Author Topic: Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik Debate (Read 28007 times)

Isamu · « **on:** March 16, 2008, 01:01:27 PM »

its not for that part. he pulled the soviets from an almost 3rd world country to an empire that rivaled the united states in just 10 years.

vadereclipse · « **Reply #1 on:** March 16, 2008, 01:47:09 PM »

and made dozens of former allies enemies. if the tsardom had continued, then by now, it would be a powerful constitutional monarchy, like the UK. also, sar nicholas II was trying to medernise. the difference between him and stalin was that he didn't enslave innocent peasants.

Isamu · « **Reply #2 on:** March 16, 2008, 06:38:14 PM »

first of its not sar its czar. and second the czar system was very week and there is even thoughts that it was corrupted be for rasputin stepped in.

GrndAdmrlPellaeon · « **Reply #3 on:** March 16, 2008, 09:16:24 PM »

Quote from: vadereclipse on March 16, 2008, 01:47:09 PM

and made dozens of former allies enemies. if the tsardom had continued, then by now, it would be a powerful constitutional monarchy, like the UK. also, sar nicholas II was trying to medernise. the difference between him and stalin was that he didn't enslave innocent peasants.

Not only that, the US would not have been as successful. But we are talking about 'what is.'

Isamu · « **Reply #4 on:** March 16, 2008, 11:45:29 PM »

personally i admire stalin for his genius, not his sins.

Meyer · « **Reply #5 on:** March 17, 2008, 01:56:24 AM »

just like I admire Hitler. but if you want to find a real psycho leader I would have to say Truman. And I also like to point out that SU was at the high of it's power when Stalin was the leader. after that everythung went down to hell. Which is a very good think.

aNaRcHiSt44 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 17, 2008, 05:24:47 AM »

I saw on the 'Death in it's own' thread that this was split away from it, but obviously Enceladus has removed the posts concerning this. What happened on that thread that I missed?
And I admire Stalin-he was a very capable leader.

Meyer · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2008, 09:13:32 AM »

capable? he did many stupid things and then used others achievements to bolster his own image. Stalin was the leader but wasn't responsible for major achievements. But as a leader he gets all the credit.

vadereclipse · « **Reply #8 on:** March 17, 2008, 02:23:13 PM »

first of all, russia was not almost third world. isamu, have you been to the hermitage museum in st. petersburg? the armory museum in the kremlin? well i have. the russia tsars (tsar, czar all translate to caesar. tsar is the russian one, i believe) were one of the richest royal families in the world, they were just ostentatious and didn't care about anyone outsde the aristocracy. nicholas II was an inept fool of a tsar, but he was trying to industrialise. only, he may not have cared about his people, but he recognised them as people. stalin saw people as machines, and used them to produce the "sinews of war", iron,electricity and oil. stalin simply didn't give a sit about anything but communism. personally, i think he was as bad as hitler. the only difference was, he was less radical with his genocide (doctor's plot targeted jews) and he didn't want lebensraum. he HAD the lebensraum.

Meyer · « **Reply #9 on:** March 17, 2008, 02:46:07 PM »

yeah. Stalin wanted that the whole world be joined in communism and he'd be the leader. And his genocide was just as radical as Hitler's.

vadereclipse · « **Reply #10 on:** March 17, 2008, 02:54:16 PM »

communist revolution and lebensraum are different things.
lebensraum: for hitler's master race to take over land from slavs/russians and live in it as their land.
communist revolution: for all nations to become communist and for the people of the world to live in a utopian society. Not necessarily through conquest. i mean, the satellite states were heavily influenced by stalin, but none were actually part of the soviet union. they were, according to him, a "buffer zone against western imperialism". although the areas were efectively of the soviet union, they weren't properly belonging to them. they were in soviet russia's sphere of influence, as he called it.

Isamu · « **Reply #11 on:** March 17, 2008, 06:27:48 PM »

Quote from: vadereclipse on March 17, 2008, 02:23:13 PM

first of all, russia was not almost third world. isamu, have you been to the hermitage museum in st. petersburg? the armory museum in the kremlin?

yes i used to live in russia. anyways, the ussr was at a very weak state after ww2 their production rate was considered 3rd world. it may have not been as bad as iraq or afghanistan but its production rate was terrible.

Scarecrow63 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 17, 2008, 06:54:00 PM »

Quote from: Isamu on March 17, 2008, 06:27:48 PM

yes i used to live in russia. anyways, the ussr was at a very weak state after ww2 their production rate was considered 3rd world. it may have not been as bad as iraq or afghanistan but its production rate was terrible.

They weren't weak after ww2, if you remember a little thing called the cold war happened because they were a competing superpower...

Isamu · « **Reply #13 on:** March 17, 2008, 11:44:04 PM »

scarecrow do you know anything about russian history? Russia's infrastructure was weak from the nazi invasion. they had a lot of rebuilding to do. their military was strong but their economy wasn't fit for exportation yet.

Enceladus · « **Reply #14 on:** March 17, 2008, 11:49:51 PM »

After WWII the Russian economy was extremely fragile. However the government kept up the disguise of being an industrious nation to scare the West. the completed quotoas but with extremely low quality on the products. For example sunglasses alot of the times were normal glasses painted black with a slight bit of translucency.

Isamu · « **Reply #15 on:** March 17, 2008, 11:54:58 PM »

thank you enceladus. its also good to know scarecrow, the ussr didn't really heavily rivle the usa until the 1950's. they recovered from the war incredibly fast compared to how heavily they had been hit.

Meyer · « **Reply #16 on:** March 18, 2008, 02:39:30 AM »

yeah. using German POWs as slave labor. No wonder they recovered so easily. So I wouldn't say their recovery is something to brag about. First they condemned the Germans for doing it and then they did it themselves. hypocrisies.

vadereclipse · « **Reply #17 on:** March 18, 2008, 01:49:30 PM »

stalin was incapable. upon hearing hitler's plans to attack russia (operation barbarossa) he did nothing. he didn't believe it. when hitler did attack, stalin gave no orders for 2 weeks. he just sat in his house, and was in a state of mental paralysis.
as for industry, russian industry was moved from areas like the ukraine to the urals brick by brick. much of the industry was preserved.

Scarecrow63 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 18, 2008, 06:33:16 PM »

No, the USSR never really recovered their economy, they just kept up the military prodcution after WW2, thats why they failed in the late 80's, they just couldn't do it anymore

Isamu · « **Reply #19 on:** March 18, 2008, 07:13:19 PM »

thats a very small reason. countries were refusing to cooperate with them from their policies. their economy crumbled from the inside out. not because of a war that occurred 50 years earlier.

Author Topic: Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik Debate (Read 28007 times)

aNaRcHiSt44