderian continue to make the Dunkirk encirclement even possible. In addition, the terrain was notoriously bad for tank warfare/movement, and France was still far from beaten, so he still needed all of his tanks to ensure victory against the French who were easily considered to have the greatest army in the world at the time.
What’s more is that he was right to consider Africa a complete sideshow, and the men and supplies were of much greater importance on the Russian front. As even if Germany did capture the middle east, they and the Italians combined didn’t have enough of a merchant fleet to ship any of the oil back to Europe for refinement and actual use.
Hitler had shown a great mind of strategy in the early going. That being said lets not take away from the field officers who actually had to execute the plans and see to the men and of course the men themselves who fought! Guderian was not an unknown by any means. He had been a high ranking general is the Reichswehr army and had been the lead man in developing blitzkrieg tactics while the Germans and Russians worked together in the '30s. Austria and Czechoslovakia were amazingly impressive, no question. Dunkirk was a blunder no matter how you dress it IMO. Just me though. Africa was most definitely a second rate theater. If you figure (just as a rough example) that Rommel was outnumbered 2:1 then Germany was tying down more enemies with less effort. While it was important, I don't ever think Africa was a "crux" of Germany's success or failure. In the face of the soviets 1941 winter counter offensives, every German general wanted abandon all their vehicles and equipment to withdraw hundreds of miles, however Hitler ordered them to adopt a hedgehog style of defence which amazingly held the line, with few combat casualties. And Historians have since believed that if the generals had of got their way, that not only would they have lost vast amounts of vital equipment but also that their troops would have been cut down and suffered numerously more thousands of casualties to frostbite. Then the decision to not allow the Stalingrad pocket to escape, whilst costly, was believed to have saved the entire Southern Group A (2-3 times larger than Army group 6) As it forced 7 Russian army groups to dig in around and tie down the German 6th army at Stalingrad, preventing the Russians from marching on to the undefended city of Rostov and cutting off and annihilating all of Army Group A, which was still trying to retreat as quickly from deep within the Caucasus. Coupled with the previous winters successful supply of the Demansyk pocket with 100,000+ German troops for several months, he actually made the correct decision. Though in a way I would put part of the blame back on him for not providing more resources that could have been made available to the front.
I have considered the whole 6th Army pocket thing for some time in my research and I don't agree with it, here is why: on paper, yes they held out and soaked up vast more numbers of Russians. The problem was Germany had no real chance to get back to them (which is the whole point of them holding out, Hitler said they would counter attack and relieve them). If you take Bastogne as a similar example elsewhere, the 101st AB division was moving forward, relatively fresh. The 6th Army had been bogged down in heavy and costly urban warfare which most German commanders admit, Russian soldiers were better at, and they were extremely fatigued. If the 6th Army had been well rested and supplied and just moved in, THEN got cut off, I think they could have held out. But the battered divisions were so war weary already (and especially from the previous offensives, not just the fighting at Stalingrad) they simply couldn't consistently defend their positions. Simply put, in my opinion, the men were stretched too thin and were just beat tired. As for declaring war with the US, this had no meaningful influence whatsoever until 1943, by which time the Germans chances of success on the Eastern front were already gone. So whilst not smart, it only hastened the end of the war, which was always going to be decided by the results of the Eastern Front in 1941-42.
After the Germans unsuccessful attempt to rescue the Stalingrad pocket however, all hope of victory was lost, and no decision however crazy was going to stop the Russians.
I had previously thought that the best year to attack Russia would have been in 1942, though experts have since sighted that after the great Russian officer purges and their dismal performance of the Russians-Finnish war (1940), that their officers/doctrines and recruit training, was going through a complete overhaul, and would have been able to defend against the Germans in stages with much greater efficiency, had they had the time to carry it out. In addition the Russians would have finished relocating all of their factories into the Urals. Also by 1942, the Russians would have learned through their famous spy (Richard Sorge) that the Japanese did not plan to attack into Siberia, and hence the Russians could have moved most of their Siberian divisions into Eastern Europe to further bolster the defences.
Ya imo, if the Germans hadn't won by EARLY 1942, they weren't going to win. To many "secondary" issues had gone against them, like Japan's armies not threatening the Russian Eastern borders, Russian production, German fatigue, and a whole wash list of other issues.
13
« on: January 19, 2010, 12:40:49 AM »
And about cruelty of war - eaurope never suffered so much from "bad soviets" as soviets suffered from "blonde heroes"... Maguar, Croats, Yougoslavian partizans, British - all of them were extremly cruel to both soldiers and sivillians. Not only "bad soviets".
I think everyone is saying that ALL countries had some war crimes in WWII. The US, Germany, Russia, England etc etc. Now you can certainly say some more then others but in the end, war is war and soldiers do things sometimes that they aren't proud of later. Ok, tell me please about Soviet Konzlags. I want to hear. And how many millions (not thouthands, but millions - as nazis did) people were burned alive or died because of gas camera... Telll me... Russian "Arbeit macht frei"...
Our "big brother" from the other side of planet just want to place Russia on the same level with nazis. And You now, pumpheads, are just zombied Good buy...
I'm not being an ass here at all, but I literally don't understand anything you meant by this. I don't know what you mean about burning people alive, what a gas cameras is. I don't know what you mean by big brother placing you with Nazis and I have NO clue what pumpheads that are zombied means. Feel free to clarify, in a NON insulting way, if you wish.
14
« on: January 18, 2010, 08:25:12 PM »
Zerstorerflieger your acting like a child. No one is saying that Germany didn't commit war crimes. Everyone knows that. What you and others don't seem to admit or know though is that Russians ALSO did these things.
Subutai posted a video earlier on this page about the Eastern Front and imagine this: Ukranian partisans admitted that Germans killed people by shooting them, but that Russian partisans cut off ears, noses, genitals, and mutilated the bodies of not only German soldiers but also Ukranian CIVILIANS! OMG...people who LIVED through the war seem to disagree with your sentiment that Germans were the worst offenders.
The reality is Russians were doing the same things Germans were doing, just going about it differently. Germans thought they had a sick sense of "European Honor" and simply shot people, Russians used, as quoted in the documentary "Asian tactics" of torture and mutilation. You can prance around all you want and act like a child but if you seriously think Russia had the "Morale High Ground" against Germany, then I want some of the drugs you are on because you are dead wrong.
15
« on: January 18, 2010, 06:03:28 PM »
Just look at what Spanishfly said. If Hitler was voted the 3rd most admired person in German history there would be outrage, especially in Russia. But Stalin, who arguable caused the deaths of more people than Hitler is seen as a Hero of some kind, and he wasn't, just a murderous tyrant. His generals won him the war, but he took the credit.
The main difference between them is that Stalin was smart and knew how to make friends. While Hitler went for the "badass massmurderer" image with skulls, death and black uniforms, Stalin was sweetmouthing about solidarity and socialism.
Both were fascists, both were killers, both were bad. But one of them realized that it ain't smart to walk around and talk about how "bad" he is and played it nice instead. That's why Stalin not only killed more people than Hitler, but also got the support from most of the world while doing it!
At the same time, I understand why the Russians admire him. If I was Russian I would place him at the top spot. He killed alot of his own people, sure, but to be honest; would the USSR have been able to stop the Nazi onslaught without a leader like him? He had that "strong fist" that was necessary to unite the Russians against this the greatest threat they had ever faced (saying alot, considering that they suffered under both the Mongols and Napoleon)... He was a necessary evil.
Onto the topic... Yes, when you start to really read about WW2 you realize pretty fast that the most important part of the war was "Hitler vs. Stalin". More people fought and died on the Eastern Front than on all other fronts combined. IIRC, the top 5 bloodiest battles in human history were all fought on the Russian front of WW2. Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk and Berlin are just some of the more famous battles, but there are numerous others that we barely know anything about in the west, but make the most ferocious fighting in Western Europe look like afternoon tea.
It was the culmination of a conflict that had defined post-WW1 Europe; that between fascism and communism. The nazis dubbed it a "War of Extermination" - which is a nice way of summing it up.
In the end, it meant the end of traditional European militarism.
This is, imo, a very good documentary about the war in the East; "The War of the Century"
"War of The Century": 1 of 20
Looks like a great video, i'm gonna check them out. Thanks for sharing! For the supporters of Stalin and his actions, you can try to justify what he did and how he did it all you want. You can accuses Germany of all the evils you want (and most of them, rightfully so) but you can NEVER exempt Stalin from the SAME exact evils that Hitler committed. And as far as Russia "needing" Stalin, to lead the army, no. The man the world (and Germany) respected most and considered Russia's greatest general was Tukhachevsky. He was so feared that Germany went out of it's way to plant fake evidence about him being a spy for them, just because they KNEW Stalin was a crackhead and would instantly react by killing him. And sure enough. He did just that. Tukhachevsky was a great military mind that was a Field Marshal by age 42! Stalin hated him because during the Russian war with Poland, Stalin directly disobeyed orders from Tukhachevsky and the Russian army was beaten up outside of Warsaw because of it. Also another note about Stalin. For the first 2 weeks after Germany invaded. He was no where to be found. No one knew where Stalin was. Not even the top ministers could find him to see what he wanted to do about the German invasion. Ya.....he was a GREAT leader of men 
|
Show Posts