Is there A SINGLE FUCKING THING this guy did right...

Most u.s. presidents are only upper middle class.

>Industrialized the USSR in just 20 years unlike the Tsars who couldn't achieve that in over a century
>Unlike Hitler, he didn't interfere with his generals during WW2
>Towns all over the USSR had powerplants and new factories meant more jobs
And much, much more
He ascended to power in a weak, backwards country and turned it into an industrial powerhouse.

Napoleon and Hitler fell victim to Globalism where a bunch of other powers gang up on one guy to take them down, also stupidity, invading Russia.

Stalin only avoided this, because Europe was in no shape to try to take down Russia, and because once it theoretically could, Russia had Nukes.

Also, Napoleon like Hitler was garbage at the whole diplomacy thing. Should have listened to Talleyrand.

That said Hitler is a remarkably mediocre leader in comparison to Napoleon - were it not for his genocidal policies he'd be about as remembered in the popular consciousness as Kaiser Wilhelm.

>Hitler fell victim to Globalism
>Antagonizes several other nations
>doesn't expect them to get pissed

Autism is the Germanic curse.

I didn't say they didn't have it coming, but neither Hitler or Napoleon seemed to realize that it was no longer the day of Charlemagne, and that you couldn't just create new Empires anymore.

>Napoleon and Hitler fell victim to Globalism
>were it not for his genocidal policies he'd be about as remembered in the popular consciousness as Kaiser Wilhelm

Two different posts, apparently

>Napoleon and Hitler fell victim to Globalism

Well, they did

In the sense that they got the world to unite against them

Alliance networks aren't globalism. They've existed since the dawn of man. That's like saying the Assyrians fell victim to Globalism when 10 tribes decided to tear them a new asshole.

Napoleon and Hitler were different, as they involved very foreign endeavors, counting the Naval Battles, rather than immediate neighbors.

Stalin was probably the most evil man to ever live. Hitler at least got followers by doing some good things for his people. Stalin ruled entirely though fear

Even most of lefty pol hates the guy and his fans

found the eternal fascist.

Stalin also sort of weaseled his way into the top.

Not that Trotsky would have been any better.

>When you unironically see Trotsky quotes placed on Campus

Also

>when you invade Poland just like Hitler did but no one really seems to care for some reason

They used Poland as an excuse to start war with Germany, because it was growing too powerful, and it was clear they weren't going stop at Poland or comply with sanctions set out against invading Poland.

Nobody gave a toss about the Sovereignty of Poland.

Jokes on them, once Europe falls to Islam, the Slav will be able to take over once and for all.

>Burger education
Stalin was incredibly popular with the common folk (and across the left internationally) right up until his death.

The shift towards "Stalin is satan" came with Khrushchev's secret speech which was used to justify changes in Soviet policy.

>I want to execute people holocaust style... lets freeze them to death and enforce cannibalizm instead of just executing them

And this is supposed to be a bad thing how? Working your undesirables to death is far more economic than wasting valuable resources in gassing them.

>Stalin was incredibly popular with the common folk (and across the left internationally) right up until his death.

Because of propaganda and the fact that they had no actual what uncle joe was doing.

>Because of propaganda and the fact that they had no actual what uncle joe was doing
Nah, it had more to do with the GPW.

Nah, there was just enormous improvements in literally all fields of Russian society.

He's your typical great man modernizer who even after decades of Russia trying to demonize him is still held in high regard by large chunks of the populace.

Not to say "Stalin dindu nuffin" of course it's just that the burger narrative of Stalin being Satan is completely at odds with the opinions of those who lived under him and the idea that Hitler was better to his people is fucking insane.

Hitler still has massive support among old farts in Germany and Austria, that doesn't make him a good leader.

Pol Pot edges him out on that I think. Stalin at least you can say he industrialized the Soviet Union. All Pol Pot gave Cambodia was empty cities and most of its population dead.
For the soviet masses you had absolutely no choice in worshipping Stalin until he died considering you'd get shipped to a gulag otherwise, so I'm not sure how we can truly rate his domestic popularity. As for internationally the true depths of crazy shit Stalin was pulling didn't come out until Khrushchev's secret speech. Until then he was supported thanks to misguided tribalism for the only socialist state, Soviet control of the tankies of the international Communist parties, and the fact the USSR was part of the Allies during WW2.

>and across the left internationally
There's a book on this topic somewhere, on leftist intellectuals studying russia while their counterparts were being imprisoned and censored

>Wages and their value were relatively stable in the Stalin years.
How do you know this? Soviet Union literally made up all their statistics. For example

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#/media/File:Graph_of_Soviet_National_Income_Growth.png

lol mustache daddy was based af.

OP's holodomor bullshit belongs on /pol/.

>Holodomor
>Bullshit
THEFUCK you mean

Only Neonazis believe in the Holodomor, because it was orchestrated by Jews, and Jews would never do something like that.

Have you noticed that every vowel in Holodomor is O? That can't be coincidental.

>Australia
>Canada
>Neonazi
O wiat I forgot

>He ascended to power in a weak, backwards country and turned it into an industrial powerhouse.

When will this meme die?

yeah but kulaks tho
t. tankie

Stopped meddling in the war once the 1942 spring offensive failed.

Are you implying it is not true?

what about forcing them at gunpoint to try and live on an island with no food or shelter during winter and no items, 6,000 people at a time.

> Russian Empire
> weak, backwards country

>fleet size shows how advanced a country is
Most of those ships were built in France or in the British empire

Yeah... Like Stalin industry was build by americans.

>Like Stalin industry was build by americans
What? Are you talking about land-lease?

>everything yugoslavia
You mean nothing?

Don't marshal plan desu senpai

Someone please post that greentext about the Russian fleet moving from the Baltic to the Pacific.

>we are being nvaded and our nation has been ravaged by war? Sounds like a good time to genocide hundreds of thousands of people
Are you talking about Holodomor? He didn't really need to care about the lives of farmers to stay in power, the backbone of his powerbase was urban, you know, like factory workers and such.
>I want to execute people holocaust style... lets freeze them to death and enforce cannibalizm instead of just executing them
If you mean the gulags, we now know from the records most of them left those places alive.
>genocided jews because why the fuck not
He may have been anti-semitic personally, but it's not like he targeted people based on ethnicity.
>genocide communists and socialists because fuck you
There were divisions within the politburo. He effectively destroyed his opposition. That said, there weren't enough politicians and bureaucrats for the process to be called a "genocide".

>but it's not like he targeted people based on ethnicity.

Yes he did

>Don't marshal plan desu senpai
huh?

>He fell for the propaganda.

Kek, brainlets.

I stand corrected. So, besides moving people around, he did prosecute jewish intelectuals I see.

And he also bought into the "international jewry" conspiracy.

You say it like it's not real

According to J Arch Getty large chunks of the Secret speech are total b.s. Or if you want to go full dindu according to Grover Furr everything in it is b.s.

Stalin is perhaps one of the worst historical figures to attempt to have a nuanced discussion about.

His rule is simply too politicized and anything outside the narrative of "evil genocidal maniac who stumbled into power and irrationally murdered everyone" is dismissed as being too sympathetic. Worse is the fact that anyone can make any baseless claim and people are completely inclined to believe provided it matches up with the "Hitler 2.0" narrative.

Speaking of which, in academic discussions, even Hitler is entitled to greater nuance.

>the korean air war fuckups
The Korean War was fucking brilliant though, because every major combatant, including the U.S. Thought he was their best friend in the commie bloc.

>Muh Industrialization, muh backwards tsar

Literally bullshit. In fact, one of the drivers of German belligerence at the start of the first world war is that Russia was rapidly modernizing. The high command was estimating that 1914 was Germany's last chance to impose hegemony on Eastern and Central Europe. If they waited as long as 1918, Russia would have transitioned to a fully industrialized nation with a modern military; an existential threat to the encircled Germans

He was a terrible person and as a ruler killed tens of millions of his own people. His country was much stronger after his rule than before it, but thats more in spite of Stalin and not because of him.

>>genocided jews because why the fuck not
>>genocide communists and socialists because fuck you

Those

But he also spread communism and took over half of Europe

...

>Unlike Hitler, he didn't interfere with his generals
Jesus, this "Hitler was militarily incompetent and his generals would've won without him" meme truly is the most retarded meme of all.

It's always used by people who know jack shit about WW2 but want to sound learned.

Great meme.

Khrushchev's rule is probably what signified the beginning of the end desu.

If stalin was in charge instead of khrushchev during the cuban missle crisis, world war 3 would have happened

You assume the cuban missile crisis would have happened under Stalin. Any small number of variables could have created a completely different set of circumstances.

Engaging in "what ifs" is probably one of the stupidest ways to study history. There are no "what ifs" we can only analyze what actually happened.

>but hey the past is a foreign country, they do things differently.
not really. the idea of the rule of law existed back then without fear of arbitrary arrest. the bolsheviks were coercive because they chose to rule that way

you mean deluded Wehr/OKWaboos

The bolsheviks did not choose to rule that way. They explicitly made people afraid of arbritrary arrest.

What a load of bullshit propoganda

Also, a guy cut in line in front of me at the grocery store, am I a victim of genocide now? The term's use on this board is becoming looser and looser. The only genocide that the USSR can be even accused of is the Holodomor and even that doesn't qualify to the majority of historians.

>deport the entire country of Chechnya to Siberia
>not an act of genocide
>completely destroy the Sudetenland
>not a genocide

Are you implying that an "evil genocidal maniac who stumbled into power and irrationally murdered everyone" is not an accurate description of him?

Won WW2?

He didn't stumble into that shit, he murdered his way into power like a proper Russian.

>and even that doesn't qualify to the majority of historians.
Source?

I thought he had/has a lot of fans in Russia because he industrialized Russia and made it into a superpower, when before it was a backwards feudal society

He has them for sure.

>rapidly
Low base effect.

Not him but in academic studies of the Soviet Union there is a debate as to what happened in Ukraine can constitute "genocide".

In popular consciousness Holodmor is treated as an explici genocide i.e. in this narrative the soviets consciously worked to starve the Ukrainians.

In academic studies the idea that it was orchestrated is generally rejected and is instead seen as a product of natural famine and negligence/mismanagement by the Soviets. The debate is then as to how much of it was avoidable and whether this can constitute genocide.

Following the genocide train of logic then similar events such as the Irish potato famine and the 1940s famine in India could be seen as acts of genocide caused by the British. Truth be told "genocide" has become more of a political tool than an academic term.

Yeah, but a source?

Yeah, forced relocation is not genocide. Its a human rights violation, but not a genocide you dumbshit

>attempt to eliminate an ethnicity
>not the definition of genocide

You want the source for a debate that rages in academia?

Look up stuff by J. Arch Getty and his debates with Robert Conquest.

No, I want a source for this
>that doesn't qualify to the majority of historians.

I've read a lot of history books on Russia and had 3 college courses on it. All of which talked about the incident, none of which suggested that it was by any means intentional or a genocide. Which is not to say I havent read sources that support that it was. Its a debated subject, thats why it doesnt qualify.

For reference if anyone's interested in the history of the Soviet Union and wants non-partisan Cold War style analysis I'd recommend reading J. Arch Getty, Sarah Davies and James Harris.

Oh, well that wasn't me. I can't say I know the what the majority of Soviet historians say.

Truth be told most books on Soviet history (in the West at least) play to the totalitarian empire narrative simply because it sells more books. The higher up the academic chain you go the more nuanced it gets.

You'd have to learn russian to understand all this. Post-soviet community of historians is self-sufficient, not many of them have a passion to be published in "Annales", that's why they don't write many english articles

Nearly half of the total Chechen population have died as a result of deportation. NKVD set a deliberately harsh conditions for Chechens, which makes the deportation fall under the legal definition of genocide.

So, they should have been left untouched even after they have supported nazis and after many chechens deserting from the army/avoiding the conscription?

>the entire ethnic group should have been genocided because some of its members have supported the Nazis

Yeah, those tens of thousands of children that have starved to death on the road to Siberia totally deserved it!

>NKVD set a deliberately harsh conditions for Chechens
Nah, the conditions were just harsh in of themselves.

It was WWII. The Nazis were invading and destroying everything. People truly underestimate the hell that was the eastern front.

They were Not thats a myth
Whend the german army was at the gates of moskow some oficials came to stalins villa to ask him for orders (to retreat or to stay in moskow) Stalin later wrote in his diarys he though the officials came to his house to execute him

>forced relocation is not genocide

Andrew Jackson spotted. Dead historical figures aren't allowed on Veeky Forums, reported.

>One million Soviet soldiers were BTFO while Army Group North encircled Leningrad
>Siege of Leningrad was so bad and impenetrable that 600,000 civilians die, and many resort to cannibalism
>400,000 more civilians die during the evacuations
>NKVD then arrests and kills a few thousand civilians who had to resort to cannibalism

Wait, doesn't the fact that they didn't arrest and execute him prove that they indeed were a bunch of spineless cucks?