No Stalin, no Hitler?

[Robert_Hall]

This has gone way off topic. Unless there is some connection to Stalin/Hitler which I have not seen...
 Now, to my mind,  Hitler was preparing Germany for war, in infrastructure and  military power. He prepared the  country beforehand for his aggression. Whereas Stalin was trying to industrialise his own country for internal benefit.  I do not think either was prepared for the resilliance of the other. Of course, Hitler got the worst of it and Stalin survived quite well,  the tolls were tremenodous, were they not?

[Elisabeth]

This has gone way off topic. Unless there is some connection to Stalin/Hitler which I have not seen...
 Now, to my mind,  Hitler was preparing Germany for war, in infrastructure and  military power. He prepared the  country beforehand for his aggression. Whereas Stalin was trying to industrialise his own country for internal benefit.  I do not think either was prepared for the resilliance of the other. Of course, Hitler got the worst of it and Stalin survived quite well,  the tolls were tremenodous, were they not?

There is a connection, Robert, in so far as that under both the Nazi and Stalinist regimes, great art and literature did not exactly thrive. Mediocre art and literature, yes.

But to address your major point. I do think it is unlikely that Stalin's great industrialization campaign and military rearmament were implemented for the goal of invading Nazi Germany. However, and it is a big however, Stalin was indeed power-hungry (look at his aggression against Finland during the Finno-Soviet War), not to mention a great improviser. He was a seat-of-your-pants kind of decision maker. When Hitler presented him with the opportunity of seizing the Baltic states and half of Poland (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 1939), Stalin was only too happy to take advantage of the situation. This is not the description of a ruler who was inclined to privilege domestic prosperity over international status and prestige. This is the description of an inherently aggressive ruler who was entirely caught up in his own visions of glory and world revolution.

IMO, most historians are agreed that Stalin believed Hitler would eventually invade the Soviet Union. He just refused to believe that the invasion would come as early as the summer of 1941 - despite all evidence to the contrary - I mention again the top-secret reports he received from both the Allies and his own military intelligence. He ignored these reports, a decision which ultimately cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers taken as prisoners of war by the Germans (who were either totally unprepared or totally unwilling to feed such a huge contingent of POWs). It also cost the Soviet Union tons of war materiel in planes, tanks, etc. Stalin was never a great prognosticator. He was at his "best" when he was reacting to a particular set of historical circumstances and personalities he could manipulate. Once Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Stalin was obviously no longer in the position where he could manipulate the Nazi leader. And as a result of Operation Barbarossa, living proof of Hitler's duplicity (in other words, Hitler's superior manipulativeness), Stalin apparently experienced a complete nervous breakdown lasting several days if not weeks. But once he recovered, he recovered fully and fought back with a vengeance. I'm willing to give him this much credit - he was a real fighter, in so far as he refused to be knocked out no matter how many blows were aimed against him.

But let's face it, many of these blows were at least partially self-inflicted. I repeat, it was Stalin who instructed German communists to support Hitler and not the Social Democrats up to March 1933. (He seems to have sincerely believed that an electoral victory by the Nazis would result in a full-scale revolution in Germany that would bring to power the communists.) And the German communists responded to Stalin's demands like sheep... to the point that once the Nazis attained power, and Hitler was appointed chancellor, most if not all of these German communists wound up in Nazi or Soviet concentration camps.

[Robert_Hall]

There are several sides to the Finland story and I would not alienate any of our friends from Finland by taking a particular side.  Art, as I have posted several times was contemporary for the times, used by all regimes. As I wade through the Golomstock tome, [and it is a chore, I tell you!] I am even more convinced.  As for literature, well, I am not as well versed as you, so will go back to the previous point- that is, it was used to promote certain viewpoints by ALL governments. Admittedly,  the Western  regimes had less control, but  censorship  was not endemic to only the wartime. McCarthy and his henchmen carried into the 1950's in the USA.  That mindset  has existed here  still, [particularly during the  previous administration.  Hitler called it "protecting German morals' Stalin  used " State security".   I guess ours was a combo of both.
 But, back to Stalin ...his infamous failures, namely the 5 year plans, were not  so bad in the short run. His huge industrialisation, for the time, was a success.  His foreign relations are a definite mixed result.
 Hitler, on the other hand,  built an infrastructure  with the semblance of providing work for the masses of unemployed, whilst all along intending the rails and autobahn, for example for military use. The Hindenburg and the huge  "worker's holiday"  and resorts ships were  were intended all along for  rehabs for war wounded.
 Stalin also had a political structure that he could manipulate, whilst Hitler   relied on his "cult" to do his bidding.
 This is the way I see them. at least for now.
 I firmly believe they both could have existed without the other.
 

[Zvezda]

preceding the revolutions of 1917

The Revolution was greeted enthusiastically by Gorky, Benyi, Serafimovich, Mayakovsky, Blok, Birusov, Esenin, Veresaev, Prishvin, Trenev, Shishkov, and Sergeev-Tsensky. The works of Gorky, Mayakovsky, A. Tolstoy, Sholokhov, Tvardovsky, Fadeev, Leonev, and many others became permanent part of the world’s cultural heritage.

Soviet-era Russian literature inherited the best and most progressive elements from the spiritual culture of the Russian people. Soviet literature developed such traditions of Russian classics as realism, national spirit, patriotism, and humanism. It is permeated with optimism and educates man to be the builder of a new world. Soviet-era literature strengthens its ties with the life of the people, truthfully reflects the richness of the new world, and denounces forces opposed to progress.

. One theory has it that Sholokhov stole the manuscript of this novel from a Cossack writer who was killed whilst serving in the White Army during the Civil War.

This theory has been discredited. An analysis of the allegations against Sholokhov found on the DVD of "Quiet Don" has confirmed that he did write the book.

[Zvezda]

But let's face it, many of these blows were at least partially self-inflicted. I repeat, it was Stalin who instructed German communists to support Hitler and not the Social Democrats up to March 1933.

This is another myth of western historiography.

The right-wing leadership of the SDP stubbornly rejected the proposals of the KDP to unite for the defeat of fascism. Only the KPD consistently opposed the growing threat of fascism, showing that it was possible to prevent the establishment of fascism only by struggling against reaction and striving for the creation of a unified front.

SPD leaders countered the KPD efforts to mount a united front of the working class. They supported the imperialists’ rearmament of Germany, which was most evident in the policies of the coalition government under SPD leader H. Müller (1928-30). The SPD leaders advanced the theory of the “lesser evil,” which amounted to support for the reactionary government of Brüning, which pandered to the Nazis.

SPD restrained the workers from active struggle against the advancing fascist danger. Right-wing Social Democrats stopped at nothing to thwart the KPD-inspired anti-fascist campaign of the summer and fall of 1932, whose goal was to unify all toilers against fascism. After Papen’s government carried out a coup d’etat in Prussia, KPD immediately summoned the people to a general strike and turned to the leadership of SPD with a proposal for joint struggle against the reaction. But the SPD leaders once again refused to cooperate with the KPD. This brought about a strengthening of the position of reaction and the demoralization of a part of the working-class. The split in the working class, caused by the opportunist policy of the rightist SPD leaders, made it all the easier for Hitler to come to power.

And SPD leaders tried to accommodate themselves to the fascist regime. On March 23, 1933, at the opening of the Reichstag, SPD leaders made a statement on cooperation with the Hitler regime.

[Elisabeth]

preceding the revolutions of 1917

The Revolution was greeted enthusiastically by Gorky, Benyi, Serafimovich, Mayakovsky, Blok, Birusov, Esenin, Veresaev, Prishvin, Trenev, Shishkov, and Sergeev-Tsensky. The works of Gorky, Mayakovsky, A. Tolstoy, Sholokhov, Tvardovsky, Fadeev, Leonev, and many others became permanent part of the world’s cultural heritage.

Soviet-era Russian literature inherited the best and most progressive elements from the spiritual culture of the Russian people. Soviet literature developed such traditions of Russian classics as realism, national spirit, patriotism, and humanism. It is permeated with optimism and educates man to be the builder of a new world. Soviet-era literature strengthens its ties with the life of the people, truthfully reflects the richness of the new world, and denounces forces opposed to progress.

You mention a helluva lot of writers, Zvezda, most of them virtually unknown, some of them completely obscure. As for the prominent ones, remember that Maksim Gorky penned Untimely Thoughts, his very negative reflections on the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917. It's simply false that Gorky welcomed this revolution and its immediate aftermath with open arms. He had very serious reservations and criticisms of the Bolsheviks in power - and this despite his lifelong sympathy for the Bolsheviks.

As for Blok... it's true he initially hailed the October Revolution, but it's somewhat doubtful that his feelings about it were completely unambivalent... His poem "The Twelve" is decidedly ambiguous in its meaning. At any rate, since he died in 1921, one could argue that he didn't live long enough to see the initial "promise" of that revolution destroyed and betrayed, as his fellow poet Osip Mandelshtam did.

As for officially approved Soviet literature, 75-90 percent of it is utter crap (I'll make some important exceptions for writers like Mayakovsky, Ilya Ehrenburg, and some authors who were published during and after the Thaw period under Khrushchev). But just try to read Gladkov's execrable novel Cement. It's so bad it is unreadable. It only figures on graduate student reading lists at American universities today because of its historical value - much as Chernyshevskii's almost equally awful 19th-century novel, What Is to Be Done? survives on the same lists for the same reason.

[Elisabeth]

Stalin also had a political structure that he could manipulate, whilst Hitler   relied on his "cult" to do his bidding.
This is the way I see them. at least for now.
I firmly believe they both could have existed without the other.

Yeah, but heck, Robert, Stalin and Hitler wouldn't have been able to set the entire world on fire, i.e., start a new world war, without the help of each other. BFF.

And by the way, Hitler had a political structure every bit as or more complex than Stalin's. There's plenty of evidence that Hitler's ministries and the officials within them competed and vied with each other for political power and policy reasons - no evidence whatsoever that they were merely abject slaves of a "cult" centered around Der Fuehrer. The career of Albert Speer is testimony to that fact. As minister for armaments and munitions, by dint of his pure administrative genius, which was not always in line with Hitler's views or that of other government officials, he managed to prolong the war for an entire year. If not for Speer, World War II would probably have ended in 1944. (So I hope he's burning in hell right now, I truly do.)

[Robert_Hall]

I disagree, Elisabeth.  Hitler's "machine was purely his creation, whist Stalin used the one already in place.  Both were one-party states, but Stalin did allow more diversity, as I see it.  He was not nearly as dogmatic as Hitler.  Stalin did believe and sponsored world domination of  the ultimate communism- through  revolution and indoctrination, not war.  The Soviet Union  had enough territory of it's own  with it's own resources, so his aim was to protect his borders, not expand them. Hitler was the exact opposite. In that regard, Hitler  was far more cunning.  By "cult" I meant  what I said, Hitler had a personal following, why he could mesmerize an entire country into war I do not know. Of course  there was jealousy and  chess-boarding in his ranks, just like any  charismatic leader.  The closer to the throne, the more treacherous, so to speak.
 And, Stalin did not start WW2, he reacted to Hitler's actions.
 As for Speer, he did what he could for "the cause" but he did not create the situation, did he?  He also attoned for his actions, served his time and admitted guilt. Which is more that can be said of the  rest of the Nazi elite. And, one has to believe in hell to suffer from it, doesn't one?  I personally  am of the Andy Hamilton school of "Old Harry's Game"  Radio4 regulars would know what I am saying.......

[Elisabeth]

Robert, it's been proven by at least two historians (Gita Sereny, in her quite lengthy personal interviews with Speer before he died, and a scholar whose name now escapes me) that Speer lied and lied repeatedly under oath at Nuremberg about his knowledge both of Nazi slave labor (which he himself employed) and the extermination of the Jews. There's virtually no controversy about this issue any longer. It's an established fact - Speer knew everything, or almost everything, long before Nuremberg, and he lied about it at Nuremberg. Indeed, he was lying about it to the very end of his life. Whatever remorse he expressed was purely self-serving, a means of emotional and spiritual survival (oh, and let's not forget, at Nuremberg also physical survival, since he was facing a death sentence) by an ultimately very selfish, narcissistic, and overly ambitious man. Speer was completely incapable of confronting his own guilt in helping to both establish and maintain the Third Reich. Don't make excuses for someone just because he happened to be a genius, or a near genius.

[Elisabeth]

I disagree, Elisabeth.  Hitler's "machine was purely his creation, whist Stalin used the one already in place.  Both were one-party states, but Stalin did allow more diversity, as I see it.  He was not nearly as dogmatic as Hitler.  Stalin did believe and sponsored world domination of  the ultimate communism- through  revolution and indoctrination, not war.  The Soviet Union  had enough territory of it's own  with it's own resources, so his aim was to protect his borders, not expand them. Hitler was the exact opposite. In that regard, Hitler  was far more cunning.  By "cult" I meant  what I said, Hitler had a personal following, why he could mesmerize an entire country into war I do not know. Of course  there was jealousy and  chess-boarding in his ranks, just like any  charismatic leader.  The closer to the throne, the more treacherous, so to speak.
 And, Stalin did not start WW2, he reacted to Hitler's actions.

Robert, Stalin was power-mad and power-hungry. He built up and entire cult of personality around himself. I'm surprised you're not aware of this. In his famous 1956 speech Khrushchev actually termed it "the cult of personality." It was one of his strongest criticisms of Stalin as a political leader.

How you can say that Stalin did not intend to expand his borders when he managed to absorb the Baltic States as well as half of Poland merely by dealing with the devil (another devil) Hitler, is beyond me. He also declared war on Finland even before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But you don't want to get into that.

I do think it's a little weird that you're so pro-Communist, even pro-Stalinist. Do you know, the recent poll of Russian citizens as to who was the greatest Russian who ever lived had to be rigged, because Stalin was winning by a landslide? So the pollsters (i.e.., the government) fixed the votes in favor of Alexander Nevsky. As one of my friends put it, "The Russians are by nature still slaves. It's either Stalin, the greatest mass murderer in history except for Mao, or Alexander Nevsky, the Quisling of medieval Russia. Either way - slaves all the way."

This is more than a bit harsh, but there's a grain of truth in it. I can't imagine Americans voting for Jefferson Davis or Richard Nixon as the greatest American ever. I can't imagine Germans voting for Hitler as the greatest German ever. IMHO, Russians should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking of Stalin as a great Russian. He wasn't ethnically Russian anyway - and there's the rub - he was Georgian!

[Robert_Hall]

I am not justifying Speer. I just see him differently than you do. As for Stalin,  Kruschev used that as way to discredit him and his cronies, or what was left of them. Hitler actually had a large, loyal following whereas Stalin  ruled through fear and terror of  consequences. I know quite well his iconic  status of the war hero. My friends in Russia, although much to young to have lived under his rule, talk about him a lot,  just from what they learned in school and from their parents. I would not call it idolatry or even reverence.   Somewhat less than any of that

[RichC]

I do think it's a little weird that you're so pro-Communist, even pro-Stalinist. Do you know, the recent poll of Russian citizens as to who was the greatest Russian who ever lived had to be rigged, because Stalin was winning by a landslide? So the pollsters (i.e.., the government) fixed the votes in favor of Alexander Nevsky. As one of my friends put it, "The Russians are by nature still slaves. It's either Stalin, the greatest mass murderer in history except for Mao, or Alexander Nevsky, the Quisling of medieval Russia. Either way - slaves all the way."

This is more than a bit harsh, but there's a grain of truth in it. I can't imagine Americans voting for Jefferson Davis or Richard Nixon as the greatest American ever. I can't imagine Germans voting for Hitler as the greatest German ever. IMHO, Russians should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking of Stalin as a great Russian. He wasn't ethnically Russian anyway - and there's the rub - he was Georgian!

I've also heard the slavery slam made against Russians.  A former professor of mine claims that the Russians are the only nation in history, to this day, to truly enslave their own people.  Other countries have had slavery, but there was always some distinction between the enslaved and the masters.  Not the case in Russia. 

As for Nevsky, this same professor thinks he was a traitor to his own people!

[Zvezda]

How you can say that Stalin did not intend to expand his borders when he managed to absorb the Baltic States as well as half of Poland merely by dealing with the devil (another devil) Hitler, is beyond me.

It's worth remembering that Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania became part of Russia between 1720-95. Moreover, Soviet rule in these regions had precedence. Soviet power was established in Estonia on the same day as in Petrograd. After the German occupation ended, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania again became soviet in December 1918. Soviet power was overthrown in these states as a result of aggression by the Germans, Entente, and the Russian White Guard. They separated not because of their peoples' national desires, but as a consequence of the Civil War and foreign military intervention. Stalin's desire to restore soviet power in these areas was hardly expansionist. The same is true with Poland's former eastern provinces such as Lvov, Ivano-Frankovsk, etc in which Ukrainians and Byelorussians were the majority. Poland came to rule these areas as a result of Pilsudski's policy of aggression against Ukraine and Byelorussia.

He also declared war on Finland even before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But you don't want to get into that.

The Soviet-German non-aggression pact was signed in August 1939 while the Soviet-Finnish war broke out at the end of November 1939. Soviet policy towards Finland was hardly expansionist, for there was no desire to establish soviet power in the country.

I can't imagine Americans voting for Jefferson Davis or Richard Nixon as the greatest American ever. I can't imagine Germans voting for Hitler as the greatest German ever. IMHO, Russians should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking of Stalin as a great Russian. He wasn't ethnically Russian anyway - and there's the rub - he was Georgian!

Stalin's role in Russian history can be compared to that of Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt in America. He is adored by many Russians for the same why Churchill is beloved in the Anglo-American bloc. It is grotesque and ludicrous to overlook Stalin's accomplishments and reduce his memory to a macabre tally shee of crimes. Demonizers of Stalin are no better than his cultists. Westerners' opinion of Stalin is tainted by Cold War demonization of Russia that started with Truman. And I don't see what relevance Stalin's ancestry had. He may have been and raised in the Caucasian provinces, but he spent most of his life in Moscow. Remember that Russian political leaders started with Catherine II were of predominantly German ancestry.

greatest mass murderer in history except for Mao

It is offensive for you to slander Mao Zedong as a mass murderer. Chinese people honor the legacy of Mao Zedong.

Alexander Nevsky, the Quisling of medieval Russia

It's worth noting that if not for Eisenstein's film, Nevsky would be seen as an obscure figure in Russian history.

[antti]

Unbelievable reasoning from you Zvezda and Robert After reading some of your posts I really thank the God that my grandparents generation stopped the evil forces of Stalin and his red army 1940 and again in 1944. If Soviet Union would have concurred Finland perhaps I would writing here about happy times in collective farm. ( most propably my family would have been killed to a last member).

[Zvezda]

or Alexander Nevsky, the Quisling of medieval Russia.

Alexander Nevsky showed himself to be a careful and farsighted politician. He rebuffed attempts of the Papal Curia to provoke a war between Russia and the Golden Horde, because he understood that war with the Mongols was bound to be unsuccessful. His skilful policy helped prevent destructive Mongol raids against Russia. On several occasions he was able to free Russians from the obligation to serve in the armed forces of the Mongol khans. Nevsky devoted much energy to strengthening the office of grand prince to the detriment of the power of the boyars.

But just try to read Gladkov's execrable novel Cement. It's so bad it is unreadable. It only figures on graduate student reading lists at American universities today because of its historical value - much as Chernyshevskii's almost equally awful 19th-century novel, What Is to Be Done? survives on the same lists for the same reason.

Gladkov’s “Cement” is an account of the heroic accomplishments of the working people and portrayed the Social Democrats’ inspiring ideas. Gorky valued Cement highly. He noted that the book illuminated the most important theme of the times—labor.

The novel “What is to be Done?” by Chernysehvsky is one of the finest works in Russian literature. The characters include Rakhmetov, the first professional revolutionary in literature and Vera Pavlovna, a progressive woman who devotes her life to socially useful work. The novel popularized the ideas of women’s equality and artel production. It is a synthesis of the author’s political and philosophical views and provides a plan of action for progressive youth. The novel had a great effect on Russian society and contributed to the education of many revolutionaries.