So why was Stalin a bad guy?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-10-2012, 09:04 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
(25-10-2012 08:59 PM)Xinoftruden Wrote:  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.

So what you're saying is that Hitler was a plagiarist with no sense of originality?

[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, 09:06 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
(25-10-2012 08:55 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(25-10-2012 08:48 PM)I and I Wrote:  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.

While he was living and a leader of the Soviet Union from the beginning of his rule, did the west ever exaggerated use propaganda and slander against him to make him seem like a bad guy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 09:12 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
(25-10-2012 09:04 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(25-10-2012 08:59 PM)Xinoftruden Wrote:  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.

So what you're saying is that Hitler was a plagiarist with no sense of originality?

For the most part yes. He's not even very good at mass slaughter or racism. Saying he wants only blonde hair blue eyed people while having brown hair? Bit of a dafty. 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, 09:15 PM
RE: So why was Stalin a bad guy?
(25-10-2012 09:12 PM)Xinoftruden Wrote:  
(25-10-2012 09:04 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  So what you're saying is that Hitler was a plagiarist with no sense of originality?

For the most part yes. He's not even very good at mass slaughter or racism. Saying he wants only blonde hair blue eyed people while having brown hair? Bit of a dafty. Wink

Meh, he was good at giving this image that Jews were the enemy etc..

Quote:While he was living and a leader of the Soviet Union from the beginning of his rule, did the west ever exaggerated use propaganda and slander against him to make him seem like a bad guy?

Why do you ask the same question over and over when I've given you my answer over and over.

[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, 09:20 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)

More incorrect generalizations by you again. Will it ever slow down? You keep mixing in and out of your arguments to try to prove a point as if you win but people aren't doing saying or thinking the things on here you accuse.

I've not read a post in anyway that says nobody exaggerated the aura of Stalin.. but that's irreverent to the questions asked and focused on. That's why it wasn't highlighted like you suddenly switched to now.

Stalin is still legitimately able to be viewed as a poor ruler even beyond the exaggerations by the west. I've repeated that line about why and how that answers the question beyond the lies. I don't see how the if the West was pushing hard to limit him early, which I'm not sure what at all they did prior to WWII against Stalin, it was unlikely able to cause him to act out on his political adversaries the way in which he did.

The west does paint Russia today in a similar bad light. They keep bashing Putin for various ways as the west sees Russia ought to be. There's a disconnect because not all of Russia wants to become what is described as westernized in every aspect. They are good with the capital growth but other details that grew over generations in the west didn't develop in Russia the same way. Their democracy is quite fraudulent yet there are plenty of people not viewing democracy as the greatest method as many others do. They didn't develop the desire for votes 300 years ago like Europe & US because they still had that Czar control until 100 years ago. The west implements it's visions and disagreements with Russia but it doesn't discourage how facts and highlight a rule. After Putin finally ends it will be seen how his legacy holds up. He has done a lot of good and some would say he holds Russia back from being "better" as they see it.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: