So why was Stalin a bad guy?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2012, 11:27 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
(24-10-2012 11:07 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-10-2012 10:36 PM)I and I Wrote:  That is some dodgy info.

The range is 20 million

The figures are 800,000

then it's, we don't really know how many.

if that is what you believe then that is cool, but I wouldn't be so strongly anti-stalin if that is all I had on the guy.

Then why are you anti Stalin with your Lenin avatar?

The reason I'm anti Stalin is because if he wasn't so fool heady and power strong the USSR might of had a better achieved growth but instead it birthed the idea that communism is to shut up everyone else by imprisonment or death sentencing instead of trying to continual revolutionize to try and do what's best for the overall populous.

The west historically showed that they will kill and punish any leader or country trying to implement communism. The absence of a Stalin wouldn't have changed that. Do you think that the west might have exaggerated communist attrocities to paint an overall picture of communism and to scare people from believing in it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 09:08 AM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
(24-10-2012 11:27 PM)I and I Wrote:  The west historically showed that they will kill and punish any leader or country trying to implement communism. The absence of a Stalin wouldn't have changed that. Do you think that the west might have exaggerated communist atrocities to paint an overall picture of communism and to scare people from believing in it?

Just from a reasonable assumption, with little familiarity with the history, I'd have to say that Stalin wasn't the guy you wanted as captain of the ship. He didn't seem like the brightest fellow; they would have rather had a more sufficient, competent, level-headed leader.

Stalin seemed like one of those people that represent one of the reasons that smart people don't tend to like to readily make good ideas available. Once you make the idea available, you will have the people that won't be capable of fully grasping the concept or what it could lead to, and as a result, they take it in a completely downhill, misguided direction.

There is the part where people like to count, exaggerated and emphasize, every single death that happened under his rule and assign it to him like he personally strangled tens of millions of people to death with his own hands, like he was some kind of lone wolf, serial killer, which is idiotic; there is also the part where people like to, like I pointed out earlier, paint him as some different kind of evil, apart from others who they wouldn't judge similarly, hypocritically, in some cases, and irrationally; there is also the part where some people like to use this as a means to promote their own agendas of right-wing polices and religion, by assigning Stalin's evil and resulting negatives to atheism and the left-wing (that's not really a complex conspiracy though as they are open about it and have been for some time); but at the same time, he was actually was a bad guy.

It's not really a difficult situation. I don't really think this is a situation where people are being completely fucked over. Stalin kind of fell into these people's laps. Stalin was a bad guy, that, in order to get into power and maintain it, took the route he had to take.

My point was about time and place. There are large numbers of people, that otherwise wouldn't merit success, loads of former and current Western leaders, that take and/or have taken immoral routes to achieve their success or have abused power. It would be naive to assume that if they were given the capability, if in a time and place where it was necessary, to have massive amounts of people ordered to death in order to maintain or achieve success, that they wouldn't do it. Some actually have taken such powers, but it's in a lot of their characters. There are a lot of similar actions going on, just not all of them resulting in deaths of others. It would therefore, also, be pretty hypocritical, by definition, to paint Stalin as some different sort of higher evil, while ignoring the same types of things going on with others. I'm not saying that everyone does this, and I'm not referring to specific groups of people. I'm just pointing out the obvious. The stupidity and/or flaws in reason and logic would come in, to those being hypocritical, where you are just looking at the death totals. You have to provide argument and a moral basis of judgement. Even common sense is going to tell you that, "there is a body count that we assigned to him, therefore he is a different more intense type of evil", isn't passing go. There is something that makes him a bad person, makes him evil and makes his actions immoral, and it's something that extends beyond just the Hitlers and Stalins of the world.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
25-10-2012, 04:58 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
(25-10-2012 09:08 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(24-10-2012 11:27 PM)I and I Wrote:  The west historically showed that they will kill and punish any leader or country trying to implement communism. The absence of a Stalin wouldn't have changed that. Do you think that the west might have exaggerated communist atrocities to paint an overall picture of communism and to scare people from believing in it?

Just from a reasonable assumption, with little familiarity with the history, I'd have to say that Stalin wasn't the guy you wanted as captain of the ship. He didn't seem like the brightest fellow; they would have rather had a more sufficient, competent, level-headed leader.

Stalin seemed like one of those people that represent one of the reasons that smart people don't tend to like to readily make good ideas available. Once you make the idea available, you will have the people that won't be capable of fully grasping the concept or what it could lead to, and as a result, they take it in a completely downhill, misguided direction.

There is the part where people like to count, exaggerated and emphasize, every single death that happened under his rule and assign it to him like he personally strangled tens of millions of people to death with his own hands, like he was some kind of lone wolf, serial killer, which is idiotic; there is also the part where people like to, like I pointed out earlier, paint him as some different kind of evil, apart from others who they wouldn't judge similarly, hypocritically, in some cases, and irrationally; there is also the part where some people like to use this as a means to promote their own agendas of right-wing polices and religion, by assigning Stalin's evil and resulting negatives to atheism and the left-wing (that's not really a complex conspiracy though as they are open about it and have been for some time); but at the same time, he was actually was a bad guy.

It's not really a difficult situation. I don't really think this is a situation where people are being completely fucked over. Stalin kind of fell into these people's laps. Stalin was a bad guy, that, in order to get into power and maintain it, took the route he had to take.

My point was about time and place. There are large numbers of people, that otherwise wouldn't merit success, loads of former and current Western leaders, that take and/or have taken immoral routes to achieve their success or have abused power. It would be naive to assume that if they were given the capability, if in a time and place where it was necessary, to have massive amounts of people ordered to death in order to maintain or achieve success, that they wouldn't do it. Some actually have taken such powers, but it's in a lot of their characters. There are a lot of similar actions going on, just not all of them resulting in deaths of others. It would therefore, also, be pretty hypocritical, by definition, to paint Stalin as some different sort of higher evil, while ignoring the same types of things going on with others. I'm not saying that everyone does this, and I'm not referring to specific groups of people. I'm just pointing out the obvious. The stupidity and/or flaws in reason and logic would come in, to those being hypocritical, where you are just looking at the death totals. You have to provide argument and a moral basis of judgement. Even common sense is going to tell you that, "there is a body count that we assigned to him, therefore he is a different more intense type of evil", isn't passing go. There is something that makes him a bad person, makes him evil and makes his actions immoral, and it's something that extends beyond just the Hitlers and Stalins of the world.

What if the idea of the evil monstrous Stalin was partly due to the west's hate for communism and the cold war.

I am willing to say that stalin killed people like any other leader of a large country has, and his legacy was exaggerated by the cold war and the west hate for communism. You guys aren't even willing to acknowledge that the anti-communist west and the anti-communist nazi's played a part in painting communism and Stalin as some pure evil that came out of evil-ville to have sex with your grandmother and to kill puppies.

although Mao did eat kittens....(asian joke for ya)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 08:23 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
(25-10-2012 04:58 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(25-10-2012 09:08 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  Just from a reasonable assumption, with little familiarity with the history, I'd have to say that Stalin wasn't the guy you wanted as captain of the ship. He didn't seem like the brightest fellow; they would have rather had a more sufficient, competent, level-headed leader.

Stalin seemed like one of those people that represent one of the reasons that smart people don't tend to like to readily make good ideas available. Once you make the idea available, you will have the people that won't be capable of fully grasping the concept or what it could lead to, and as a result, they take it in a completely downhill, misguided direction.

There is the part where people like to count, exaggerated and emphasize, every single death that happened under his rule and assign it to him like he personally strangled tens of millions of people to death with his own hands, like he was some kind of lone wolf, serial killer, which is idiotic; there is also the part where people like to, like I pointed out earlier, paint him as some different kind of evil, apart from others who they wouldn't judge similarly, hypocritically, in some cases, and irrationally; there is also the part where some people like to use this as a means to promote their own agendas of right-wing polices and religion, by assigning Stalin's evil and resulting negatives to atheism and the left-wing (that's not really a complex conspiracy though as they are open about it and have been for some time); but at the same time, he was actually was a bad guy.

It's not really a difficult situation. I don't really think this is a situation where people are being completely fucked over. Stalin kind of fell into these people's laps. Stalin was a bad guy, that, in order to get into power and maintain it, took the route he had to take.

My point was about time and place. There are large numbers of people, that otherwise wouldn't merit success, loads of former and current Western leaders, that take and/or have taken immoral routes to achieve their success or have abused power. It would be naive to assume that if they were given the capability, if in a time and place where it was necessary, to have massive amounts of people ordered to death in order to maintain or achieve success, that they wouldn't do it. Some actually have taken such powers, but it's in a lot of their characters. There are a lot of similar actions going on, just not all of them resulting in deaths of others. It would therefore, also, be pretty hypocritical, by definition, to paint Stalin as some different sort of higher evil, while ignoring the same types of things going on with others. I'm not saying that everyone does this, and I'm not referring to specific groups of people. I'm just pointing out the obvious. The stupidity and/or flaws in reason and logic would come in, to those being hypocritical, where you are just looking at the death totals. You have to provide argument and a moral basis of judgement. Even common sense is going to tell you that, "there is a body count that we assigned to him, therefore he is a different more intense type of evil", isn't passing go. There is something that makes him a bad person, makes him evil and makes his actions immoral, and it's something that extends beyond just the Hitlers and Stalins of the world.

What if the idea of the evil monstrous Stalin was partly due to the west's hate for communism and the cold war.

I am willing to say that stalin killed people like any other leader of a large country has, and his legacy was exaggerated by the cold war and the west hate for communism. You guys aren't even willing to acknowledge that the anti-communist west and the anti-communist nazi's played a part in painting communism and Stalin as some pure evil that came out of evil-ville to have sex with your grandmother and to kill puppies.

although Mao did eat kittens....(asian joke for ya)

Naturally as "the enemy" Stalin would have been portrayed as some sort of monster.

BUT

He killed millions of people, so the monster image is justified.

Take Bloody Marry for example, she was an English (or Scottish, one of the two) queen or princess or something (my monarchy history is a little hazy) yet she was portrayed as a monster because of the crimes she committed. Hence the name, "Bloody" Marry. Even though you'd consider her today to be on the "goods guys" side.


It doesn't matter on which side you are, horrific crimes are horrific crimes.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 08:42 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
stalin was a cool bro. Kills a few million people and still has people preaching his goodness to the world.

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 08:46 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
(25-10-2012 08:42 PM)Xinoftruden Wrote:  stalin was a cool bro. Kills a few million people and still has people preaching his goodness to the world.

yeah, because he killed off those that wouldn't preach...

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 08:48 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
(25-10-2012 08:23 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(25-10-2012 04:58 PM)I and I Wrote:  What if the idea of the evil monstrous Stalin was partly due to the west's hate for communism and the cold war.

I am willing to say that stalin killed people like any other leader of a large country has, and his legacy was exaggerated by the cold war and the west hate for communism. You guys aren't even willing to acknowledge that the anti-communist west and the anti-communist nazi's played a part in painting communism and Stalin as some pure evil that came out of evil-ville to have sex with your grandmother and to kill puppies.

although Mao did eat kittens....(asian joke for ya)

Naturally as "the enemy" Stalin would have been portrayed as some sort of monster.

BUT

He killed millions of people, so the monster image is justified.

Take Bloody Marry for example, she was an English (or Scottish, one of the two) queen or princess or something (my monarchy history is a little hazy) yet she was portrayed as a monster because of the crimes she committed. Hence the name, "Bloody" Marry. Even though you'd consider her today to be on the "goods guys" side.


It doesn't matter on which side you are, horrific crimes are horrific crimes.

Stalins legacy wasn't exaggerated or shaped by western anti-communist propaganda in any way.
Do you agree with this statement?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 08:51 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
(25-10-2012 08:46 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(25-10-2012 08:42 PM)Xinoftruden Wrote:  stalin was a cool bro. Kills a few million people and still has people preaching his goodness to the world.

yeah, because he killed off those that wouldn't preach...
Well yeah, but how long has he been dead for? You gotta be pretty awesome to have such devoted followers after this long. I mean look at Jesus, only the son of god would have a cult this massive for this long right. Wink

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 08:55 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
(25-10-2012 08:48 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(25-10-2012 08:23 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Naturally as "the enemy" Stalin would have been portrayed as some sort of monster.

BUT

He killed millions of people, so the monster image is justified.

Take Bloody Marry for example, she was an English (or Scottish, one of the two) queen or princess or something (my monarchy history is a little hazy) yet she was portrayed as a monster because of the crimes she committed. Hence the name, "Bloody" Marry. Even though you'd consider her today to be on the "goods guys" side.


It doesn't matter on which side you are, horrific crimes are horrific crimes.

Stalins legacy wasn't exaggerated or shaped by western anti-communist propaganda in any way.
Do you agree with this statement?

I'm sure it was, when he died it was during the Cold War, I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

But what I'm saying is that it was justified to make him out as a monster, because he was.

Quote:Well yeah, but how long has he been dead for? You gotta be pretty awesome to have such devoted followers after this long. I mean look at Jesus, only the son of god would have a cult this massive for this long right. Wink

How about that Hitler guy, I hear he has some pretty... unique.. followers.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 08:59 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
nah they're [Nazi's] just rippin off the KKK. No sense of originality those bros. Well actuallt the anti jew thing was kinda new, not really though. Most contries had been doing that for a bit.

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: