Great Read

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm currently reading "Stalin - Court of the Red Tsar", by Simon Sebag Montefior. Its a look at Stalin and his advisors from the early 1930's to his death in 1953. Its a great study of the brutality of Stalin and his key advisors, and the interaction between the families.

If you want a great personality study of the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution this is the book for you. Its a daunting read at nearly 700 pages, but the pictures are very interesting.

Out of all of the monsters of the 20th centuries, Stalin was unique because he took no pleasure out of what he did, he took no real pleasure out of his war against his own peasants. He saw everything as a statistic or a tactic, and nothing more.

Its not a justification or a statement of admiration, but his cold logical approach to leadership, while being described as very charming and human makes him even more frightening.

A great read if your interested in 20th century history.

[WCE]

A very good read, I will agree with ya comrade crunch.

To supplement that text I would offer up Koba the Dread and Laughter and the Twenty Million as great additional readings.

Great insight into the world and tactics of a man who was worse than Hitler in many respects.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 2 2005, 02:53 AM
I'm currently reading "Stalin - Court of the Red Tsar", by Simon Sebag Montefior. Its a look at Stalin and his advisors from the early 1930's to his death in 1953. Its a great study of the brutality of Stalin and his key advisors, and the interaction between the families.

If you want a great personality study of the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution this is the book for you. Its a daunting read at nearly 700 pages, but the pictures are very interesting.

Out of all of the monsters of the 20th centuries, Stalin was unique because he took no pleasure out of what he did, he took no real pleasure out of his war against his own peasants. He saw everything as a statistic or a tactic, and nothing more.

Its not a justification or a statement of admiration, but his cold logical approach to leadership, while being described as very charming and human makes him even more frightening.

A great read if your interested in 20th century history.

I've always wondered who was worse, Hitler or Stalin.

Both were directly responsible for the deaths of millions, but for seemingly wildly different reasons.

Is it worse to kill millions of Jews for no apparent reason (hatred?)?; or is it worse to kill millions to generate a few extra bucks (exporting of Ukrainian wheat while they starve)?

I'm sure most would say Hitler, but after reading about Stalin, they're definitely close.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 2 2005, 01:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 2 2005, 01:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@May 2 2005, 02:53 AM
I'm currently reading "Stalin - Court of the Red Tsar", by Simon Sebag Montefior. Its a look at Stalin and his advisors from the early 1930's to his death in 1953. Its a great study of the brutality of Stalin and his key advisors, and the interaction between the families.

If you want a great personality study of the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution this is the book for you. Its a daunting read at nearly 700 pages, but the pictures are very interesting.

Out of all of the monsters of the 20th centuries, Stalin was unique because he took no pleasure out of what he did, he took no real pleasure out of his war against his own peasants. He saw everything as a statistic or a tactic, and nothing more.

Its not a justification or a statement of admiration, but his cold logical approach to leadership, while being described as very charming and human makes him even more frightening.

A great read if your interested in 20th century history.

I've always wondered who was worse, Hitler or Stalin.

Both were directly responsible for the deaths of millions, but for seemingly wildly different reasons.

Is it worse to kill millions of Jews for no apparent reason (hatred?)?; or is it worse to kill millions to generate a few extra bucks (exporting of Ukrainian wheat while they starve)?

I'm sure most would say Hitler, but after reading about Stalin, they're definitely close. [/b][/quote]
Interesting

And I could say that they're both equally bad, but . . . and this is a long shot but, thier motivations really seperate things.

Hitler did his killing out of hate, and went to war out of greed and a misplaced sense of vengence

Stalin - did his killing out of a misplaced sense of revolution and responsibility, and went about expanding the Soviet empire out of a need for security, and a misplaced revolution.

Thier both bad, but when you look at Stalin you can definately see signs of mental illness, and while Stalin was bad early in his career, his real excesses came after his second wife died.

Its interesting if you look at the pre-cursors as well. both had fathers that were abusive and very strict, and both had mothers who doted on them. both had a christian education, and a poor upbringing, and both were raised in countries that were in turmoil.

One big difference to me though is while Hitler allowed himself to be carried by circumstance, Stalin pretty much drove the circumstances.

Stalin was evil because he didn't see the peasants and his people as anything but an equation to drive the Soviet Union and Communism into a position of dominance.

Hitler was evil because he saw the Jews and his enemies as somewhat lesser then him but still understood that they were in fact living breathing things. Vermin no less.

I don't think you can base the who was eviler argument around numbers, because as Stalin said 1 death is a tragedy, but a million is a statistic.

In my mind, Hitler was the more evil of the two. Stalin was evil, but he was also disconnected.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+May 2 2005, 03:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ May 2 2005, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I've always wondered who was worse, Hitler or Stalin.

Both were directly responsible for the deaths of millions, but for seemingly wildly different reasons.

Is it worse to kill millions of Jews for no apparent reason (hatred?)?; or is it worse to kill millions to generate a few extra bucks (exporting of Ukrainian wheat while they starve)?

I'm sure most would say Hitler, but after reading about Stalin, they're definitely close.

Interesting

And I could say that they're both equally bad, but . . . and this is a long shot but, thier motivations really seperate things.

Hitler did his killing out of hate, and went to war out of greed and a misplaced sense of vengence

Stalin - did his killing out of a misplaced sense of revolution and responsibility, and went about expanding the Soviet empire out of a need for security, and a misplaced revolution.

Thier both bad, but when you look at Stalin you can definately see signs of mental illness, and while Stalin was bad early in his career, his real excesses came after his second wife died.

Its interesting if you look at the pre-cursors as well. both had fathers that were abusive and very strict, and both had mothers who doted on them. both had a christian education, and a poor upbringing, and both were raised in countries that were in turmoil.

One big difference to me though is while Hitler allowed himself to be carried by circumstance, Stalin pretty much drove the circumstances.

Stalin was evil because he didn't see the peasants and his people as anything but an equation to drive the Soviet Union and Communism into a position of dominance.

Hitler was evil because he saw the Jews and his enemies as somewhat lesser then him but still understood that they were in fact living breathing things. Vermin no less.

I don't think you can base the who was eviler argument around numbers, because as Stalin said 1 death is a tragedy, but a million is a statistic.

In my mind, Hitler was the more evil of the two. Stalin was evil, but he was also disconnected.[/b][/quote]
I hear ya.

I usually tended to side against Stalin (with Hitler )

Clearly any mass-mass-murderer is evil, so its not like either of them get off.

I thought Stalin was potentially worse because of the rationality of the killing. Hitler seemed to have an irrational hatred of Jews, blaming them for things they truly weren't responsible. I'd consider Hitler's obsession with the "final solution" to be evidence of 'mental illness' (or whatever you'd like to call it) at least as much as Stalin was showing signs of mentally breaking down.

My biggest problem w/ Stalin was that he did the murdering for economic and political reasons, 'real' reasons, as opposed to Hitler's 'insanity'. Stalin would sell wheat when it was needed by the locals, for a couple of dollars hard currency. In Ukraine especially, Stalin exported every inch of food while millions perished due to starvation. Stalin believed he needed the hard currency that wheat brought to buy heavy machinery to industrialize. At the time of the Ukraine famines, I believe wheat was at something like an all-time low on the market, which meant he exported even more to get his cash, which drove the price down further, etc.

So, it comes down to the same question. Is Hitler the worst murderer because he did it out of hatred/fear, or Stalin, who did it 'rationally', more or less being perfectly aware of the logical consequences of his rational actions?

Go Hitler! (yeah yeah, poor taste).

[CaptainCrunch]

Interesting points, and I can really believe what your saying, except for the fact that we'll never know if Hitler was truly mentally ill, or if Stalin was even though he did show some strong sociopathic tendancies. And thats the crux of the argument here.

Because if they were both rational to some extent, then Hitler was the greater evil due to his justification. If they were both mentally Ill, then the whole evil thing goes out the window and this spirals into an argument about mental illness justification.

And how do you define evil?

Is it an intentional act to reach a goal even though your actions will harm millions.

Or is it an intentional act with no goal in mind except to satisfy your base instincts (hatred, lust, greed)?

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 2 2005, 09:14 AM
Interesting points, and I can really believe what your saying, except for the fact that we'll never know if Hitler was truly mentally ill, or if Stalin was even though he did show some strong sociopathic tendancies. And thats the crux of the argument here.

Because if they were both rational to some extent, then Hitler was the greater evil due to his justification. If they were both mentally Ill, then the whole evil thing goes out the window and this spirals into an argument about mental illness justification.

And how do you define evil?

Is it an intentional act to reach a goal even though your actions will harm millions.

Or is it an intentional act with no goal in mind except to satisfy your base instincts (hatred, lust, greed)?

I don't know who was the most evil, but I would say that Stalin was the most dangerous. As you say he seemed to be a sociopath who went about his cold calculating business with little respect for human life and yet died of old age. Hitler was full of hate which clouded his judgement and left him cornered into commiting suicide.

[Looger]

hitler, i believe, was borderline most of his life, displaying a fatalism and desire that brooked no compromise.

he put a gun to his head to entice support from his beer-hall putsch crew, when it almost fell apart before it REALLY fell apart.

by the time he was settled at bertesgaerden (sp?) with his full entourage of sycophants and mystics, his 'quack doctors' (shirer's term) started filling him full of the most bizzare combinations of drugs.

combined with his oddball diets and spiritual rituals, there was not much man left at the end.

i think his megalomania turned a corner at krystalnacht, and the early war victories convinced him that he was invincible.

stalin retained a cold rationality that lent his reign an efficiency and effectiveness that really did improve the country, at all costs.

his purges were often through someone else, who then was publicly blamed and jailed / executed for stalin's own crimes.

stalin killed by the pen, hitler by the oration. hitler's 'intellectual goons' (again shirer) made the policy that hitler rubber-stamped, i think it's quite possible that he didn't get seriously involved in the details of mass murder, he was lazy and spent time on the grand vision and trappings of his entourage.

stalin by contrast was a natural bureaucrat and got involved at all levels of operation, short of the serious meddling in military affairs that hitler was into.

i find it quite interesting that hitler finally had the army he needed and equipment he needed, just when he didn't need to risk everything in all-or-nothing throws of the dice. the early victories were complete and total flukes/masteries.

conversely the red army had perfected blitzkrieg right along with the germans, and then stalin purged the officer corps completely. somehow out of the ruin of the first few months of barbarossa a renewed and reinvented red army picked up its old tricks and came back kicking.

unbelievable, this event, east-front WW2, i see as the climax of human history.

so much blood, sweat, and tears, two madmen with such similiar systems - despite polar-opposite 'idealogies' - throwing millions of men at each other.

wow.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think Stalin saw the purges of his officers as a needed thing, there were too many remnants in the Red Army of the young Junior officers of World War I. Stalin wanted a army that was bent to his will, single minded, and unable to make decisions that didn't come from Stalin.

Its amazing that Zubov (sp?) escaped the purges, but he was very much like minded to Stalin in that he was willing to commit troops to the meat grinder in order to make the enemy bend.

The interesting thing about the battle of Berlin was this. In the last 10 days of WWII the Red Army under Zubov lost 300,000 men, The remnants of the German Army lost 100,000.

That dosen't sound like victory conditions.

The other main difference that I can see is that Hitler was obsessed with race. He wanted to protect the Aryan race while weeding out what he considered to be sub human elements. In the end though, he thought he was betrayed by his race.

Stalin saw that he would have to go to war against his own people in order to industrialize his nation, and he was willing to kill millions in order to get there. So thier aims while similar were completely different.

Its strange if you look at the first half of the century, and saw the rise of these mega tyrants, who were all suffering from some form of dicernable mental condition. The fact that they all came from a similar background is even more interesting.

We might never see anything like it again, if we're fortunate

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Looger@May 3 2005, 01:55 AM
hitler, i believe, was borderline most of his life, displaying a fatalism and desire that brooked no compromise.

he put a gun to his head to entice support from his beer-hall putsch crew, when it almost fell apart before it REALLY fell apart.

by the time he was settled at bertesgaerden (sp?) with his full entourage of sycophants and mystics, his 'quack doctors' (shirer's term) started filling him full of the most bizzare combinations of drugs.

combined with his oddball diets and spiritual rituals, there was not much man left at the end.

i think his megalomania turned a corner at krystalnacht, and the early war victories convinced him that he was invincible.

stalin retained a cold rationality that lent his reign an efficiency and effectiveness that really did improve the country, at all costs.

his purges were often through someone else, who then was publicly blamed and jailed / executed for stalin's own crimes.

stalin killed by the pen, hitler by the oration. hitler's 'intellectual goons' (again shirer) made the policy that hitler rubber-stamped, i think it's quite possible that he didn't get seriously involved in the details of mass murder, he was lazy and spent time on the grand vision and trappings of his entourage.

stalin by contrast was a natural bureaucrat and got involved at all levels of operation, short of the serious meddling in military affairs that hitler was into.

i find it quite interesting that hitler finally had the army he needed and equipment he needed, just when he didn't need to risk everything in all-or-nothing throws of the dice. the early victories were complete and total flukes/masteries.

conversely the red army had perfected blitzkrieg right along with the germans, and then stalin purged the officer corps completely. somehow out of the ruin of the first few months of barbarossa a renewed and reinvented red army picked up its old tricks and came back kicking.

unbelievable, this event, east-front WW2, i see as the climax of human history.

so much blood, sweat, and tears, two madmen with such similiar systems - despite polar-opposite 'idealogies' - throwing millions of men at each other.

wow.

what an amazing post.

[KevanGuy]

I agree, that was an awesome post.

Not to thread jack, but if anyone interested in this thread hasn't seen Downfall yet I suggest you go see it. It is an amazing recreation of Hitler's last days (more or less). It is a bit tedious at times but the depictions of the major players involved is second to none.

Also, I recommend Hitler And His Generals. It is the surviving transcripts of all Hitler's Military Conferences from 42-45. Now, this isnt a book for the casual reader. It is almost 1200 pages of small font. It also helps to have an idea of what was going on at the time of the transcribed conferences. But it is a very, very interesting read at times. But very boring at other times.

[Looger]

CaptainCrunch,

I think Stalin saw the purges of his officers as a needed thing, there were too many remnants in the Red Army of the young Junior officers of World War I. Stalin wanted a army that was bent to his will, single minded, and unable to make decisions that didn't come from Stalin.

yep, stalin wanted a well-heeled army incapable of revolution. the red army of the 30s was largely formulated by trotsky, thus was untrustworthy.

Its amazing that Zubov (sp?) escaped the purges, but he was very much like minded to Stalin in that he was willing to commit troops to the meat grinder in order to make the enemy bend.

The interesting thing about the battle of Berlin was this. In the last 10 days of WWII the Red Army under Zubov lost 300,000 men, The remnants of the German Army lost 100,000.

That dosen't sound like victory conditions.

zhukov was very much like stalin, i agree it's kind of a miracle he was able to make it. must have made an impression somewhere.

typically it's been said, crudely, that you need 3 times the defending force to overrun them, but that doesn't mean the casualties have to be 3-1 as well.

defense was fanatical and attack was fanatical. the russians had walked over mass graves and execution sites the whole way and were probably in a mood, which helps to explain their behaviour in the aftermath of this battle.

done slowly enough the siege could have spared many russian soldiers but probably would have wiped out or scattered all of berlin's inhabitants using masses of katyusha rockets and other artillery. but it had to be taken by the russians alone, that was the idea.

The other main difference that I can see is that Hitler was obsessed with race. He wanted to protect the Aryan race while weeding out what he considered to be sub human elements. In the end though, he thought he was betrayed by his race.

yes the race thing.

rosenberg blended some bad 19th century science and ancient pre-roman germanic myths - not unlike myths surrounding every ancient culture - to cultivate a cult of purity, of destiny, for the german people. worked quite well, to this day many believe it.

though they had their facts a bit mixed, the 'purity' of aryan blood had long since been lost to predation by slavs to the east, various foes to the west, and most notably vikings to the north. it was not the vikings that were germanic, but germans that were norse. of course nationalities tended to have their own vague characteristics / traits, but would hitler himself stand out in a crowd of 20 czechs?

a lot of what the third reich did was over jealousy. austria, czechoslovakia, poland, etc. had cosmopolitan, heterogeneous, culturally advanced societies and didn't see europe divided racially by a line on a map.

at least a small factor was the german peoples' history, previous to the late 19th century, as a big loser in europe. there had been a couple brief bright spots but in between were centuries of domination by foreign powers.

tell people that they're better than everyone else, enough times, and maybe they will see it that way.

Stalin saw that he would have to go to war against his own people in order to industrialize his nation, and he was willing to kill millions in order to get there. So thier aims while similar were completely different.

maybe he was right. the war between the reds and the whites after WWI in which the western powers were involved, albeit briefly, probably planted a seed in stalinist circles in russia. this seed had a simple message:

the establishment in the west fears communism, and will put troops in russia to stop it.

with a weak and divided russia in the 30s, i find it hard to believe western predation would have been far away.

Its strange if you look at the first half of the century, and saw the rise of these mega tyrants, who were all suffering from some form of dicernable mental condition. The fact that they all came from a similar background is even more interesting.

We might never see anything like it again, if we're fortunate

it's funny, stalin was a peasant from georgia, hitler a peasant from austria.

they should have had more connection with the common man, his desires, his fears, his future.

this era of history is over, something else entirely will kick us in the ass.

[Looger]

Originally posted by KevanGuy@May 3 2005, 03:56 AM
Not to thread jack, but if anyone interested in this thread hasn't seen Downfall yet I suggest you go see it. It is an amazing recreation of Hitler's last days (more or less). It is a bit tedious at times but the depictions of the major players involved is second to none.

Also, I recommend Hitler And His Generals. It is the surviving transcripts of all Hitler's Military Conferences from 42-45. Now, this isnt a book for the casual reader. It is almost 1200 pages of small font. It also helps to have an idea of what was going on at the time of the transcribed conferences. But it is a very, very interesting read at times. But very boring at other times.

is this the german movie released last year?

if so i've heard it's pretty accurate, but i don't live in a place that has decent theatres...

how i miss the globe, the plaza, and the uptown!

90% not my style, but 10%, way my style.

i'll put the book on my list, who knows, maybe i'll get to it.

[KevanGuy]

Yeah, its playing at the Uptown right now (only 6 bucks). I think its done on May 5th. I suspect that it will be on DVD soon. One of the most interesting scenes is when Hitler goes nuts on his Generals near the end of the movie and he spouts that he should have killed them all as Stalin did. It was one of those moments where I wondered if that was added for drama or if Hitler really felt that way. Though, considering his mental state at the time, I guess it would be impossible to know if that was a heartfelt statement or just mindless ranting.

[Looger]

right from the start hitler and his generals never got along.

for the most part they were aristocratic prussians, and for them he'd always be a peasant austrian corporal.

hitler liked, and doted on, many younger, riskier, more easily indoctrinated officers but the old boys never warmed up to him.

von Manstein was the rising star that came up with the ardennes offensive, for example, and as it was an all or nothing crazy roll of the dice, hitler was all over it.

but guys like Guderian, who was probably the biggest contributor to blitzkrieg, and Rommel, were frozen out, implicated in plots (mostly because they were plotting...), shot, hanged, jailed, etc. by the end of the war.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Looger@May 3 2005, 05:17 AM
right from the start hitler and his generals never got along.

for the most part they were aristocratic prussians, and for them he'd always be a peasant austrian corporal.

hitler liked, and doted on, many younger, riskier, more easily indoctrinated officers but the old boys never warmed up to him.

von Manstein was the rising star that came up with the ardennes offensive, for example, and as it was an all or nothing crazy roll of the dice, hitler was all over it.

but guys like Guderian, who was probably the biggest contributor to blitzkrieg, and Rommel, were frozen out, implicated in plots (mostly because they were plotting...), shot, hanged, jailed, etc. by the end of the war.

Truth be told Hitler respected only one or two of his senior commanders, and thats where he fell flat on his face, he saw himself as a great military leader, but its pretty rare to see a corporal with strategic training.

But in an environment as oppressive and terrible as it was, Germany really had some superb command level officers. Rommel is probably still considered one of the best tank officers ever born, and Durnitz was a superb naval officer. Goering on the other hand was pretty much a disastor after the Battle of Britain.

On the other hand the Russian command officers only needed to know the russian word for straight forward, as in the end they had no strategy, and really didn't need to find a way to motivate thier troops.

Its funny how German society really glamourized thier officer corp, and the Soviet Union really didn't but attributed all of thier victories to comrade Stalin.

Another thing that Stalin and Hitler had in common was a really deep admiration for Churchill, and a strong hatred for the french.

[KevanGuy]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 2 2005, 11:46 PM
Its funny how German society really glamourized thier officer corp, and the Soviet Union really didn't but attributed all of thier victories to comrade Stalin.

I don't mean to be an ass CC but do have links to that? Or some books perhaps? I'd personally like to learn more about the German psyche about such things.

[shoestring]

Another thing that Stalin and Hitler had in common was a really deep admiration for Churchill, and a strong hatred for the french.

What is with the french anyway.?


People are terrible ,some even more pitiful.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by shoestring@May 3 2005, 02:41 AM
Another thing that Stalin and Hitler had in common was a really deep admiration for Churchill, and a strong hatred for the french.

What is with the french anyway.?


People are terrible ,some even more pitiful.

See Napolean.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by KevanGuy+May 3 2005, 05:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KevanGuy @ May 3 2005, 05:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@May 2 2005, 11:46 PM
Its funny how German society really glamourized thier officer corp, and the Soviet Union really didn't but attributed all of thier victories to comrade Stalin.

I don't mean to be an ass CC but do have links to that? Or some books perhaps? I'd personally like to learn more about the German psyche about such things. [/b][/quote]
I'll give you a list tonight when I get home, but be warned, its going to be a long list.