NationStates

Genivaria wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I tend to agree that only moral arguments are really good against Stalin. If I were still an atheist, I have to imagine I'd still be a Marxist-Leninist. Stalin's measures were extreme, but he accomplished probably the most that any socialist revolutionary ever accomplished, in terms of having created an entire bloc of states in opposition to bourgeois capitalism and liberal democracy. He was also an extremely capable statesman, and, had his foreign policy approach remained, it's hard to imagine that the Soviets would have lost the Cold War.

Being a Christian doesn't stop many Russians from lauding Stalin, and being atheist doesn't prevent many from condemning him as not just as a mass-murdering psychopath who practically helped the Germans invade his country after wrecking it.

It is not about Christianity so much as morality. Althusser defends Stalinism not by attacking Christianity, but by attacking humanism as bourgeois.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
To be honest, even if we view him purely as a statesman with no moral strings attached, he had a pretty mixed record.

Especially in his early years after seizing power, he more or less starved 10 million people to death before he figured out how agriculture works.

Let alone his hamstringing of the military that ultimately led to the Red Army getting its ass kicked by little Finland, of all countries. Or the major successes the Nazis had in Operation Barbarossa.

He was quite the resounding failure of a statesman in several regards.

Killing off exceptional officers can be pragmatic. Look at all Rome went through. And the French Revolution might have been preserved if Napoleon were murdered.

Killing off a few key troublemakers is properly Machiavellian, but purging vast swathes of your officer corps, and then assuming this will have zero effects whatsoever on your army's performance, is just downright retarded.

Stalin was a megalomaniacal idiot in more ways than one.

Genivaria wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
To be honest, even if we view him purely as a statesman with no moral strings attached, he had a pretty mixed record.

Especially in his early years after seizing power, he more or less starved 10 million people to death before he figured out how agriculture works.

Let alone his hamstringing of the military that ultimately led to the Red Army getting its ass kicked by little Finland, of all countries. Or the major successes the Nazis had in Operation Barbarossa.

He was quite the resounding failure of a statesman in several regards.

The Bolsheviks as a whole doomed Russia, the October Revolution was a tragedy and was a betrayal against all of Russia.

To be honest it's not like Karensky & Friends were doing much better.

That being said, I'm all for bashing the Bolshies whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Sanctissima wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Killing off exceptional officers can be pragmatic. Look at all Rome went through. And the French Revolution might have been preserved if Napoleon were murdered.

Killing off a few key troublemakers is properly Machiavellian, but purging vast swathes of your officer corps, and then assuming this will have zero effects whatsoever on your army's performance, is just downright retarded.

Stalin was a megalomaniacal idiot in more ways than one.

Easy to say. Because you do not see any civil war or coup that might have happened with just one officer supoported by the military.

Genivaria wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
To be honest, even if we view him purely as a statesman with no moral strings attached, he had a pretty mixed record.

Especially in his early years after seizing power, he more or less starved 10 million people to death before he figured out how agriculture works.

Let alone his hamstringing of the military that ultimately led to the Red Army getting its ass kicked by little Finland, of all countries. Or the major successes the Nazis had in Operation Barbarossa.

He was quite the resounding failure of a statesman in several regards.

The Bolsheviks as a whole doomed Russia, the October Revolution was a tragedy and was a betrayal against all of Russia.

The Russian Revolution would not have worked without them

Genivaria wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I tend to agree that only moral arguments are really good against Stalin. If I were still an atheist, I have to imagine I'd still be a Marxist-Leninist. Stalin's measures were extreme, but he accomplished probably the most that any socialist revolutionary ever accomplished, in terms of having created an entire bloc of states in opposition to bourgeois capitalism and liberal democracy. He was also an extremely capable statesman, and, had his foreign policy approach remained, it's hard to imagine that the Soviets would have lost the Cold War.

Being a Christian doesn't stop many Russians from lauding Stalin, and being atheist doesn't prevent many from condemning him as not just as a mass-murdering psychopath who practically helped the Germans invade his country after wrecking it.

I'm aware, there are Russians at the church I go to who get offended when Stalin is insulted.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Killing off a few key troublemakers is properly Machiavellian, but purging vast swathes of your officer corps, and then assuming this will have zero effects whatsoever on your army's performance, is just downright retarded.

Stalin was a megalomaniacal idiot in more ways than one.

Easy to say. Because you do not see any civil war or coup that might have happened with just one officer supoported by the military.

I'm sorry but aren't you the same person who said that the nuclear bombings of Japan were acts of evil that shouldn't have happened?
Now 'utopia justifies the means' all of a sudden, even when it just creates a shithole.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Killing off a few key troublemakers is properly Machiavellian, but purging vast swathes of your officer corps, and then assuming this will have zero effects whatsoever on your army's performance, is just downright retarded.

Stalin was a megalomaniacal idiot in more ways than one.

Easy to say. Because you do not see any civil war or coup that might have happened with just one officer supoported by the military.

Y'know, there's ways to win-over the military other than violently purging everyone who disagrees with you.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Being a Christian doesn't stop many Russians from lauding Stalin, and being atheist doesn't prevent many from condemning him as not just as a mass-murdering psychopath who practically helped the Germans invade his country after wrecking it.

I'm aware, there are Russians at the church I go to who get offended when Stalin is insulted.

He ended the persecution of Orthodox.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Being a Christian doesn't stop many Russians from lauding Stalin, and being atheist doesn't prevent many from condemning him as not just as a mass-murdering psychopath who practically helped the Germans invade his country after wrecking it.

I'm aware, there are Russians at the church I go to who get offended when Stalin is insulted.

Yeah that still confuses the hell out of me.

Sanctissima wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I tend to agree that only moral arguments are really good against Stalin. If I were still an atheist, I have to imagine I'd still be a Marxist-Leninist. Stalin's measures were extreme, but he accomplished probably the most that any socialist revolutionary ever accomplished, in terms of having created an entire bloc of states in opposition to bourgeois capitalism and liberal democracy. He was also an extremely capable statesman, and, had his foreign policy approach remained, it's hard to imagine that the Soviets would have lost the Cold War.

To be honest, even if we view him purely as a statesman with no moral strings attached, he had a pretty mixed record.

Especially in his early years after seizing power, he more or less starved 10 million people to death before he figured out how agriculture works.

Let alone his hamstringing of the military that ultimately led to the Red Army getting its ass kicked by little Finland, of all countries. Or the major successes the Nazis had in Operation Barbarossa.

He was quite the resounding failure of a statesman in several regards.

I have to disagree with the impact that has been traditionally ascribed to the Great Purge. Military documents from the exercises in 1935 show that the Red Army was awful before the purge, and Stalin may have been correct to blame this awfulness on the lack of formal training in the military.

Agriculture, I agree with, but I'd dispute that that resulted just from him.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I'm aware, there are Russians at the church I go to who get offended when Stalin is insulted.

He ended the persecution of Orthodox.

.....wat

The Parkus Empire wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I'm aware, there are Russians at the church I go to who get offended when Stalin is insulted.

He ended the persecution of Orthodox.

The really big persecution was under him though. Stalin has the unique role of being both a major persecutor of Christianity, as well as a major person who ended the persecution of Christianity.

Sanctissima wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Easy to say. Because you do not see any civil war or coup that might have happened with just one officer supoported by the military.

Y'know, there's ways to win-over the military other than violently purging everyone who disagrees with you.

But not surer ways in such a situation where it just takes one ambitious officer with men more loyal to him than you.

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:He ended the persecution of Orthodox.

.....wat

Ever the pragmatist.

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:He ended the persecution of Orthodox.

.....wat

It's true, Stalin ended the harsh anti-religious campaigns in response to the military disaster in 1941, and released the priests and bishops from prison, as well as allowed religious education to continue.

But he was also the one who started the all-out, centrally directed persecution of Orthodoxy, as opposed to the de-centralized persecution under the early Bolshevik state.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Y'know, there's ways to win-over the military other than violently purging everyone who disagrees with you.

But not surer ways in such a situation where it just takes one ambitious officer with men more loyal to him than you.

Sad that in this case the disloyal and ambitious officer was already in charge.

Sanctissima wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Killing off exceptional officers can be pragmatic. Look at all Rome went through. And the French Revolution might have been preserved if Napoleon were murdered.

Killing off a few key troublemakers is properly Machiavellian, but purging vast swathes of your officer corps, and then assuming this will have zero effects whatsoever on your army's performance, is just downright retarded.

Stalin was a megalomaniacal idiot in more ways than one.

The officer corps was shit before. There's a great article on this Russian website about military history on it, I'll find it when I can ask my Russian friend about it. It's really shocking how bad the Red Army's officer corps was at that time.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Killing off a few key troublemakers is properly Machiavellian, but purging vast swathes of your officer corps, and then assuming this will have zero effects whatsoever on your army's performance, is just downright retarded.

Stalin was a megalomaniacal idiot in more ways than one.

The officer corps was shit before. There's a great article on this Russian website about military history on it, I'll find it when I can ask my Russian friend about it. It's really shocking how bad the Red Army's officer corps was at that time.

Question.
By "Was shit before" are you referring to the Imperial Army, the 'provisional army' (for lack of a better term) or the Red Army?
Or was it like what happened in France where all the officers were nobles?

Genivaria wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The officer corps was shit before. There's a great article on this Russian website about military history on it, I'll find it when I can ask my Russian friend about it. It's really shocking how bad the Red Army's officer corps was at that time.

Question.
By "Was shit before" are you referring to the Imperial Army, the 'provisional army' (for lack of a better term) or the Red Army?

The Red Army prior to the Great Purge, so 1917-1935. The crime rate in the officer corp was high, and most had no formal education. The purge got rid of most of these people and either educated them or replaced them with people who were educated.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Question.
By "Was shit before" are you referring to the Imperial Army, the 'provisional army' (for lack of a better term) or the Red Army?

The Red Army prior to the Great Purge, so 1917-1935. The crime rate in the officer corp was high, and most had no formal education. The purge got rid of most of these people and either educated them or replaced them with people who were educated.

So what happened to the officers from the Imperial army?
Purged?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
To be honest, even if we view him purely as a statesman with no moral strings attached, he had a pretty mixed record.

Especially in his early years after seizing power, he more or less starved 10 million people to death before he figured out how agriculture works.

Let alone his hamstringing of the military that ultimately led to the Red Army getting its ass kicked by little Finland, of all countries. Or the major successes the Nazis had in Operation Barbarossa.

He was quite the resounding failure of a statesman in several regards.

I have to disagree with the impact that has been traditionally ascribed to the Great Purge. Military documents from the exercises in 1935 show that the Red Army was awful before the purge, and Stalin may have been correct to blame this awfulness on the lack of formal training in the military.

Agriculture, I agree with, but I'd dispute that that resulted just from him.

I believe it's been rather extensively proven that Stalin's purges worsened the already poorly organized Red Army. There's a decent 10-minute video that summarizes his devastating effects on the Soviet military rather succinctly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiA8dKNcjjk

As for the famines, had he not catered to every whim of Lysenko, it's unlikely the effects would have been so utterly devastating.

Additionally, the correlation between dekulakization and the utter clusterfuck that was the mishandling of the newly collectivized farms is rather clear-cut, and the blame for the former quite squarely falls with Stalin.

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:But not surer ways in such a situation where it just takes one ambitious officer with men more loyal to him than you.

Sad that in this case the disloyal and ambitious officer was already in charge.

Stalin was loyal to the cause very much, just not to men. I do believe he would be willing to die if he thought it would ensure global communism. He would also kill any number of friends.

Humanism is Christianity for the secular age

Genivaria wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The Red Army prior to the Great Purge, so 1917-1935. The crime rate in the officer corp was high, and most had no formal education. The purge got rid of most of these people and either educated them or replaced them with people who were educated.

So what happened to the officers from the Imperial army?
Purged?

There were still a few, but the civil war was 19 years earlier by 1936, many had retired. The most notable would be Marshal of the Soviet Union, Semyon Budyonny, who had been a cavalry officer in the Imperial Army.

But, also remember that that meant that these men were educated mostly before the First World War, so their education was only really valuable in a theoretical sense.