Order 270 U.S.S.R. - Family of Red Army Captives Killed

[BossMark]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

Ive watched a few documentaries of Stalin sometimes I don't know who was more insane Hitler or Stalin.

Yes it makes me wonder what could have happened if Hitler had never invaded Russia

[Task Force]

Originally Posted by BossMark

Yes it makes me wonder what could have happened if Hitler had never invaded Russia

Russia would have more than likely invaded Germany after the military reforms happend.

*In all actuality id say Stalin was abit more crazy, Paranoid man he was.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Task Force

Russia would have more than likely invaded Germany after the military reforms happend.

And that is why Hitler broke the 'pact of steel'.
He knew that Stalin would break the treaty.
It was either Hitler invade or Stalin invade.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

And that is why Hitler broke the 'pact of steel'.
He knew that Stalin would break the treaty.
It was either Hitler invade or Stalin invade.

The Germans claimed this as justification for the invasion. There is a considerable debate whether the Soviets were actually planning to invade Germany.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

There is a considerable debate whether the Soviets were actually planning to invade Germany.

From what I've understood, Viktor Suvorov is the main proponent of this theory, whereas the majority of historians are content with the answer that the historians so often have to be content with: "We don't know one way or another."

What is known is that Stalin was afraid of an invasion from the foreign countries. It wasn't only Germany: in fact, for a long time Stalin considered France to be Soviet Union's most dangerous enemy. Japan was another. This was used in rhetorics. For example, a direct quote from David MacKenzie's and Michael Curran''s book "A History of Russia and the Soviet Union" (1982, page 519) states the following:

Stalin stated in February 1931: "We are 50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must cover this distance in ten years. Either we do this or they will crush us."

Not paying attention to the fact that ten years later Germany did indeed invade, this was his mentality and thus also affected the mentality of the whole country a lot (of course Soviet Union isn't Stalin alone). Also, after the war, Stalin wanted the satellite states that became the Eastern block in Cold War precisely because he wanted a barrier to soak any further attacks.

So with all that being said, I guess a pre-emptive strike kind of thinking was possible, at least to create the barrier but history never showed us that variant of the events, so we can't say. It could be argued that the Soviet Union already had a barrier by having annexed Eastern Poland and the Baltic countries, but who can say they wouldn't have wanted to expand it. Some could also make the ideological argument, with the idea of world revolution and all that, but personally I don't see Stalin starting wars for ideological purposes (rhetorics, of course, could have still used it to justify the war).

But all in all I agree with Steed and Raptor1. There is no hard evidence supporting the intentions and in history even a phenomenon like Soviet Union is still innocent until proven guilty.

[STEED]

The documentary series based on Laurence Rees book...World War Two Behind Closed Doors - Stalin, The Nazis And The West had a scene with Stalin and his two top Generals showing plans of a attack on the Germans and Stalin got angry at them and came close to saying one of his Generals would have been shot for that idea.

How serious the plans were are not very clear and Stalin had no intentions what so ever.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by STEED

The documentary series based on Laurence Rees book...World War Two Behind Closed Doors - Stalin, The Nazis And The West had a scene with Stalin and his two top Generals showing plans of a attack on the Germans and Stalin got angry at them and came close to saying one of his Generals would have been shot for that idea.

How serious the plans were are not very clear and Stalin had no intentions what so ever.

Plans, generally speaking, are very frail evidence for or against anything. Let me give you a ridiculous example: Finland planned attacking Soviet Union before the Winter war, so actually the Soviet aggression in 1939 was justified.

Preposterous? Such argument has been made. And the proof was indeed found: the Finnish military did have an offensive plan directed into the Soviet territory.

Point being? The same that was made when countering this argument in historical discourse: that a military that doesn't make plans is a completely useless military. I bet even today, somewhere deep in the archives of our army, there is a strategic plan to invade Estonia, Sweden, Russia and heck, the Vatican for all I care. And also a defensive plan in case any of those happen to utilize their offensive plans against us (which, I'm sure, they too have). It's what militaries do.

I think that the evidence indicates that there were no immediate intentions of the Soviet Union to invade Germany. Certainly the Red Army deployment on the eve of Barbarossa was consistent with a defensive stance according to Soviet military doctrine at that time.

Comparing Stalin to Hitler has always strikes as some sort of grotesque game show where the 'worst' dictator gets the chrome-plated steak knives or something equally silly. In short, an utter waist of time; something like debating how far is up. That said there is still much to be learned about both provided discussion does not descend into dogma and hyperbole.

I would suggest that they were more like syblings who are so much alike that they loathe each other and are indeed both loathesome to outsiders. Conventional wisdom places Hitler on the far right of the political spectrum and Stalin to the extreme left but is this really valid? The principle difference between National Socialism and Stalinism (as opposed to theoretical Marxist-Leninism) was that Hitler had successfully co-opted large segments of the German private industrial sector to buy into his version of the state controlled economy. Nazi control over the economy was every bit as real as in the Soviet Union, the principle difference is that Hitler let selected members of the business classes act as middle men and grow rich in the process. Stalin eliminated the middle men (often literally) and so the state had direct control over industry.

Rather than any definite Left-Right differences, both were entirely totalitarian and virtually identical in that they institutionalized the killing of their own citizens as a political tool. They were far more alike than different.

Stalin may have killed more people than Hitler but he had far longer to do so. Also the millions who slaved away and died in the Gulag frequently directly benefitted the Soviet state as many died building much needed infrastructure before the Great Patriotic War and to repair the ravages of that war after 1945. This excuses nothing of course but the fact that Stalin was more motivated to spend the lives of those perceived as enemies of the state in the service of the state stands in sharp relief to stated purpose behind Hitler's death camps. Also, as alluded to above, many of Stalin's excesses had definite political aims as opposed to Hitler's largely purely racial murders. The Soviet Union was a far more equal-opportunity tyranny than was Nazi Germany.

[Krauter]

A few points I want to address...

I will give credit to Stalin on one point, he never raised his voice or flew off the handle in a rage like Hitler would often do.

He didn't fly off the handle.. but he threatened their families and almost always followed through on the threat or remembered the situation to be paid for at a later date...

as bad as Stalin was, he generally speaking wasn't genocidal

I think that this point can, as you say, be debated. During the collectivization, Stalin envisioned starving off the entire Ukrainian population to provide Living room to the people of Russian stock (ironically similar to Hitlers aspirations of Lebensraum...)

itler never wanted war with the west. Infact he respected the British (early on, certainly).

If you read quotes from Hitler following the Vienna Treaty with Chamberlain he considered the Brits to be bumbling idiots who were weak willed and easily manipulated...

@ Hottentauts point, I forget where I read it, one of my history books I'd presume..., but whereas Lenin openly advertised overthrowing other governments in favour of communism, Stalins theories were more based on stabilizing the Soviet Union itself before any help could be sent to other revolutionaries.

Thus as you said, Stalin was more scared of outside invasions and internal rebellion then of invading other countries..

Anyways, just my three cents

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Task Force

Russia would have more than likely invaded Germany after the military reforms happend.

This is a myth, Stalin up the raw goods to Germany after the fall of France. Oil, wheat, iron and so on, so why attack Germany's eastern border when your on to a good thing.