Author Topic: No Stalin, no Hitler?  (Read 87636 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hellokitty2121

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #90 on: March 29, 2006, 07:13:11 PM »
Why not visit the history channel website -  they may have videos or dvds for sale.

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #91 on: March 30, 2006, 02:25:47 AM »
I would love to visit the history channel, but we have just basic tv. But thanks for the idea.

Tatiana+

Quote
Why not visit the history channel website -  they may have videos or dvds for sale.
TatianaA


Offline Chelsea

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #92 on: March 30, 2006, 11:14:53 AM »
historychannel.com has a vhs copy of Hitler and Stalin:Roots of evil (50 minutes) for $24.95 and a dvd copy for $29.95, but if you are going to buy a copy of a documentary on Stalin I would recommend Stalin: Man of Steel (100 minutes) also from the history channel and for the same price.  Hitler and Stalin only offered a very basic comparison of the two, nothing that hasn't been discussed on this board, the similarities between thier childhoods, their severe paranoia, and thier crimes against humanity.  Stalin: Man of Steel, although it does not provide a comparison between the two, gives you much more indepth information about Stalin and his reign of terror and allows you to use your own knowledge of the  two men to draw your own conclusions as to thier similarities.  
~Chelsea~

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #93 on: March 30, 2006, 08:47:18 PM »
Dear Chelsea,

Thank you for taking time to respond to my post. I will follow your suggestions. Thanks again !

Tatiana+
TatianaA


Offline Mie

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #94 on: June 01, 2006, 03:32:01 PM »
Huuh..  :o you guys have really strong converstation going on here.. or should I sey HAD! But I'd like to give my opinion here. Stalin. He was a man who killed his own relatives couse of he was so  all mixed up and suffered from paranoia. He was all the time so scared someones conna kill him (shame no one did though) and everyone who said anything from was about to kill. When there was formal situation NO ONE DARED TO BE THE FIRST ONE TO STOP ABLODES COUSE THEY WERE SO SCARED!!!! Stalin.. well.. people scared to SMILE in that Russia couse if they did someone maybe started think of something  :( :( they thought wrong things to puplic :( it was very messy country -no fenc to those who are Russian and if I hurt someones feelings I'm sorry! Most of all I'm sorry for you'r relatives who had to live that time... I remember how a old war veteran told me that when the war ended we(finland) had to send bac the Inkeri's peoples who moved to Finland during the war. Everybody knew to where they was order to send: Siperia: how many survived .. ? :( : they famlies was ript of... and.. the veteran also said that if Russia would have conquerd Finland the soldiers knew where they were to send... hmm.. funny: when Russia occupied Finland in 1808-1809 Aleksander I promised us very much good.... attacked in 1939 the only sure thing was we would not have lived very hapilly..  :'(

About Hitler. He did TERRYBEL THINGS!! THERE'S NO DOUPT OF IT. But it just feels that anything bad what happen to the west-world (Europe, America) is so wrong and everybody's talking about it... but if something happens in Africa, Russia or Irack.. why the silence? Is the Europe so fancy that anything like Hitler could not be bossible to happen! I mean.. during the IIWW and after it.. it was very hard to any country to believe what Hitler really did. But even today people do talk about Hitler even in numbers Stalin did more terryble things. Do you really think Russia was worth of it? :(

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #95 on: June 01, 2006, 04:55:09 PM »
Hello Mie, and welcome to the AP Forum !

So, your from Finland. Never been there, but I have met many Finlandians and they were most gracious.
Your opinion is yours, and you are always free to offer it. Stalin was not a very nice man. Yes, I know he killed his own relatives. I know for sure he had his own son killed, and did not lift one finger to save him. Some father. :(  Stalin was a very, very ill person. Your right, many occasion were missed in taking him down. So many suffered under his rule, and so many were killed needlessly. There is no reason Mie to feel badly, you have not hurt anyone's feelings. You speak the truth, and there is no harm here in expressing your feelings, or stating the truth.

Hitler was also a very very bad man. He indeed did very terrible things. Your right, silence should not be, when so many people as in Africa, Russia, and Iraq have been harmed, killed, etc., but that is another thread, and one that has no relation to this thread. War anywhere in the world is terrible, at any time frame.

Personally, I think Stalin was worse in the atrocities he commited than Hitler. Over 30 million people were killed, murdered by Stalin, and still the world has yet to come to terms with that terrible figure of loss of life. Silence remains, doesn't it ? That people perished, and were cruelly harmed in Russia, no, I don't think it was worth it at all.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Mie.

Tatiana+
TatianaA


Offline Mie

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #96 on: June 02, 2006, 03:43:03 PM »
Dear Tania!

I'd like to thank you for you're understanding and nice letter. I'm glad I do not harm anyones feelings. These are those things were so easylly can people get conlflict with eacother -these are so sore and sad things. I'm happy to hear you like finss :)

Offline Bev

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #97 on: January 25, 2007, 09:58:36 PM »
I moderated a panel a few months ago whose topic was Linkage theory - cause and effect in foreign investment (of which I happen to be a proponent) and though the panel discussion was limited to a specific time frame, someone did raise the raise the question, "if there had been no Stalin, would there have been no Hitler?"  This was generally dismissed by most participants, but I have been thinking quite a bit about the questions since then, and wondering if perhaps the claim has some validity if the parameters are moved outward - "no Russian bolshevik revolution, no nazism."  If we accept that nazism was a reactionary movement, to what was it reactionary?  (And of course it was a nationalist movement also, which must be taken into account)   When Drexler started the party it was as a reaction to bolshevism and socialist democratization and its goal at the time of its founding was to maintain the class structure.  The nature of the party changed with the ambitions of Hitler and his cohort's takeover of the party, but still it was very much opposed to bolshevism and socialism.  This of course hardened when the power of the bolsheviks was concentrated in one man, Stalin, but Stalin did enable Hitler's ambitions, so is it possible to prove linkage? 

If the claim," no Stalin, no Hitler"  is stated so, what arguments can be made to support the claim, and what arguments can be made to refute the claim?  Or if there had not been a Russian revolution would there have been a German revolution which had such profound effect upon the world?

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #98 on: January 26, 2007, 11:09:30 AM »
What an absolutely awesome topic, Bev, not to sound too much like a surfer girl. I am impressed. I do think there's more than sufficient linkage between the Nazi and Stalinist regimes to warrant a discussion - for that matter, a very long and complex discussion.

Two things occur to me right off the bat - I'm harkening back to my college days and my lectures in Soviet history for this first point. As you and others here might recall, but which fact nevertheless came as a total shock to me as an undergraduate in Russian history courses, Stalin actually forbade German communists to oppose Hitler's rise to power during the years 1929-1933 (that doesn't mean that various other socialist groups, not beholden to Moscow, didn't fight, oftentimes literally in the physical sense, Hitler's Nazis). As Adam Ulam summarizes in his famous biography of Stalin:

"... the approaching demise of Weimar Germany was viewed by Stalin with more than equanimity, for all the friendly relations that had prevailed between the U.S.S.R. and Germany since 1922. Hitler was preferable to the Catholic and Social Democratic politicians who had been seeking a rapprochement with Britain and France. Hitler and his followers might destroy what remained of German democracy, but they certainly could set up a viable and long-lasting regime of their own. A Hitlerian interlude would only serve to radicalize the German masses, turn them toward the only party that could solve the social and economic problems - the Communist party. The prospect of a Communist Germany must have been contemplated by Stalin with special pleasure" (Ulam, Stalin: The Man and His Era, p. 363).

So Stalin in a very real sense - in his power over the German Communists who obeyed every ruling from Moscow - was partly responsible for the rise of Hitler to power in Germany in the early 1930s. At the same time (and here's my second point), the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, whatever way you slice it (yes, it might very well have been a canny move on Stalin's part to delay the inevitable Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union - but somehow I doubt it), allowed the second World War to begin.

As for the question of the German middle and upperclass fear of Bolshevism, as a factor in voting for Hitler, or at least looking the other way while others voted that way, IMHO everyone should read Victor Klemperer's diaries from 1933 to 1945, which have been published in English. From Klemperer's personal account, it's quite clear that the professional and upper classes feared Bolshevism terribly - on the other hand Klemperer, as a Jew, was able to discern all the many resemblances that Bolshevism and Nazism had in common. His is the best account of Hitlerian or Nazi rule that I have yet to come across. Seriously - if you want to understand Nazi Germany, or for that matter Bolshevism, then read Victor Klemperer's diaries of the period.
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline James1941

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #99 on: January 29, 2007, 01:32:18 PM »
It wasn't Hitler's anti-Bolshevism nor his anti-Semetism that made so many desparate sections of the German society support him. Therefore, even without a Russian revolution and a Soviet state Hitler would have risen to the top. Those were factors in his appeal but not the main reasons he was so popular with the German masses.
It was his nationalism. German defeat in World War I had been a traumatic affect on the German psyche. Then the vindictive and unrealistic Versailles Treaty had been insult upon injury. The German people of all classes, economic status, religious affiliation, political association, etc. had been humiliated by the defeat and treaty. This humiliation was like a cancer in the body politic.
Hitler had one main theme in his program. Revenge. Revenge for the loss of the war and revenge for the treaty. He preached over and over and over that if he and his movement came to power it would reverse the loss of the war, ovethrow the treatiy's provisions, and make Germany a respected and great power once again.
This is what most appealed to such diverse elements as the aristocratic military leadership and the labor organizations, the churches, the peasant farmers, the middle class professionals, and those who couldn't tell a Bolshevik from a Balarog. If it had been only anti-Bolshevism or anti-Jewish diatribes that Hitler spouted then few of these groups would have given the time of day to this Bohemian corporal from Austria. His party would have remained one of the hundreds of fringe groups jockeying for a few votes.
Even after he took power and his dictatorship coaleased and it became clear what he was up to these diverse elements in Germany still continued to support him because he was doing what he promised----destroying the treaty and making Germany a player again. Revenge is a powerful narcotic for the human psyche.
Today, it is humiliation that is the motivating factor in the so-called Islamofascist jihadist movement, or whatever. Humiliation at how the British and French divided up the Arab world with the Sykes-Picot agreement and became the occupying power in the Middle East, leading to the humiliation of the Israeli state and countless other defeats to a proud people. It isn't poverty or political dictatorship or even
western culture that drives most of these men. It is revenge.
Hitler skillfully played upon this pyschological need in the German people and they responded. This was the cake of his appeal. Anti-communism was just whip cream on that cake. It had alure but was about as substantial. Hitler would have made it to the top even if there had been a sovereign holy orthodox tsar ruling Russia from the Kremlin instead of a communist commissar.

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #100 on: January 29, 2007, 03:25:13 PM »
German defeat in World War I had been a traumatic affect on the German psyche. Then the vindictive and unrealistic Versailles Treaty had been insult upon injury . . . .  Hitler had one main theme in his program. Revenge.

Absolutely.

Many people today fail to realize just how punitive was Germany's treatment after World War I.  When Germany began to stagger economically under the reparations payments, the French and Belgians moved in to occupy the Ruhr industrial region in 1923 to insure the payments (over British and U.S. objections).  When the German government declared passive resistance and tried to cover lost wages in the Ruhr region, the currency began to hyper-inflate, wiping out the life savings of the entire German middle class within a few months.  (By November 1923, one U.S. dollar would buy four trillion  German marks.  Germany had effectively become a barter economy.)

Not surprisingly, all hell broke loose that same year.  First, the Bavarian government declares a state of emergency to fend off an explosion of ultra-rightist sentiment.  On October 1, the Buchracker Putsch tries to lure the army into launching a war against France.  In Sachsen and Thuringen leftist governments form and launch paramilitary units (the "red hundreds").  Admiral Tirpitz of WWI fame tries to launch a rightist quasi-putsch with the cooperation of army leaders and leading businessmen.

Then this dismal year ends with the Hitler-Ludenforff Putsch in Munich on November 8 and 9.  While the putsch is a near-term failure, Hitler emerges with the patina of a national hero willing to stand up for Germany and Germans.

Somehow, people can deal with losing sons and brothers to war.  They have considerably more trouble with losing their silver, their homes, their sense of economic security . . . and their sense of self-worth.

Without the springboard of the events of 1923, Hitler might never have made his swan dive into infamy.

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #101 on: January 30, 2007, 01:11:27 AM »
James your last posting was right on. You are so correct as to how Hitler played on and used the use of psychological games on the German peoples. But I always thought in my reading and understanding about him is that he hated the communists, and worked to eventually topple them. I must say that in the following post that it is a rather general statement to say, that people in general, can deal with losing sons and brothers to war. I have a feeling that times have changed and most people today are more than affected by the loss of life as it is today in the present war. While it is true that some may be troubled by losing silver, or their homes, it is to that by, how their loss comes about. I would imagine from those who have endured out right swindlers, that might be the most in difficulty to comes to grip with. Everyone worries about economic security, as history has proven. Self-worth for any human being is of course of extreme importance.

On your statement James, re : Humiliation at how the British and French divided up the Arab world with the Sykes-Picot agreement and became the occupying power in the Middle East, leading to the humiliation of the Israeli state and countless other defeats to a proud people. It isn't poverty or political dictatorship or even western culture that drives most of these men.

Would you care to send me a bit more information on the Sykes-Picot agreement? I think it would make for very interesting reading. Thanks for sharing your insight and commentary. I always enjoy your postings!

Tatiana+
TatianaA


Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #102 on: January 30, 2007, 04:15:30 AM »
I must say that in the following post that it is a rather general statement to say, that people in general, can deal with losing sons and brothers to war.  I have a feeling that times have changed and most people today are more than affected by the loss of life as it is today in the present war.

Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia all lost significant percentages of two generations of men in World War I.  The Russian Revolution was ignited not by a shaky regime's declaration of war, but by its failure to keep the urban centers supplied with food and fuel.  Germany overthrew its monarchy not for entering the war, but for losing it.  Ditto for Austria-Hungary.  And Germany's subsequent democratic regime destabilized not over the loss of life from the war, but due to loss of sovereignty over the Ruhr and loss of economic security.  None of the victors, who lost proportionatey as many young lives, saw political destabilization as a result of war.

As for the present war (which I assume means Iraq), it became unpopular not when people started dying, but when it became apparent we could not win it.  I am unable to name a single war on which any nation turned its back solely at the prospect of loss of life.  If you can, I would be glad to consider it.

Offline James1941

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #103 on: January 30, 2007, 09:55:05 AM »
Thank you, Tania, for your kind comments.
I am no expert on the Middle East and I am sure others could do a better job of explanation, but I shall give it a try.
When the Ottoman Empire (foolishly, in my opinion) entered the war (World War I) as allies of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria it opened up a new theater of fighting. The British, using mainly Indian troops, tried to take Iraq by coming up from the Persian Gulf but got bogged down and that area became a stalmate until late 1917.
The other area was across the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, up through Palestine and Syria---the old route that armies had fought over for milleniums.
Then, the Arabs, who had been unhappy with Turkish rule, decided to revolt, led by the Sherif of Mecca, Hussein. This Arab Revolt caputred the imagination of the world, mainly because of T.E. Lawrence, aka Lawrence of Arabia.
By 1917 it became apparent that the Ottoman Empire would eventually fall, thus leaving its territories open for the grabbing. France, represented by M. Picot, and Britian, represented by Mr. Sykes, decided to divide up the spoils of war. France had always been interested in the Levant (Lebanon and Syria and the Holy Land) and Britain had a eye on the oil of Mosul and Basra as a compliement to their control of the oil of Persia. So an agreement was reached that France would get its area of interest and Britain would get its area of interest in Iraq. They would be the controlling power either by direct colonies or through client Arab kingdoms which they would control. This was the Sykes-Picot agreement.
The history of the Zionist movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine is very complicated, but essentially Balfour of Britain was presuaded to back a plan for allowing Jewish immigration there in return for Jewish support of the war. So, to encourage Jewish support, and at the same time encourage Arab support for the British effort he issued the Balfour Declaration. It essentially said Britain would help establish a Jewish area in Palestine but would also not "displace" Arabs in the same area. It was an impossible plan and was probably issued knowing full well he would never had to implement it.
When the war ended with Turkish defeat, the Arabs fully expected, from everything they had been led to believe, that they could establish a free, independent Arab nation, or nations, in the lands liberated from the Ottomans. The Zionist fully expected they could have a "homeland" in Palestine. Britiain and France were playing the old colonial game and looking to pick up new parts of their empire.
In the Versailles Treaty, they got just that, under the fig leaf of League of Nations mandates. Mandates would be territories that would supposedly become independent but until they were ready they would be under the control of either France of Britain. So, Lebanon was established as a French mandate, Syria was made a French mandate. When the Arabs there objected and revolted, the French put them down with the military. Palestine was made a British mandate. Sherif Hussein got his Kingdom of the Hejaz, with Mecca and Medina. His son Feisal, who hoped to be king of Syria, had to make do with a made up kingdom from the old Messopotamia provinces and called Iraq. He became King of Iraq, but only after the Brtish put down several revolts. His brother, Abdullah got another artificial kingdom called Trans-Jordan, today Jordan. It army was controlled by British officers.
Thus the west interferred in Arab politics and culture right up to World War II. Then, the Jews and Arabs in Palestine fought a bloody civil war. Britain, bankrupt, pulled out and laid the whole question in the lap of the United Nations. This body agreed on 'partition', or dividing the land equally between the Jews and the Arabs.
The Jews reluctantly accepted and proclaimed the State of Israel. The Arabs, confident that they could crush this little, weak Jewish enclave, refused to accept, and seven (I think) Arab armies invaded. The result was the totally unexpected victory of the Israeli armies and the humiliating defeat of the Arabs. They haven't recovered from that to this day.
Sherif Hussein of Mecca lost his kingdom in the early 1920s when it was invaded and conqured by King Ibn Saud, founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Thus the Saudis became rulers of the holy places of Mecca and Medina. It was of course in Saudi Arabia that Wahabism was founded.
In Iran, first the British, then the Americans made sure that they got oil cheap. Both the Arabs and the Persians have had long and glorious histories but failed to advance into the Industrial Age like Europe and the United States. Their humiliation at having to be lackeys to the Europeans and Americans has been like an oozing sore every since 1919.

Offline James1941

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #104 on: January 30, 2007, 01:58:37 PM »
My how we have digressed from the original topic (giggle). Sorry about that.
I believe the original question was--if there had been no Stalin would there have been a Hitler?
I suppose first we must define the exact question.
1. Do you mean Stalin literally, as the person Josef Stalin? Or do you mean the Bolshevik Soviet state, and communism which Stalin came to control?
If so, I would say yes, there would have been Hitler even without Stalin. Stalin did not become the all powerful dictator he would become until late in the 1920s when he eliminated Trotsky, then Kamenev and the other Old Bolsheviks. By that time Hitler had built the NSDAP into a rather formidable party and had made himself "leader" of it without much opposition. Even the man who might have challenged him, Ernst Rohm, was in exile.
2. If you mean for Stalin to be a metaphor for Bolshevism, the Russian Revolution and the communist state, then that is another matter.
Bev, your thoughts?