Why does Stalin get so much hate from Westerners, but Peter the Great does not?

Discussion in 'Russian History' started by Nikita, Aug 31, 2013.

  1. john smith

    john smith Collegiate Registrar (14th class)

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2013
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    No he didn't if you actually read the prevision of the MR Pact it says nothing about partitioning Poland and talks about spheres of influence encase of a conflict between Germany and Poland happens and the Polish government collapse that was a buffer state between Germany and USSR.
    USSR invaded Eastern Poland 2 weeks after Germany invaded when the government did collapse.
    Germany and Poland had their own alliance prior to hostilities between the two countries as a result of the Versailles treaty and partition of German speaking regions that was the real reason for WW2.

    Your analysis completely ignores the geopolitical reality of what emerge at the time and the threat it posed to Russia.
  2. john smith

    john smith Collegiate Registrar (14th class)

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2013
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    I never actually critically thought of what we were being told about Stalin was largely BS until the issue of the man made famine in Ukraine was brought up to bolster the regime in Ukraine and discovered it was debunked at the time that is why it did not get any traction and that there are non-Communist western revisionist like Wheatcroft and Getty whose research and analysis is far better and detailed than the standard historians.

    I knew there were a political motivation behind Stalinist research that is a major part of the post Cold war ideology good vs evil shaping traditional spheres of influence against Russia.
  3. Carlo

    Carlo Ship Secretary (11th class)

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    In the refined diplomatic jargon, it pretty much means: we agree to invade Poland and partition it.
  4. Carlo

    Carlo Ship Secretary (11th class)

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Some Ukrainian politicians (specially the previous government) surely were using the famine in their country for political reasons (namely, turn away Ukrainians, who are mostly sympathetic towards Russians, into Russophobes à la Baltic); and sure, there is a lot of Cold War propaganda (and its relics that continue to live to this day) to use Stalin as an argument against Russia - aren't we all the time seeing absurd comparisons between Putin and the Gardener of Human Happiness? This doesn't mean, though, that a great man-made famine, not only in Ukraine, but also in Russia and Kazakhstan, existed, crafted by Stalin and his land collectivization policies, among many other brutalities. We don't have to deny the undeniable, we just have to be careful against propaganda.
  5. Carlo

    Carlo Ship Secretary (11th class)

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    And just for a bit of fun - the best of the "Rainbow Stalin" meme:
    [​IMG]
  6. john smith

    john smith Collegiate Registrar (14th class)

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2013
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Personally I don't think Stalin ever was in total charge of the entire Soviet Union that was a virtual impossibility especially given the ethnic make -up was predominantly Jewish who emanated from the Pale of Settlement and had long standing hostilities against ethnic Russians and involvement in organised crime that it was actually Stalin that implemented regional courts systems to curb abuses of power.

    Most of the deaths were created by large outbreaks of famine and diseases that Stalin helped eradicate are collectivising the agricultural farms in 32-33 that after the big famine outbreak actually worked as there was major famine outbreaks until during WW2.

    The all-powerful Stalin manic character was 1st created by Khrushchev then western historians and Cold War foundations that each had their own agenda and is a pillar of the new world ideology of the post-Soviet world that basically the US is the fore-runner to the British Empire and with mainly Britain, Israel and a few other countries should remake the world with a global good vs evil mentality.

    I think Stalin was trying to basically undo the damage caused by Trotsky and the Bolsheviks and the direction it was going in outlawing and curbing some of the most damaging social engineering policies

    The thing is that those that were in charge and responsible for serious abuses of power like the guy who was the head of the NKVD during the height of the purge were put on trial and sentenced to death for their crimes with assumptions like the purge being pre-planned in the verge of a serious military conflict with Germany and the new geo-political alignment in Europe and wars against Japan and China in the East despite there being no evidence to support the claim that at least Stalin believed there was a serious treason threat prior to the outbreak of WW2.

    As far as good reliable Soviet history goes and the Stalin period I don't think we have even scratched the surface.
  7. Philip Owen

    Philip Owen Office Registrar (13th class)

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    If the USSR's invasion of Poland was so innocent, why is that territory no longer Polish? Why were millions of Poles ethnically cleansed from the region? there is some Doubleplusgoodthink going on here.

    And the Russian blockade of the ports of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland was more self defence was it? The Finns had the means to fight back and did. The others had no choice but to surrender.
  8. Philip Owen

    Philip Owen Office Registrar (13th class)

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    If you are saying that the famine was a by product of the campaign against Kulaks and the Ukranian element was only one part of it, then I agree. It was nevertheless a famine which killed millions and it was generated by communist policy. The death rate was higher in Saratov where I stay and even higher in Kazakhstan. I will rely on the newspaper reports of Gareth Jones, a countryman of mine, who visited the Volga region and the Ukraine at the time. Walter Duranty and other journalists, confined to Moscow, reported no famine. Jones could speak Russian well enough to pass for a Russian. He evaded his watchers and saw the situation directly. There was a large famine. "Historians" using reports from the Moscow international press corps are not reliable. It was not the first communist famine and things became tight in the early 1960's too. However, Russia was subject to famine so small failings may have spiralled out of control. The same happened to the East India Company in Bengal. Relatively small policy errors (kill the Kulaks) generated horrific results.
  9. SWSpires

    SWSpires Gubernial Secretary (12th class)

    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Just as a matter of historical context (and leaving aside issues of right or wrong), it has to be noted that those territories (known as kresy or "border regions" in Polish) were mostly disputed territory anyway. Lithuania broke off diplomatic relations with Poland between the world wars over the Polish seizure of Vilnius, and the kresy further south were mostly populated by Belarusians and Ukrainians. Poles were a small minority outside the cities of this region.

    Under the circumstances, with ethnically mixed territories following the breakup of two empires, it was probably impossible to establish who such lands rightfully "belonged" to.
  10. john smith

    john smith Collegiate Registrar (14th class)

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2013
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Kulaks who own agricultural policies lead to famines during the Tsarist period prior to 1917 but the events that lead to the big famines that there were large outbreaks of famine nearly yearly up to that point and the Kulaks own mismanagement was a big problem for the previous famines and sabotage of there own crops in the process during 33.

    Sorry one journalist that we don't know of his political affiliation or connection writing that there was a famine that no one is now disputing does not conclude that it was engineered or specifically targeted at Ukraine ass the areas affected the worst were the main agriculture sectors across the USSR and other factors than sabotage like spread of disease, poor harvest and weather, etc among other factors.

    Eyewitness accounts are generally unreliable as depending who they were during the period they would either report from a pro or anti-Soviet perspective.

    And the engineered famine fable really makes no sense as it mainly affected the East not the nationalist west.

    What really was the alternative to collectivisaton of the agriculture sector?

    There would have still have been large outbreaks of famine only difference is that there still would have been after 33.
  11. john smith

    john smith Collegiate Registrar (14th class)

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2013
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry but it was the western powers that were pushing Germany towards war with the USSR letting them advance Eastwards they could just see the writing on the wall.

    The point is that there was no joint plan by both Germany and the USSR to invade and partition Poland otherwise they would have attacked at the same time splitting Polish forces.

    The post WW2 period the whole landscape of Europe was realigned with Germans suffering the largest ethnic cleansing that before WW2 era countries were fighting each other for disputed territory and ethnic cleansing. The conflict between Germany and Poland was a result of German territory given to Poland after WW1 that was the real reason for WW2.
  12. Philip Owen

    Philip Owen Office Registrar (13th class)

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    For the record, Gareth Jones had the unlikely task of reporting for the Western Mail, the major Welsh newspaper, so somewhat tiny. More relevantly, perhaps, he also worked as a personal assistant on foreign affairs for Lloyd George, who still had reasonable ambitions to be the British Prime Minister at the time. Lloyd George wasn't satisfied with main stream press reporting of Russia, either pro or anti. Jones's reports displeased Stalin as he described the persecution of the Kulaks. Jones was killed by the MKVD supposedly on Stalin's direct orders while he was in Manchuria about 18 months later. A large detachment of the MKVD crossed the Chinese border to get him. Ian Fleming met him in Moscow during the Trial of the Engineers. He is one strand of the James Bond character. Jones had previously travelled in Russia with an heir of the Heinz family. They were focussing on food supply as the Heinz's were supporting famine relief charities. Although Jones said nothing about targeting of Ukranians, he is now some kind of national hero in the Ukraine as one of the very few to report at first hand. Stalin had banned foreigners from travelling outside Moscow.
  13. Alice Gordon

    Alice Gordon Citizen

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Just read the quotes from Peter the Great. They are very clever. "I know that I have errors and am often wrong, and I will not be angry at anyone in such cases who will show me my mistakes." "Listen when others talk before you reply." "Reason is above all virtues because without reason there can be no virtue." "Hunt the wild beast as much as you want, but this is not for me. I chase enemies of the state and tame wild and resistant subjects." He is loved because he was brilliant. Both he and Stalin had to deal with the very conservative nature of Russians who come from a harsh land. Compare the two? Well Peter hated Jews but hung 13 of his own officers when they were planning a pogram in a town they had conquered in Poland even standing in front of the door of the synagogue. Stalin hated Jews and was planning to continue the work of Hitler when his death saved them. In short Stalin by comparison was often unfair and ran on emotion but both had to deal with conservative people. Peter used to say that those who condemned him did not know what he was dealing with. As a person he was said to be almost perfect by the mercenary Bell. Stalin is not liked because he was effective but unreasoningly cruel not because Peter was an idiot who unreasoningly desired anything from the west. He was brilliant.
  14. NukeCEO

    NukeCEO Citizen

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Magadan, Russia / New Orleans, LA, USA
    Going back to the original post.

    In refute to the "It had" statements:

    1. Russian military technology is still generally superior to American military technology, with a few exceptions for civilian-accessible technologies developed by the USDoD etc.
    2. The Soviet athletic system was built on a lack of freedom and forcing people to be ultimate athletes from birth.
    3. Modern Russia has the best space program, but the Soviet Union lost the Space Race with Apollo 11 IMO, despite early leads.
    4. Russia has always been dominant in Chess. Even now, Russia has more grandmasters than Germany, the USA, and Britain combined.
    5. The USSR may have been the first fully literate country, but it ultimately could not keep up with rapid advances by the West.
    6. Minorities were protected by the Fourth Amendment in the USA, but it wasn't respected by the courts. A similar situation was evident in Soviet times.
    7. The West was a mile ahead of you.
    8. The USSR was indeed the largest manufacturer, but the West was still miles ahead because the only reason the USSR had such a massive manufacturing power was because it was all centralized with government ownership. Essentially, I claim that since the USSR was one "company" (in that it produced goods "commercially") and controlled much of the entire planet, it would be logical that the rest of the companies of the world, with little to no control over governments, and niches based on products and services, would manufacture far less than a conglomerate of every industry in entire countries individually, but together, they made more.
    9. Second largest economy for a time, yes. After WWII, its growth, which was spurred by WWII (akin to how the USA became #1 because WWII made the industrial capacity explode for war), began to stagnate. Under Brezhnev, your countries entered a famine, correct?
    10. Inequality is relatively irrelevant, especially when all the wealth is concentrated in such a small few that the rest are essentially equal is the cause.
    11. You're correct. The Union probably faked a lot of it, though. For instance, the WHO had to undercut the Chernobyl disaster effects in official reports because of the Soviets.
    I'm not up to par with pre-Soviet history because I got interested in Twentieth Century history and modern Russia too fast for my research into the Imperial era to progress, but didn't Peter the Great defeat the Swedes in the Great Northern War?

    Do you deny gulags Y/n?
  15. Alice Gordon

    Alice Gordon Citizen

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Peter the Great did not do very little. When he became Tzar there was very little difference between peasants and the nobility. The nobility had more property. They had the same culture. He introduced strain of livestock from Holland. He started mines and factories. He introduced to potato to Russia. He started spas in Russia. He created a Navy. He changed the ranks in the military and civil service. He started shoe factories in Finland. He changed the Church so that it was a division of the government not competing for the hearts and the minds of the people. He won the war with Sweden when it was the most advanced country in Europe with the best army to gain a port to trade with Europe and took Riga and the Baltic possessions of Sweden. He won in a war with Persia and got his trade route with Asia. He ended the terem system of locking up women for life and brought them out into the pubic and started socializing with woman and dancing with them in Russia. He opened the first high schools in Russia. He opened the institute of science and brought in pictures from Holland done by the masters. These are just a few of the things he did. Yes St. Petersburg cost many lives. He had in mind a port for trade in a European style city and he succeeded in making these. In five years he did more to change Russia than anyone before.
    NukeCEO likes this.

Share This Page