PDA

View Full Version : OT: Stalin



Blood_Splat
10-14-2007, 11:08 AM
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.

Airmail109
10-14-2007, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.

Nahhh the vast majority loved him.

Lots of them still do

jensenpark
10-14-2007, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.

Nahhh the vast majority loved him.

Lots of them still do </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

from what I read, it was the randomness of the terror that seemingly paralyzed any opposition to him.
Generals, politicians, nobodies, all subject to random termination...fear destroyed any such will I am led to understand.

Airmail109
10-14-2007, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by jensenpark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.

Nahhh the vast majority loved him.

Lots of them still do </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

from what I read, it was the randomness of the terror that seemingly paralyzed any opposition to him.
Generals, politicians, nobodies, all subject to random termination...fear destroyed any such will I am led to understand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That to, but there was a lot of general support for him as well. He had a whole cult of personality thing going for him blahdyblahblah, just as Hitler had. Had he not had that then he would have been stuffed and unable to carry out the atrocities he did.

F19_Orheim
10-14-2007, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.

Nahhh the vast majority loved him.

Lots of them still do </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and you base this statement on what?

Airmail109
10-14-2007, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by F19_Orheim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.

Nahhh the vast majority loved him.

Lots of them still do </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and you base this statement on what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of articles, hey just go and get some statistics/articles on what current Russians think of Stalin. Do some freaking research or do you want me to find them for you? Its blatantly obvious if you just watch the news as well, doesn't seem that many Russians particularly care about democracy or dissenters being assainated does it?

F19_Orheim
10-14-2007, 11:42 AM
please do

Airmail109
10-14-2007, 11:44 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,907522,00.html

Theres one I quickly found for you

VW-IceFire
10-14-2007, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.
Its widely suspected that Stalins death was not exactly an accident and that there were groups that were opposed to him and eventually they managed to get him but it took allot of time and patience.

F19_Orheim
10-14-2007, 11:49 AM
Thank you.

My point is, to make such statements or similar, follows the responsibility to supply sources or proof.. for your own good. Too many statements and stuff what people say in this playground does not come with any sources whatsoever.

Credibility comes with just a nice little footnote

BTW I decline with thanks any such remarks as I should "do some freaking research" when it is you who carry the burden of proof.

Airmail109
10-14-2007, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by F19_Orheim:
Thank you.

My point is, to make such statements or similar, follows the responsibility to supply sources or proof.. for your own good. Too many statements and stuff what people say in this playground does not come with and sources whatsoever.

Credibility comes wiht just a nice little footnote

Yeah no problem, I would have posted one If it had been a good length. But I really only intended to make a general statement which other people can look into if they wish.

waffen-79
10-14-2007, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.

Nahhh the vast majority loved him.

Lots of them still do </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hell, I know I DO

Waldo.Pepper
10-14-2007, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by jensenpark:
the randomness of the terror that seemingly paralyzed any opposition to him.

I can personally recommend this as I have adopted this in my relationship with my Wife.

Taylortony
10-14-2007, 04:31 PM
Mind you, being stuffed and put on display after your death does not rank as one of the things I would wish either.........

I seem to remember Eva Peron suffered the same and at one point was propped up in the corner in her box of some clerks office as no one knew what to do with her at the time and those in power did not want to make her an Icon.

VF-17_Jolly
10-14-2007, 04:40 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Stalin_exile_1915.gif
Borat
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Borat_in_Cologne.jpg
Stalin

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-14-2007, 05:02 PM
AirMail::
Nahhh the vast majority loved him.

Lots of them still do
Correct AirMail. Although much depended on nationality and distance from the Moscow center. A successful mass organized personality cult requires mass yet artificial love. Stalin does make a fascinating psycho study.

I tend to thik Stalin was also loved by the western "democratic" governments, many intellectuals (by no means all), and their mass media, the New York Times in particular. But then Hitler was also loved for some time in the west, before the war. Builders of modern utopian civilizations is what I think they were wished to be in the west.

SeaFireLIV
10-14-2007, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.


Your words are simple and logical.

The reality is FAR from that as history has demonstrated many times over.

BadA1m
10-14-2007, 09:34 PM
It's a simple fact that most people will quite readily trade freedom for percieved saftey and security. It's the only way people like hitler and stalin could have remained in power, I mean how many people really give a rats a$$ about their neighbor being dragged off so long as they think it won't happen to them. Simple cowardice, that's all, or perhaps apathy. I'm not sure which I think is worse.

WOLFMondo
10-15-2007, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.

The cult of personality etc means people feared the man. The USSR needed him to function as he was so integral to almost all high level decision making. When he died no one knew what the hell to do. I'm sure more than a few people thought it and discussed it but he had so many people wanting to be loyal to him so as to avoid being killed themselves that even your long time friends and colleagues might grass you up if you discussed the possibility to removing him.

FPSOLKOR
10-15-2007, 03:43 AM
As my Gramps used to say - he was not good or evil... He WAS. Means - if he managed to lead the nation to winning a war after killing (although I do not know a single fact of murder by him) so many generals, when others would have lost with the same generals kept alive, he was a descent leader.

flakwagen
10-15-2007, 07:12 AM
I'm not sure many people understand what life was like for an Imperial Russian peasant. Serfdom existed up until the 1860s, and as best I can tell, it was an institution similar to U.S. Southern slavery. But the Russian serfs were not even kidnapped foreigners. They were native people often treated just as bad as U.S. slaves- perhaps worse.

I have read stories about the children of Imperial Russian gentry beating peasants and burning their houses as entertainment. Imagine what it must have been like to grow up with that sort of thing as your heritage.

It makes something like Communism look rather good by comparison. The communists used the injustices of the old system as an excuse to establish their own barbaric rule. That's my theory about why the people of the USSR liked Stalinism so much.

Flak

Airmail109
10-15-2007, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.

The cult of personality etc means people feared the man. The USSR needed him to function as he was so integral to almost all high level decision making. When he died no one knew what the hell to do. I'm sure more than a few people thought it and discussed it but he had so many people wanting to be loyal to him so as to avoid being killed themselves that even your long time friends and colleagues might grass you up if you discussed the possibility to removing him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fear = State Oppression

Cult of Personality = Similar to hero worship, the leaders appearing as god-like infallible rulers. Liked by the people and seen as their savior. This allows them to get away with State Oppression. It is Charismatic Leadership at its most extreme.

A good starting point to learn more about what a Cult of Personality actually is would be to read "The Hitler Myth" by Ian Kershaw

Pirschjaeger
10-15-2007, 08:26 AM
Although there are so many variables involved, the right person at the right time can achieve so many wrongs.

Stalin, Mao, and Hitler had nothing in common with exception to the worlds they lived in.

Fritz

WOLFMondo
10-15-2007, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.

The cult of personality etc means people feared the man. The USSR needed him to function as he was so integral to almost all high level decision making. When he died no one knew what the hell to do. I'm sure more than a few people thought it and discussed it but he had so many people wanting to be loyal to him so as to avoid being killed themselves that even your long time friends and colleagues might grass you up if you discussed the possibility to removing him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fear = State Oppression

Cult of Personality = Similar to hero worship, the leaders appearing as god-like infallible rulers. Liked by the people and seen as their savior. This allows them to get away with State Oppression. It is Charismatic Leadership at its most extreme.

A good starting point to learn more about what a Cult of Personality actually is would be to read "The Hitler Myth" by Ian Kershaw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was the cause of the state oppression. Everything the state did during his years of rule was because he dictated it. He wasn't like Hitler who had a load of croneys do allot of the 'real' work. This guy was a workaholic and literally reviewed everything the party did.

GerritJ9
10-15-2007, 08:56 AM
Stalin, Hitler and Mao had nothing in common? Don't know about Mao, but Adolf and Joe did- read Alan Bullock's "Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives". I can also highly recommend Edvard Radzinsky's "Stalin".

p1ngu666
10-15-2007, 09:10 AM
he made russia great again

csThor
10-15-2007, 09:19 AM
That's a rather questionable statement, p1ngu. If anything Stalin nearly botched WW2 a few times with his meddling (Kiew 41, winter offensive 41/42, Crimea 42, start of "Fall Blau" mid-1942, counter-offensive across the Mius in early 1943 ...). He was a politician first and foremost and the longer the war lasted the more he realized that he'd have to leave the tactical and strategical details to the professionals around him. Ironic how Hitler's influence on the war grew while Stalin reduced his own and how much that affected the actual operations.

Airmail109
10-15-2007, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
After killing many of his own officers, generals, and scientist. Did it ever occur to any of the Russian people that maybe we need to take this ******* out? It's amazing how much death one man with power can cause.

The cult of personality etc means people feared the man. The USSR needed him to function as he was so integral to almost all high level decision making. When he died no one knew what the hell to do. I'm sure more than a few people thought it and discussed it but he had so many people wanting to be loyal to him so as to avoid being killed themselves that even your long time friends and colleagues might grass you up if you discussed the possibility to removing him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fear = State Oppression

Cult of Personality = Similar to hero worship, the leaders appearing as god-like infallible rulers. Liked by the people and seen as their savior. This allows them to get away with State Oppression. It is Charismatic Leadership at its most extreme.

A good starting point to learn more about what a Cult of Personality actually is would be to read "The Hitler Myth" by Ian Kershaw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was the cause of the state oppression. Everything the state did during his years of rule was because he dictated it. He wasn't like Hitler who had a load of croneys do allot of the 'real' work. This guy was a workaholic and literally reviewed everything the party did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes he was the cause of oppression, so was Hitler. Both had cronies who carried out their wishes, only in Hitlers case they were a bit more open to interpretation. That does not in anyway mean that Stalin did not have a Cult Of Personality.

As difficult as it is to comprehend today, many people living in the Soviet Union absolutely worshipped Stalin despite the fact that millions lost their lives because of him. They saw him as their protector. But those who understood Stalin's true nature-usually those who were more urbanized-either became victims of his repressive leadership and were killed or exiled, or they learned to keep silent.

Saying that his strong rule was just down to oppression is being very, very narrow minded.

JG14_Josf
10-15-2007, 11:23 AM
The penalty for not loving Stalin was a tener; read Solzhenitsyn.

msalama
10-15-2007, 11:36 AM
It's a simple fact that most people will quite readily trade freedom for perceived safety and security.

Yes, and the modern democracies - as we can see - are unfortunately not immune to this either.

But as regards Stalin it was part personality cult and part random terror that gave him the power he had. With a combination like this, who but the bravest will oppose you?

SeaFireLIV
10-15-2007, 11:49 AM
I think in time, people will see stalin in the same way as distant dictaters in the past.. a necessary evil to get Russia out of being rubbish and a recognised world power.

Look at the facts.

He got russia strong enough that it was able to withstand an invasion (even though he didn`t actually do anything much in the war itself).

After his death, russia was able to stay pretty powerful and create a sort of equilibrium for 50 years. Of course, in continuous cold war.

Now Russia is a `democracy`, yet it is now still considered a world power not to be trifled with. Even if weaker than America.


I`m not saying Stalin was a good man, indeed, I`d not like living under him in any kind of position of authority and I grieve for those murdered by him...

But in when looked upon in the cold light of reality, I still think he was what enabled Russia to survive and catch up with the modern era.

Would Russia be better without him? Depends.

If Hitler had attacked perhaps any other leader would`ve folded and Russia would be Nazified now with all the grim consequences. Or perhaps the still alive Generals would`ve fought hitler off?

More people surely would be alive. But would they be part of a world power able to meet face-to-face with any other power? Would they still be a peasant country?

Blast. It`s hard to pose these questions without sounding heartless.

I`d prefer that ALL the people had lived and none had been killed, even if Russia was a rubbish state in the end.


If one stands back and looks at all the alternatives, past, present and future, there are no easy answers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Bewolf
10-15-2007, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I think in time, people will see stalin in the same way as distant dictaters in the past.. a necessary evil to get Russia out of being rubbish and a recognised world power.

Look at the facts.

He got russia strong enough that it was able to withstand an invasion (even though he didn`t actually do anything much in the war itself).

After his death, russia was able to stay pretty powerful and create a sort of equilibrium for 50 years. Of course, in continuous cold war.

Now Russia is a `democracy`, yet it is now still considered a world power not to be trifled with. Even if weaker than America.


I`m not saying Stalin was a good man, indeed, I`d not like living under him in any kind of position of authority and I grieve for those murdered by him...

But in when looked upon in the cold light of reality, I still think he was what enabled Russia to survive and catch up with the modern era.

Would Russia be better without him? Depends.

If Hitler had attacked perhaps any other leader would`ve folded and Russia would be Nazified now with all the grim consequences. Or perhaps the still alive Generals would`ve fought hitler off?

More people surely would be alive. But would they be part of a world power able to meet face-to-face with any other power? Would they still be a peasant country?

Blast. It`s hard to pose these questions without sounding heartless.

I`d prefer that ALL the people had lived and none had been killed, even if Russia was a rubbish state in the end.


If one stands back and looks at all the alternatives, past, present and future, there are no easy answers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Bullocks. By that definition it just required Hitler to win the war and he would have been a great man in history. Usually I am all for looking at grey shades and despise pure black and white views, but "making a nation powerful" never justfies "anything", especially not millions of deaths.

csThor
10-15-2007, 12:11 PM
I fully agree with Bewolf. Sorry, SeaFire, but I don't give that credit to Stalin at all, because all he did was pushing buttons. A few times he hit the right ones (e.g. his speech about the GPW) but mostly (as outlined by me further up) he simply hit the FUBAR button more than once. Only when he held himself (and his ego) in check he made successes possible but in the end (after WW2) he even tried to rob Zhukov of his glory because he was simply jealous of Zhukov's popularity. Stalin was nothing but a power-hungry despot and if the USSR ended up as one of the two World Powers it was in spite of Stalin, not due to him.

Kurfurst__
10-15-2007, 12:14 PM
Well, the saying goes on Stalin that he 'took over Russia with it`s wooden plows, and left it behind with the hydrogene bomb'... and some 20-30 million dead at least. He was ruthless, macchievellian, despotic, but also very pragmatic and oriented towards progress.

That ruthless pragmatism was something that clearly distincted him from the theoretical communist nutjobs like Lenin and Trockij, who were so obsessed building 'socialism', that they did not care at all about realities and successfully ruined what WW1 and the civil war left out of Russia`s economy. Stalin did not have such interests, he was much more imperialistics than he was a socialist, and he had 'a bit' to do in creating the USSR`s heavy industry. Compare the industrialisation of Tsarist Russia to the Stalinist USSR.

I can never escape drawing an analogue between Peter the Great and Stalin; Tsar Peter whipped Russia into the industrial age, Stalin whipped Russia into 20th century and to superpower status. Neither cared of the means and the cost in lives. Perhaps the only way things start working in Russia, at least in a historical sense... or at least it worked for them.

ultraHun
10-15-2007, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Although there are so many variables involved, the right person at the right time can achieve so many wrongs.

Stalin, Mao, and Hitler had nothing in common with exception to the worlds they lived in.

Fritz

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif agree for once with Pirsch and would like to add a statement by leit: Comparative atrocities and injustices are the last refuges of charlatans.

SeaFireLIV
10-15-2007, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well, the saying goes on Stalin that he 'took over Russia with it`s wooden plows, and left it behind with the hydrogene bomb'... and some 20-30 million dead at least. He was ruthless, macchievellian, despotic, but also very pragmatic and oriented towards progress.

That ruthless pragmatism was something that clearly distincted him from the theoretical communist nutjobs like Lenin and Trockij, who were so obsessed building 'socialism', that they did not care at all about realities and successfully ruined what WW1 and the civil war left out of Russia`s economy. Stalin did not have such interests, he was much more imperialistics than he was a socialist, and he had 'a bit' to do in creating the USSR`s heavy industry. Compare the industrialisation of Tsarist Russia to the Stalinist USSR.

I can never escape drawing an analogue between Peter the Great and Stalin; Tsar Peter whipped Russia into the industrial age, Stalin whipped Russia into 20th century and to superpower status. Neither cared of the means and the cost in lives. Perhaps the only way things start working in Russia, at least in a historical sense... or at least it worked for them.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say. Kurfurst said it better. Still don`t make stalin a good man by any means as he wasn`t.

Of course, that`s just how it comes across to me. If people read rather than knee-jerk react they may understand this.

GerritJ9
10-15-2007, 01:10 PM
Stalin the "cause of oppression" in the USSR??????? Think again. It started right at the beginning with the October Revolution, under Lenin. Felix Dzerzhinski launched the ""Red Terror"- well before Stalin became General Secretary of the CPSU. Although it abated somewhat after the end of the Civil War, it never disappeared. Stalin took it to new heights with his successive purges- but to call him "the cause" is grossly misreading history.

joeap
10-15-2007, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well, the saying goes on Stalin that he 'took over Russia with it`s wooden plows, and left it behind with the hydrogene bomb'... and some 20-30 million dead at least. He was ruthless, macchievellian, despotic, but also very pragmatic and oriented towards progress.

That ruthless pragmatism was something that clearly distincted him from the theoretical communist nutjobs like Lenin and Trockij, who were so obsessed building 'socialism', that they did not care at all about realities and successfully ruined what WW1 and the civil war left out of Russia`s economy. Stalin did not have such interests, he was much more imperialistics than he was a socialist, and he had 'a bit' to do in creating the USSR`s heavy industry. Compare the industrialisation of Tsarist Russia to the Stalinist USSR.

I can never escape drawing an analogue between Peter the Great and Stalin; Tsar Peter whipped Russia into the industrial age, Stalin whipped Russia into 20th century and to superpower status. Neither cared of the means and the cost in lives. Perhaps the only way things start working in Russia, at least in a historical sense... or at least it worked for them.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say. Kurfurst said it better. Still don`t make stalin a good man by any means as he wasn`t.

Of course, that`s just how it comes across to me. If people read rather than knee-jerk react they may understand this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, sad fact is many died that should not have in the West too during the period of modernization and industrialization.

I agree with Kurfie in that had Trotsky "won" the oppression and fanaticism would have been far worse...this guy believed in freeing the proletariat by force, spreading "people's democracy" by the sword. Something Stalin did alos, though more by opportunism than by pushing for it.

Ob.Emann
10-15-2007, 02:18 PM
IMO an excellent book on the Stalin phenomenon is "Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe" by Robert Gellately. He clearly illustrates that the "machinery" for Stalin's police state and military-industrial complex was already installed and put into operation by Lenin and that Stalin, in effect, picked up where Lenin left off.

GerritJ9 is right. Stalin merely continued the proud legacy of despotism and moral vacuousness that was left by Lenin and his men. The image of kind Lenin's just and noble social experiment (albeit one with the occasional massacre of both dissents and sympathizers on a completely arbitrary basis by secret police) being corrupted by the crypto-fascist Stalin just isn't valid anymore.

GerritJ9
10-15-2007, 02:40 PM
As regards internal oppression, it would have mattered little if Trotsky had come out on top, rather than Stalin- though that oppression may well have taken a different form (but with a similar result). The only area where there would have been any marked difference would have been foreign policy. But even here, Trotsky would soon have had to face reality: that after the Great War, Civil War, Red Terror and War Communism, the USSR simply did not have the means to spread proletarian world revolution by force. Soviet industry was run down and rebuilding it only really started with Stalin's first Five Year Plan.

Bewolf
10-15-2007, 03:17 PM
I stay by my words. If this all is true, and justfies this relativistic view on history, making loss of millions of lives acceptable and noteworthy for national progress, then Hitler would be as much a great man.

BadA1m
10-15-2007, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's a simple fact that most people will quite readily trade freedom for perceived safety and security.

Yes, and the modern democracies - as we can see - are unfortunately not immune to this either.

But as regards Stalin it was part personality cult and part random terror that gave him the power he had. With a combination like this, who but the bravest will oppose you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, and I suppose I was a bit harsh as well, especially in a place like the pre-war Soviet Union with such a rural population and the Government in control every thing, it would be difficult to resist if you wanted to.

Taylortony
10-15-2007, 06:11 PM
Lets face it, Sadam was a modern Stalin, and given half a chance 70% of the population would have him back in power in an instant given the state of the country now.....fair enough he was rutheless and a dictator, but they had water, food, power, a lack of crime, safety and stability in their country........... what they have now is anarchy........... better the dictator you know than the situation now, where no one has control........

SeaFireLIV
10-15-2007, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Taylortony:
Lets face it, Sadam was a modern Stalin, and given half a chance 70% of the population would have him back in power in an instant given the state of the country now.....fair enough he was rutheless and a dictator, but they had water, food, power, a lack of crime, safety and stability in their country........... what they have now is anarchy........... better the dictator you know than the situation now, where no one has control........


But the people in Iraq are free now...

Pirschjaeger
10-16-2007, 06:02 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Blutarski2004
10-16-2007, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Taylortony:
Lets face it, Sadam was a modern Stalin, and given half a chance 70% of the population would have him back in power in an instant given the state of the country now.....fair enough he was rutheless and a dictator, but they had water, food, power, a lack of crime, safety and stability in their country........... what they have now is anarchy........... better the dictator you know than the situation now, where no one has control........


.....Saddam Hussein was more than an admirer of Stalin. He was a student. Hussein had a large number of Stalin's writings translated into Arabic for his personal reference.

I agree that some in Iraq miss the Hussein regime, but I suspect it is more the 30 pct of Sunnis than the 70 pct of Shia and Kurds. The last statistics I read indicated that Hussein's security state was eradicating about 30,000 people per year on average. Of course, I can appreciate that such acts committed out of sight of the public in the secrecy of the government prison system are prone to be less psychologically distressing to the populace than the very public and indiscriminate campaign of terror and assassination presently being waged by various contending parties.

Taylortony
10-16-2007, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireL1V


But the people in Iraq are free now...


Strangely I think you actually believe that...........

Blutarski2004
10-16-2007, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Taylortony:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireL1V


But the people in Iraq are free now...


Strangely I think you actually believe that........... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I'd suggest that SeaFireLIV is perfectly correct.

Compared to their situation under Saddam Hussein and his homicidal three-decade long Baathist/Sunni clan dictatorship, the people of Iraq are in fact free. What they choose to do with that freedom is another issue [as is Iran's decision to actively intervene in Iraqi internal affairs].

Apparently the current bloodshed in Iraq leads you to believe that Iraq would be better off today under Hussein. Please recall however that, in his twenty-odd years in personal power, he embroiled Iraq in a bloody ten year war of outright aggression against Iran, followed that with an invasion of Kuwait, and then provoked a succession of political and military confrontations with both the rest of the Arab nations and ultimately with the US. This says nothing about the repeated punitive expeditions against the Shia and Kurdish populations of Iraq. What is going on in Iraq today is minor league compared to the death and suffering produced by Hussein. It appears bad in Iraq simply because the western press today chooses to highlight it. When Saddam was in power, NOTHING was reported out of Iraq by the western press.

Lubcke
10-16-2007, 05:58 PM
by comparing stalin to saddam people show how ignorant they are and how much influence propaganda has to them...
its jus sad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

SeaFireLIV
10-16-2007, 06:03 PM
sigh...

I think Pirschjaeger understands me best.

Taylortony
10-16-2007, 06:21 PM
No country is "free" from the UK to the USA to Iraq...... there is always controls put on us if we see them or not..... end of the day this war was all about control over OIL...

In Iraqs case I can see why the population is fighting back against the coalition......... You will NOT win against these people and imposing Democracy on an Arab state is doomed to failure...... The fact that we all went in is neither here nor there, but we did go in under false assumptions about Iraqs capabilities to wage Biological and Chemical warfare........ For Bush to stand up and declare the war was over was Nieve in the extreme, in these situations the likes of the Republican Guard etc simply merge into the population and carry on their war against the "Invaders" of their country, such as the French Resistance did during the second world war....... The sad part is that every man and his dog that has a bone to pick with the USA, UK , coalition etc have joined in using Iraq as a punchbag of the world to strike at these countries........

Its a bit of a wag the tail situation, the country can't have its political power struggle in the vacuum that's left and settle down whilst the troops are there...... but the troops are there because it hasn't settled, the US fears who may win the power struggle and the fighting continues.......... so the country remains in turmoil........

All the smart weaponary in the world will not stop a fanatic with a grenade launcher or a AK47 in close combat situations.......Vietnam and Somalia taught the world that.

SeaFireLIV
10-16-2007, 06:48 PM
The reason i don`t expound more, TT, is becuase this is a very touchy subject and once I get arguing on politics I tend to explode.

If that happens this thread will be closed and i`ll probably get banned for a month.

Let it be known that i feel much the same way as yourself and i`m a tad dissapointed that you think you know me well enough to say that i believed that saying literally.

Would I be happier that a dictater controlling my life is gone? YES.

Would I be happier that in its place is barely controlled anarchy, fearing for my family every single second of the day, hearing and seeing shots, the odd explosion and another 100 people blown up in a baghdad market? NO!

are these people free? Or are they gone from one Hell to a worse Hell?

And the West convinced of it by initially deceitful excuses which they went ahead with despite the protests of many ?

One has to ask themselves are a people worse off under a dictater that at least kept law and order and as long as you behaved yourself left you alone or are the people better off now not nowing whether they are going to be blown up, shot in some factional fighting with this worry on a day to day basis and when you appeal to your new rulers who came to save you they don`t appear to be helping the people where they need it most, instead guarding government pockets and oilwells?

I have nothing against our good soldiers, they just do what they`re told and I respect `em. It`s the age-old medievel lying politics I don`t like, screwing things up even worse for the innocent and weak.

There now look what you`ve gone and started.



Now i`m gonna torn apart by all the people who are convinced that everything`s wonderful in Iraq and this thread will be closed.

Pirschjaeger
10-16-2007, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
.....Saddam Hussein was more than an admirer of Stalin. He was a student. Hussein had a large number of Stalin's writings translated into Arabic for his personal reference.


Propaganda works so well.

He was a politician.

His native language was Arabic.

He also had a copy of Mein Kampf in Arabic too. But this doesn't mean he didn't have other publications regarding history and politics. If I were a politician I'd read as much as possible, good and bad.

Wouldn't you expect or want this from your favorite politician?

As for Saddam, he was more comparable to a mafia leader rather than Stalin.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
10-16-2007, 07:58 PM
I'm surprised you guys didn't catch on to Seafire's sarcastic humor. I thought it was rather obvious.

Back to the topic.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned Stalin never folded. That's a bit inaccurate. Twice, before Stalingrad, he seriously considered surrendering.

The scales were tipped when Stalin realized Hitler had stretched his supply line too far. Interestingly, Hitler had no intentions of crossing the Volga. Had Stalin known this he probably would have surrendered. That's just how close it came. Hitler may have been a successful politician but he was a lousy military leader.

Stalin won WW2 for two main reasons. First, he got a lot of supplies from the Allies. Second, he had no qualms about wasting Russian flesh in order waste German supplies.

In my opinion, Stalin is second only to Mao in the list of worst humans in history. Hitler would be third.

Sure, Russia was a backward country but it was also that way before Peter the Great came along. Peter also killed a lot of Russians but far less than Stalin did and Peter made Russia much more successful than Stalin did.

It's hard to separate propaganda from fact. Today Hitler is often thought of as the worst man in history but his wrong-doings pale in comparison to Stalin's.

I guess it's all about how one perceives right, wrong, propaganda, and truth.

Fritz

p1ngu666
10-16-2007, 08:01 PM
they arent really free, theres a curfew, and while there is a elected government, which insidently i dont think is a puppet, mostly because the coalition just ignore it and do what they want.

theres also more random death, a lack of food,clean water, electirity, fuel, prices are higher (often much).

also loads of people have left aswell.

I guess we undervalue people like stalin,hitler,saddam, essentialy great leaders, but hugely evil/bad...

Pirschjaeger
10-16-2007, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
I guess we undervalue people like stalin,hitler,saddam, essentialy great leaders, but hugely evil/bad...

Unsettlingly true.

Fritz

Wepps
10-16-2007, 10:01 PM
This was a time, remember, when the only thing the people knew was what their government told them. There was no free access to any information they chose.

The only people who knew what was happening were because of direct experience. Maybe they witnessed the NKVD coming into their home and hauling their officer husband away, etc.

But knowing this created dissent, they were likely to be sent off to build brick sh*thouses in Siberia too.

It's controlled information flow, something these days that's difficult to achieve, if not impossible.

BaldieJr
10-17-2007, 12:20 AM
wow. what a tangent.

FPSOLKOR
10-17-2007, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
The reason i don`t expound more, TT, is becuase this is a very touchy subject and once I get arguing on politics I tend to explode.

If that happens this thread will be closed and i`ll probably get banned for a month.

Let it be known that i feel much the same way as yourself and i`m a tad dissapointed that you think you know me well enough to say that i believed that saying literally.

Would I be happier that a dictater controlling my life is gone? YES.

Would I be happier that in its place is barely controlled anarchy, fearing for my family every single second of the day, hearing and seeing shots, the odd explosion and another 100 people blown up in a baghdad market? NO!

are these people free? Or are they gone from one Hell to a worse Hell?

And the West convinced of it by initially deceitful excuses which they went ahead with despite the protests of many ?

One has to ask themselves are a people worse off under a dictater that at least kept law and order and as long as you behaved yourself left you alone or are the people better off now not nowing whether they are going to be blown up, shot in some factional fighting with this worry on a day to day basis and when you appeal to your new rulers who came to save you they don`t appear to be helping the people where they need it most, instead guarding government pockets and oilwells?

I have nothing against our good soldiers, they just do what they`re told and I respect `em. It`s the age-old medievel lying politics I don`t like, screwing things up even worse for the innocent and weak.

There now look what you`ve gone and started.



Now i`m gonna torn apart by all the people who are convinced that everything`s wonderful in Iraq and this thread will be closed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
except the part about "good soldiers"... Anyhow, history taught us that war between Germany and USSR ended only in 1950-s, because THERE WAS NO government in Germany to sign the peace treaty... I'm not sure if peace treaty was signed between US and Germany either (Capitulation is not a peace agreement, it's just a capitulation of armed forces). Same problem is in Iraq - no war announced, no peace treaties signed... What do you expect?Flowers and candy?

LEXX_Luthor
10-17-2007, 03:58 AM
SeaFire, I got the humour when I saw it last night. To add one from Pirsch ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Blutarski2004
10-17-2007, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
.....Saddam Hussein was more than an admirer of Stalin. He was a student. Hussein had a large number of Stalin's writings translated into Arabic for his personal reference.


Propaganda works so well.

He was a politician.

His native language was Arabic.

He also had a copy of Mein Kampf in Arabic too. But this doesn't mean he didn't have other publications regarding history and politics. If I were a politician I'd read as much as possible, good and bad.

Wouldn't you expect or want this from your favorite politician?

As for Saddam, he was more comparable to a mafia leader rather than Stalin.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


=====> You might want to investigate the Hussein/Stalin relationship a bit more closely.

Blutarski2004
10-17-2007, 05:58 AM
The solution to the Iraqi situation IMHO lies in Tehran, not Washington DC.

p1ngu666
10-17-2007, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The solution to the Iraqi situation IMHO lies in Tehran, not Washington DC.

The solution is in iraq, itll be when those who are doing the killing, tortureing,kidnapings etc get bored, or find it more profitable to stop, thats when it will end. Theres too many factions in iraq for it tobe just iranian supported ones..

stalkervision
10-17-2007, 09:42 AM
Little known "stalin fact" He took any Russian soldiers who were captured by the germans at one time or another during ww2 and shipped them all to the Russian Gulag at the end of the war.

Al Stewart song "Roads to Moscow" mentions this at the end as what happened to the soldier he sings about..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnrLmwGVSDM

SeaFireLIV
10-17-2007, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Little known "stalin fact" He took any Russian soldiers who were captured by the germans at one time or another during ww2 and shipped them all to the Russian Gulag at the end of the war.

Al Stewart song "Roads to Moscow" mentions this at the end as what happened to the soldier he sings about..


This is a well known fact. Stalin even abandoned his own son for getting himself captured. This policy was supposed to encourage men not to surrender or be captured, no matter what. A harsh and cruel policy that took no pity on circumstances.

stalkervision
10-17-2007, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Little known "stalin fact" He took any Russian soldiers who were captured by the germans at one time or another during ww2 and shipped them all to the Russian Gulag at the end of the war.

Al Stewart song "Roads to Moscow" mentions this at the end as what happened to the soldier he sings about..


This is a well known fact. Stalin even abandoned his own son for getting himself captured. This policy was supposed to encourage men not to surrender or be captured, no matter what. A harsh and cruel policy that took no pity on circumstances. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well you and I know it and it's a well known fact to us and anyone else who has read much about Stalin..

also that he imprisoned all his aircraft designers while they worked for him. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

actually from what I have read his policy had to do more with a crazy idea in his mind of "german/russian cross cultural" contamination..

That any Russian soldier held by the germans was somehow contaminated in some way by the german culture. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-17-2007, 10:06 AM
Ah, aircraft designers...mslama poasted a very nice PDF file about this from Warwick. They organized people to run around the factories accusing the old timer skilled workers of "sabotage."

Employment in the Soviet Aircraft Industry,
1918 to 1940: Work Culture, Organization, and
Incentives, by Mikhail Mukhin

~> http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/facul...rchive/persa/036.pdf (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/persa/036.pdf)

Blutarski2004
10-17-2007, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The solution to the Iraqi situation IMHO lies in Tehran, not Washington DC.

The solution is in iraq, itll be when those who are doing the killing, tortureing,kidnapings etc get bored, or find it more profitable to stop, thats when it will end. Theres too many factions in iraq for it tobe just iranian supported ones.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... IMO that will occur only when Iran elects to cease harboring, supporting, financing, arming, supplying, and reinforcing the factions to which you refer.

Iraq certainly has its uniquely own traditional internal issues to deal with, but Iran finds it in their particular political interests to promote the maximum possible amount of instability within Iraq. I'm convinced that if Sadr's group were to gain control of the Iraqi government, a mantle of heavenly tranquility would suddenly descend upon Iraq.

My opinion.

PaulV2007
10-17-2007, 01:16 PM
But the people in Iraq are free now...

It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

waffen-79
10-17-2007, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
As for Saddam, he was more comparable to a mafia leader rather than Stalin.


Agree 100%

people like, Hugo Chavez, Saddam, the crazy-*** hair fella at north corea.

Are but dictator wannabe's

Mao was the last real dictator and Castro was the Cassius Claye of lesser Dictators, he was good but bragged too much about it, I say "was" because he cant' do much nowadays

Hoatee
10-17-2007, 01:55 PM
It's amusing to see how the democracies get off scot free in this thread. By it's very nature, no particular person can be pointed at as the democratic form of government does not know such a fascist thing as the leadership principle, for example. Think however, of the process of colonizing the world - in particular, Australia, the America's, the West Indies in terms of lives lost - and the trade in human lives themselves.

SeaFireLIV
10-17-2007, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by PaulV2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the people in Iraq are free now...

It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds like something you saw in a film or read in a comic than actually had to practise in reality. Go to any oppressed country, do it, then you can come back here and post that.

SeaFireLIV
10-17-2007, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Hoatee:
It's amusing to see how the democracies get off scot free in this thread. By it's very nature, no particular person can be pointed at as the democratic form of government does not know such a fascist thing as the leadership principle, for example. Think however, of the process of colonizing the world - in particular, Australia, the America's, the West Indies in terms of lives lost - and the trade in human lives themselves.

Well democracry in the West aren`t really democratic ie, they certainly aren`t free. just perhaps free-r than some other nations. And even then. exactly what do we mean by free?

In my humble opinion, democracies are just that bit more cleverer (or decieving enough?) to trick the people into thinking they`re free.

For instance, where a totalitarian state won`t let you vote and would shoot you if you resist, a democracy will let you vote, make no changes then discredit you with TV propaganda and lock you up if you resist.

Democracy is nicer because it `lets` you think you`re actually free.

Let me just add that I think true freedom is a falacy and can never be achieved unless you`re dead.

Taylortony
10-17-2007, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PaulV2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the people in Iraq are free now...

It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds like something you saw in a film or read in a comic than actually had to practise in reality. Go to any oppressed country, do it, then you can come back here and post that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I found that saying rather poignant and truthful, unfortunately as you say........ even rats will fight to survive in a sinking ship..

FPSOLKOR
10-17-2007, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Little known "stalin fact" He took any Russian soldiers who were captured by the germans at one time or another during ww2 and shipped them all to the Russian Gulag at the end of the war.

Al Stewart song "Roads to Moscow" mentions this at the end as what happened to the soldier he sings about..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnrLmwGVSDM
Bullsh///t. You definitely have no idea about what actually happened and how the situations were dealt with...

FPSOLKOR
10-17-2007, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... IMO that will occur only when Iran elects to cease harboring, supporting, financing, arming, supplying, and reinforcing the factions to which you refer.

Iraq certainly has its uniquely own traditional internal issues to deal with, but Iran finds it in their particular political interests to promote the maximum possible amount of instability within Iraq. I'm convinced that if Sadr's group were to gain control of the Iraqi government, a mantle of heavenly tranquility would suddenly descend upon Iraq.

My opinion.
It will stop when major world powers will stop creating new terrorist groups in third world countries. Do you know the story of Taliban?

Lubcke
10-17-2007, 05:55 PM
not only taliban, saddam's party as well, and we had same thing in iran but it was overthrown by islamic revolution and that shows that bringing up iraq in the thread about about stalin is completely inapropriate and out of context.

Mao was in the stalins league, hitler was in the stalins league somewhat, but I would say that Stalin and Mao where much more powerfull and more bad then hitler, hitler still was dependant from lots off thing inside germany, and he had to have more politician in him then stalin and mao and surely stalin would be the leader of this pack. now saddam isnt even comparable to those people as well as hugo chavez or other ****** in middle east

Blutarski2004
10-17-2007, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Lubcke:
not only taliban, saddam's party as well, and we had same thing in iran but it was overthrown by islamic revolution and that shows that bringing up iraq in the thread about about stalin is completely inapropriate and out of context.

Mao was in the stalins league, hitler was in the stalins league somewhat, but I would say that Stalin and Mao where much more powerfull and more bad then hitler, hitler still was dependant from lots off thing inside germany, and he had to have more politician in him then stalin and mao and surely stalin would be the leader of this pack. now saddam isnt even comparable to those people as well as hugo chavez or other ****** in middle east


..... If you are referring to my recent posts, please note that I did not compare Saddam Hussein to Joseph Stalin as a matter of competition. I simply pointed out that Saddam was an avid devotee and student of Stalin's methods and philosophies.

Blutarski2004
10-17-2007, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
It will stop when major world powers will stop creating new terrorist groups in third world countries. Do you know the story of Taliban?


..... To which Taliban background story do you refer?

HerrGraf
10-17-2007, 08:52 PM
Quotes:
It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.


That sounds like something you saw in a film or read in a comic than actually had to practise in reality. Go to any oppressed country, do it, then you can come back here and post that.
--------------------------------------------------
That particular quote is from Emiliano Zapata- a Mexican Revotionary/Bandit ( depends on who is talking about him). Best that you do a search on him instead of mouthing discouraging remarks as to his philosophy.

There are many ,even today, that believe it is how you live your life that counts; and to be a slave is not on option!

Pirschjaeger
10-17-2007, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by PaulV2007:
It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Hi Paul,

no intention of critisizing or picking on you, but that quote sounds like it comes from a politician who is safe during a conflict.

I'll combine the quote (from my point of view) with a point Seafire made.

Seafire questioned the meaning of "freedom". Having lived in various countries and under various forms of government, not to mention the unwritten social rules, I've often questioned the true meaning of freedom.

Currently, and for the last 7 years, I've been living in China and occasionally Germany. Originally I'm from Canada and before coming to China I lived in Egypt. Believe it or not, each place has it's own form of freedom: even China.

If I compare Canada and China I see more freedom in China. Although I have the freedom in Canada to say what I want, the government there knows every move I make and every fart I let go. In China, they couldn't care less. If I don't mess with them, they don't mess with me. The freedom of speech is an interesting belief. I say belief because from what I've seen, it's pretty close to meaningless. In Canada we can say what we want, as long as it's politically correct, but who listens? To me, the freedom of speech is like the emperor's new clothing. Interestingly, many with die for it.

But, one the other hand, there's a kind of freedom I really miss. It's the freedom to do what I want in terms of hobby or even walking through the forest. In China I have no space to build and supplies are incredibly hard to come by. Very few people here can afford a hobby. I miss this much more than I miss freedom of speech. I miss the cleanliness and the order. Ironically, they are not symbols of freedom, but rather rule and order.

I don't miss annual income tax returns. I don't miss having to present a number anytime I want to work or open a bank account. This is another freedom.

Just to touch on freedom of speech again, I'd like to ask if anyone in this forum can go to a public place in their countries and voice their political opinions without being chastised or insulted?

Honestly, I don't think freedom of speech truly exists and I also think that all degrees of freedom of speech are useless since it is rare someone actually listens.

So, when I hear or read "It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.", I have to ask; Have you kept your profile up to date? Have you done your tax returns? Have you remembered your SIN by heart?

Now, for Germany. I was really disappointed with the lack of freedom in Germany; even the lack of religious freedom. When I registered at the government office, the form asked my religion. Since my beliefs are closer to the old Pagan beliefs, I filled in "Heiden" (German for Pagan). When I handed in the form, the secretary scratched out Heiden and replaced it with "Atheist". Needless to say, that annoyed me.

It also seemed to me that all the schools are closely connected to the church. To add, we must pay a church tax, which was the reason the form required I fill in a religion.

I went to a model show where there were some really well made models of WW2 ships. All the German ships had masking tape over the swastikas.

But, at the same time, you can drink beer and drive legally in Germany. Go over the limit and your in deep. In Canada, you can't legally have alcohol within reach of the driver,.....but they have drive threws at the beerstore. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

In Germany, a cafe, restaurant, or pub has to pay a special, and expensive, tax to have music for their customers.

So, there are many types of freedoms and I've probably seen enough to write a short book.

Now, as far as living on your knees, I think the majority of the world is doing this now to various degrees.

I think a quote about hope would more accurately describe what the people desire. We hope that someday there will be freedom, a true freedom, but even that is hard to imagine. I don't mean total freedom since that would lead to chaos, but maybe a personal freedom. A freedom to speak and not be attacked would be nice and beneficial to societies everywhere. A freedom to enjoy clean air and spend time with nature. A freedom to believe what you want without being segregated. A freedom to explore history without being labelled. A freedom to help others with being made suspect.

Ironically, I can find all these freedoms, what I call personal freedom, but I cannot find them all in one nation.

So, I'll take a quote about hope, but unlike those given by Mao, Stalin, and Hitler, I want mine topped with a sprinkle of intention, a dash of ernest, and a side order of validity.

Fritz

LEXX_Luthor
10-17-2007, 11:01 PM
Aussom Pirsch.


In Germany, a cafe, restaurant, or pub has to pay a special, and expensive, tax to have music for their customers.
I wonder if the increasing complexity and seemingly arbitrary nature of so-called "laws" will someday collapse the previously wealthy western system.

zardozid
10-17-2007, 11:47 PM
Did anyone watch the "History channels" show "Lost Worlds" last night? It was about Stalin's building projects (and related matters). It was called "Stalin's Super city's"

"Entertaining" history based show...

BaldieJr
10-18-2007, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PaulV2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the people in Iraq are free now...

It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds like something you saw in a film or read in a comic than actually had to practise in reality. Go to any oppressed country, do it, then you can come back here and post that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok. i gotta ask: which oppressed country were you in when you gained all this wisdom? i want to go there and become smart like you.

joeap
10-18-2007, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Little known "stalin fact" He took any Russian soldiers who were captured by the germans at one time or another during ww2 and shipped them all to the Russian Gulag at the end of the war.

Al Stewart song "Roads to Moscow" mentions this at the end as what happened to the soldier he sings about..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnrLmwGVSDM
Bullsh///t. You definitely have no idea about what actually happened and how the situations were dealt with... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I used to think like stalkervision until I started digging and getting some info from people who have done some research into the question, including Russians but also Westerners who read Russian. It was certainly not as simple as portrayed here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

WOLFMondo
10-18-2007, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by PaulV2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the people in Iraq are free now...

It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if your opinion would change if you were living in Iraq right now.

WOLFMondo
10-18-2007, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
It will stop when major world powers will stop creating new terrorist groups in third world countries. Do you know the story of Taliban?


..... To which Taliban background story do you refer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The one in the ending credits of Rambo 3.

Kurfurst__
10-18-2007, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
What they choose to do with that freedom is another issue [as is Iran's decision to actively intervene in Iraqi internal affairs].

Oh the irony. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

joeap
10-18-2007, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
What they choose to do with that freedom is another issue [as is Iran's decision to actively intervene in Iraqi internal affairs].

Oh the irony. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Blutarski2004
10-18-2007, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

..... To which Taliban background story do you refer?

The one in the ending credits of Rambo 3.[/QUOTE]


..... I've often pondering the vast savings that could be realized if the US simply disbanded its army and contracted its military defense to Sylvester Stallone.

Blutarski2004
10-18-2007, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
What they choose to do with that freedom is another issue [as is Iran's decision to actively intervene in Iraqi internal affairs].

Oh the irony. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Welcome to the discussion, Kurfurst. No thread ever seems complete without the appearance of your little grinning blue emoticon.

JG14_Josf
10-18-2007, 07:04 AM
Oh the irony.

Poetic Justice may be next.

Blood_Splat
10-18-2007, 07:32 AM
I feel free until april 15. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

stalkervision
10-18-2007, 07:40 AM
I hate it when people bash Stalin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif People loved Stalin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Even the Soviet prisoners in the Gulag loved Stalin! Even the ones he had shot!

People would say "I just love Stalin. Who else would be so thoughtful to shot me! It's actually a blessing." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FPSOLKOR
10-18-2007, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... To which Taliban background story do you refer?
How and where from it arose? Who sponsored it? Who and by whom Usama was raized as a terrorist for that matter is quite a good question also.

FPSOLKOR
10-18-2007, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I hate it when people bash Stalin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif People loved Stalin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Even the Soviet prisoners in the Gulag loved Stalin! Even the ones he had shot!

People would say "I just love Stalin. Who else would be so thoughtful to shot me! It's actually a blessing." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
No need to hate or love him... It would be wiser simply not to trust to "what everybody knows". Doing some research by yourself would bring you to the slogan "The truth is out there... Or here... Somewhere".

Kurfurst__
10-18-2007, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I hate it when people bash Stalin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif People loved Stalin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Even the Soviet prisoners in the Gulag loved Stalin! Even the ones he had shot!

People would say "I just love Stalin. Who else would be so thoughtful to shot me! It's actually a blessing." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

... the irony of your irony is that there is not that much an irony in it, as unbelievable it may sound.. read a bit of Alexandr Solzsenyicin (sorry I use the local transcription of his name, not English)... many were naive enough to believe Stalin is good, it`s just some local Kommissars and tsinovniks who are unfit... corrupt.. it is a rich and old Russian tradition to have such. Recall the benevolent King who needs to dump his 'bad advisors..?

Blutarski2004
10-18-2007, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... To which Taliban background story do you refer?
How and where from it arose? Who sponsored it? Who and by whom Usama was raized as a terrorist for that matter is quite a good question also. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... My reading suggests that the Talibsn was a creation of Pakistani security in cooperation with conservative Sunni madrassahs and financed in good part by Saudi Arabians with the object of establishing and maintaining a strong political influence in post-war Afghanistan.

Since the Western incursion into Afghanistan, I get the impression that Iran has also elected to back certain Taliban factions despite the apparent Sunni/Shia religious dichotomy,

neural_dream
10-18-2007, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hi Paul,

no intention of critisizing or picking on you, but that quote sounds like it comes from a politician who is safe during a conflict.

I'll combine the quote (from my point of view) with a point Seafire made.

Seafire questioned the meaning of "freedom". Having lived in various countries and under various forms of government, not to mention the unwritten social rules, I've often questioned the true meaning of freedom.

Currently, and for the last 7 years, I've been living in China and occasionally Germany. Originally I'm from Canada and before coming to China I lived in Egypt. Believe it or not, each place has it's own form of freedom: even China.

....

....

....

So, I'll take a quote about hope, but unlike those given by Mao, Stalin, and Hitler, I want mine topped with a sprinkle of intention, a dash of ernest, and a side order of validity.

Fritz


Thank you Fritz!!

FPSOLKOR
10-18-2007, 12:26 PM
..... My reading suggests that the Talibsn was a creation of Pakistani security in cooperation with conservative Sunni madrassahs and financed in good part by Saudi Arabians with the object of establishing and maintaining a strong political influence in post-war Afghanistan.

Since the Western incursion into Afghanistan, I get the impression that Iran has also elected to back certain Taliban factions despite the apparent Sunni/Shia religious dichotomy,
As a matter of fact - almost correct. Except for one small adjustment - it was based upon Mujaheddeen movement that was sponsored and trained by US... From the same movement came Usama bin Ladden. Just another proof of the old saying "No matter how well you feed the wolf, it will still tear you apart on the first occasion". Now US has to fight against it's own spawn. I have no idea about the level of Iran involvement in this matter, though.

Wepps
10-18-2007, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... My reading suggests that the Talibsn was a creation of Pakistani security in cooperation with conservative Sunni madrassahs and financed in good part by Saudi Arabians with the object of establishing and maintaining a strong political influence in post-war Afghanistan.

Since the Western incursion into Afghanistan, I get the impression that Iran has also elected to back certain Taliban factions despite the apparent Sunni/Shia religious dichotomy,
As a matter of fact - almost correct. Except for one small adjustment - it was based upon Mujaheddeen movement that was sponsored and trained by US... From the same movement came Usama bin Ladden. Just another proof of the old saying "No matter how well you feed the wolf, it will still tear you apart on the first occasion". Now US has to fight against it's own spawn. I have no idea about the level of Iran involvement in this matter, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but Bin Laden is nothing more than a prestige target now. He is worthless to both the US and Al'Qaeda alive.

The wolf has no teeth.

FPSOLKOR
10-18-2007, 01:15 PM
Sorry, but Bin Laden is nothing more than a prestige target now. He is worthless to both the US and Al'Qaeda alive.

The wolf has no teeth.
Can't say that I'm sorry about it. But he left enough followers.

Wepps
10-18-2007, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sorry, but Bin Laden is nothing more than a prestige target now. He is worthless to both the US and Al'Qaeda alive.

The wolf has no teeth.
Can't say that I'm sorry about it. But he left enough followers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You misunderstand the situation I think, as do many.

Bin laden has never been 'the leader' of anything. He showed up with the big bucks and they gave him the figure head slot. His beard on TV. Nothing more.

Furthermore, even from the Muslim perspective, this is not a religious thing. It's many different small warlords vying for ultimate power. Bin Laden perceived himself as one of these, chose the largest of the non-Palestinian groups to fund to make them 'largest', so that he could be A#1 by default.

This is about power politics. Whereas lying, cheating, and getting everything on tape is how you do this in Washington, you do it with guns and big-Allah in the Middle East in many places.

The big attack on New York gave them credibility. "Join Al'Qaeda and be part of *this*. We win by default." So by association your sand-filled a** is powerful, because you work for the powerful, and they got recruitment.

The real damage done was during the surge. It wasn't the troop numbers as much as how they were used. The allies had enough now to do something offensive. Anybody with a little historical knowledge KNOWS you don't immobilize a mobile army by fighting in cities or worse, garrisoning them. Now that the US troops were freed to fight, how many new recruits do you think the...somewhat less credible Al'Qaeda folks are getting this week?

ZERO

Last week the count of insurgents crossing the Syrian border was nil.

That's how it works. Political credibility through firepower politics. That's the Middle East.

There is no 'civil war' in Iraq, never was. It's all about vying for power in a perceived power vacuum.

And Bin Laden is not winning votes for President.

PaulV2007
10-18-2007, 02:55 PM
Honestly, I don't think freedom of speech truly exists and I also think that all degrees of freedom of speech are useless since it is rare someone actually listens.

Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of an audience or freedom from ridicule. It is merely freedom from government persecution for your speech.


ok. i gotta ask: which oppressed country were you in when you gained all this wisdom? i want to go there and become smart like you.

I did live in New York state for a while. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif Why do you have to live in a suppressed state to believe that your life is worth less than standing up for liberty? I can't speak for citizens of other countries, but the US was founded on this principal. I find it sad that so many of my fellow citizens no longer believe in this principal.

Of course I guess this was true during the founding of the nation as well. There have always been those that are Americans and those that merely live in America.

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?'...If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
"”Samuel Adams

Blutarski2004
10-18-2007, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... My reading suggests that the Talibsn was a creation of Pakistani security in cooperation with conservative Sunni madrassahs and financed in good part by Saudi Arabians with the object of establishing and maintaining a strong political influence in post-war Afghanistan.

Since the Western incursion into Afghanistan, I get the impression that Iran has also elected to back certain Taliban factions despite the apparent Sunni/Shia religious dichotomy,
As a matter of fact - almost correct. Except for one small adjustment - it was based upon Mujaheddeen movement that was sponsored and trained by US... From the same movement came Usama bin Ladden. Just another proof of the old saying "No matter how well you feed the wolf, it will still tear you apart on the first occasion". Now US has to fight against it's own spawn. I have no idea about the level of Iran involvement in this matter, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... I agree that the Afghan Mujahedeen resistance was supplied and largely financed by the USA through its CIA infrastructure in Pakistan. However, when the USSR withdrew, so did the US and taking their pocketbook with them. This left the clan leaders suddenly penniless and plunged Afghanistan into a lengthy period of inter-clan warfare. Kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation for the US: if the US had maintained their presence in Afghanistan, they would have branded as 'imperialists"; when they withdrew, they were criticized for "abandoning their friends". I still don't know which option would have been best.

Bin Laden was, by my understanding, never a member of the fighting Mujahedeen. He appeared toward the end of the campaign as a Saudi bankroller.

Lubcke
10-18-2007, 05:29 PM
bin laden actualy was a mujahedeen

Taylortony
10-18-2007, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
if the US had maintained their presence in Afghanistan, they would have branded as 'imperialists"; when they withdrew, they were criticized for "abandoning their friends". I still don't know which option would have been best.



Perhaps Keeping out of it in the first place, after all it was really all about one Cold War super power against another....... nothing else.

BaldieJr
10-18-2007, 06:08 PM
thats ridiculous

backseatgunner
10-19-2007, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aussom Pirsch.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In Germany, a cafe, restaurant, or pub has to pay a special, and expensive, tax to have music for their customers.
I wonder if the increasing complexity and seemingly arbitrary nature of so-called "laws" will someday collapse the previously wealthy western system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a theory I remember being passed around in my University days back last millenium that suggested one of factors contributing to the collapse of empires is exactly that, that eventually laws become increasingly arbitrary and non-sensical.

As for Stalin, one story that always summed things up was the installation of a buzzer at public events to signal when to stop clapping at his speeches. No one wanted to be the first person to stop clapping, or risk execution / gulag, so a buzzer sounded to let everyone stop at the same time.

I guess it's easier to see Stalin from a view of distance and rose-tinted glasses,especially when your State pension suddenly stopped, or your city filled with rich mafia and a skyrocketing crime rate.

It's also easy to forget the empty shelves, the long lines for anything, the year in the gulag for being 15 minutes late for work. Like all human beings, it's far easier to remember the good things than the bad.

At least Stalin aimed to build up his country. One dictator closer to my own time was Pol Pot, who aimed to move his country backwards, while still killing millions. Cambodia is still recovering to this day.

I would put up for thought that a working definition of a "free" government could be considered as a government that chooses not to kill its own civilians.

Wepps
10-19-2007, 06:52 AM
There was a theory I remember being passed around in my University days back last millenium that suggested one of factors contributing to the collapse of empires is exactly that, that eventually laws become increasingly arbitrary and non-sensical.

I've never been exposed to this theory in my studies, though I've suspected it for some time.

I see it day to day, often with a quiet "what the...!" and often wonder where we are going with all this. A decade ago, under the Clinton administration in the US, it was reported by the White House that it cost the American people $10 billion per year just to maintain the current laws. It's considerably more now.

This condition is justified by many as an attempt to ensure justice for every special interest group, in a society made up of EVERY special interest group in the world!

Nothing good can come from this. Inevitably we will have a society of lawyers on one side, representing the rest of society who can't afford that representation.

To me, if the law doesn't make common sense, then the government cannot claim that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'.


I guess it's easier to see Stalin from a view of distance and rose-tinted glasses,especially when your State pension suddenly stopped, or your city filled with rich mafia and a skyrocketing crime rate.

Once you are at least one generation removed from an event, it is no longer an emotional issue on the grand scale. Only then can it be discussed in a reasonable manner.

I once did a discussion on how the Wehrmacht was so tough in comparison to other, very sizable armies. Much of it had to do with the fact that these men had been raised together! They went from Hitler Youth to the work force and inevitably the army, building comradeship for a lifetime among those sharing the bunkers.

But because today anybody who is perceived as conservative in their views are accused of being a NAZI still, it did not go over very well. The perception that NS Germany has nothing to offer or prove even today is due to this emotional rhetoric.

Yet if we view history from a neutral perspective, take no sides and analyze it, we learn much more than if we instead start lighting torches and march on Frankenstein's castle.

I often point out that Germany had superior technology, a generation ahead of others in many ways in 1940. Yet, they were beaten by 'inferior' allies with superior numbers. Comparing them to today's United States military is a reasonable assessment, but always draws fire from those more politically minded than scientifically.


At least Stalin aimed to build up his country. One dictator closer to my own time was Pol Pot, who aimed to move his country backwards, while still killing millions. Cambodia is still recovering to this day.

In retrospect, Stalin was a necessary evil. Russia won the war against Germany, and would have single-handedly given enough time, this being entirely due to Stalin's policies.

The Russians are really an amazing people lol.




I would put up for thought that a working definition of a "free" government could be considered as a government that chooses not to kill its own civilians.

Well said. Excellent post btw.

(yours not mine)