Who Are Fascists?

[DaShi]

Stalin was the greatest American ever!

[BeBro]

GePap:

Originally posted by GePap
And what is the stalinist ideology besides complete totalitarian control of society?

Stalinist regimes are never big fans of helping spread revolution, so yes, the USSR under Stalin spread its ideology to border states-but not for ideological reasons, but for practical reasons (as in, no armies from Eastern europe invading Russia any time soon)

The USSR spread communist ideology over eastern europe, and installed stalinist regimes for the main purpose of stabilizing the Soviet rule over these countries, and degraded this countries to colony-clones. This is IMO imperialist behaviour, because I would rather follow theories about imperialism which see the main point of imperialism in the factor of political rule, and not in the economical aspects.

I don't understand what you mean with "stalinist ideology" - at the time after WWII when Stalin ruled, his stalinist version did stand for the communist ideology. Stalin defined himself as communist. You can make a point that his system is not pure communism, but in praxis this does not play a role - it was in place when he ruled, and it was enforced by the USSR in eastern european countries.

Yes, establishing communist/stalinist satellites had the effect of making the USSR less vulnerable to attacks. But we can argue back and forth if that was a side effect, or the main intention (that to Che´s cause and effect argument). I could say the security aspect is secondary, because it could have been reached otherwise, eg. with a neutral, unified Germany not locked into one military block, which was on the table for a time after WWII (and yes, here we also could discuss whether the west or the USSR drove the split-up of Germany more forward). I also could say both sides - the west and the USSR - miscalculated the will of the other side to go into a new war in europe soon after WWII.

Che:

The leaders of the KPD were unsure of themselves, and went to ask the Commintern whether they should go forward (they should have). Lenin was suffering from a stroke and unable to help them. Trotsky said, I need more information to analyze your situation. Stalin said, no, the time is not right. The world could have been such a different place but for that.

Improbable. Stalin did not kill it, he just realized it would be a failure, and feared international complications. Therefore the politbureau was against an open engagement of Trotzki and Sinovjev in that question. So it had nothing to do with "killing" revolutions outside the USSR.

The Soviet Unions spent many more billions on rebuilding and economically developing Eastern Europe than they ever saw in repatriated "profits." Eastern Europe was an economic drain on the USSR.

How many more billions did they spend in your opinion? And how much did they gain from controlling the entire eastern block, being over several decades the only source for certain resources and certain products for the satellite states?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DaShi
Stalin was the greatest American ever!

Word

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I smell a National Holiday.

(What better way to ensure sloth and unproductivity)

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro
GePap:

The USSR spread communist ideology over eastern europe, and installed stalinist regimes for the main purpose of stabilizing the Soviet rule over these countries, and degraded this countries to colony-clones. This is IMO imperialist behaviour, because I would rather follow theories about imperialism which see the main point of imperialism in the factor of political rule, and not in the economical aspects.

Have I challenged this notion?

Yes, establishing communist/stalinist satellites had the effect of making the USSR less vulnerable to attacks. But we can argue back and forth if that was a side effect, or the main intention (that to Che´s cause and effect argument). I could say the security aspect is secondary, because it could have been reached otherwise, eg. with a neutral, unified Germany not locked into one military block, which was on the table for a time after WWII (and yes, here we also could discuss whether the west or the USSR drove the split-up of Germany more forward). I also could say both sides - the west and the USSR - miscalculated the will of the other side to go into a new war in europe soon after WWII.

Germany was not the only problem- Poland went to war with the Soviets all the way back to 1920. Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia all participated openly with the Nazi invasion of the USSR, with Romania and Hungary providing significant forces to the invasion.

The question is, IF Stalin had any intentions of spreading Communism due to some ideological belief, why did he stiffle Communists in Greece, Italy, France and so forth int he late 40's?

Germany had been the one to invade, but the new Eastern European states would also be anti-Russian, as they had been PRIOR to HItler's rise.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
If Stalin had allowed a communist revolution to take place in Germany would that not simply mean that the French and British would have paraded through Berlin, say within a few months?

Neither Britain nor France were in any position to invade Germany. They were forced to abnadon their invasions of Russia partially due to antiwar and anti-interventionist sentiment back home. I doubt the people of Britain and France would permit a resumption of WWI only five years after it ended. Furthermore, a revolution in Germany would have sparked unrest elsewhere, just as the Russian Revolution did. Britain and Frane would more likely have been too busy just trying to avoid revolution themselves than trying to overthrown Germany's.

BeBro, when it came to what was likely to work or fail when it came to revolution, he was a 100% failure. Everything he touched died. If Stalin thought the German Revolution would have failed, then most likely it would have succeeded.

[Tripledoc]

So the conclusion is that stalin was a peacenik.

Now about those fascist...

[BeBro]

Originally posted by GePap

Have I challenged this notion?

I just felt the need to explain myself better

Germany was not the only problem- Poland went to war with the Soviets all the way back to 1920. Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia all participated openly with the Nazi invasion of the USSR, with Romania and Hungary providing significant forces to the invasion.

Yes, but Germany was of course the main threat, in 1945 those other countries alone would not pose a serious threat to the USSR anytime soon. Also, Stalin could have negotiated a certain status for these countries with the west too. So security-wise I don't see a striking reason to install stalinist regimes there, and these countries would be under Soviet influence anyway, even when not directly ruled from Moscow (which was more or less the case). The pure fact that they are bordering a (soon nuclear) superpower would limit their actions.

The question is, IF Stalin had any intentions of spreading Communism due to some ideological belief, why did he stiffle Communists in Greece, Italy, France and so forth int he late 40's?

I would say because he was aware that a non-stalinist version of communism would be a threat to his own rule once established in western europe. That is just my personal impression - I would have to read more to back this up. But for now it seems to make some sense. So I think he was all for spreading his own system, but against communist movements he could not control.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro

Yes, but Germany was of course the main threat, in 1945 those other countries alone would not pose a serious threat to the USSR anytime soon. Also, Stalin could have negotiated a certain status for these countries with the west too. So security-wise I don't see a striking reason to install stalinist regimes there, and these countries would be under Soviet influence anyway, even when not directly ruled from Moscow (which was more or less the case). The pure fact that they are bordering a (soon nuclear) superpower would limit their actions.

Well, first of all, the nuclear equation was meaningless at the point (all of this happening prior to 1949). As for the notion of direct rule- not safe enough. history is repleat with cases where one power believed some state to be subservient, and in the end getting stabbed in the back. And there was no reason for these states to naturally be under Soviet influence-at best they would lean towards a neutral Germany simply due to the size of the economies, but they would be anti-Communist and thus anti-USSR, and thus probalby at the end seek thier security with the UK and the US (just as between the wars they sought security with the UK and France). The Soviets were not willing to take the chance, so they decided to take over directly.

[chequita guevara]

Germany was supposed to be disarmed before. Granted, the Soviets helped them rearm, but still . . . after so many invasions in such a short period o time, the Soviets weren't going to be content with a nuetral zone, especially with an American general loudly proclaiming his desire to attack the USSR.

Hell, Germany was supposed to be disarmed after WWII, and yet the West rearmed it.

[Tripledoc]

Patton, a Fascist? No way!

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Hell, Germany was supposed to be disarmed after WWII, and yet the West rearmed it.

Was it not so that after the War Stalin demanded that 100.000 German officers be summarily shot. Understandable, since the USSR had lost 30 million lives or so. Yet Churchill found this an abhorant idea. I can understand this from a humanitarian perspective, however Churchill had not exactly been the good samaritan with his policy of carpet bombing the workers quarters of the German industrial cities.

So the lives of German officers was more valuable than that of the German workers. It was not humanitarian perspectives which drove Churchill to that conclusion I think. Not that I blame him.

However freeing up forces in protecting Germany, by allowing rearmament, England could shift forces to the Middle East and elsewhere, to protect it from American and Communist backed nationalist independence movements.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by GePap

Well, first of all, the nuclear equation was meaningless at the point (all of this happening prior to 1949).

Not when we speak about the entire process leading to two German states - both were founded in autumn 1949. But you have a point in so far that this development which is basically a result of the hostility between the former allies of WWII started years earlier.

However, I personally would include later developments too, because even after Stalin, the USSR enforced its rule of eastern europe (if neccessary they let the tanks roll), so it is not only a question of Stalinism. For me it is not only important that the USSR established their rule after 45, but also that it later oppressed anything that could lead to the slightest changes in the status quo, even when it was not at all "capitalist", like Prague 1968.

As for the notion of direct rule- not safe enough. history is repleat with cases where one power believed some state to be subservient, and in the end getting stabbed in the back. And there was no reason for these states to naturally be under Soviet influence-at best they would lean towards a neutral Germany simply due to the size of the economies, but they would be anti-Communist and thus anti-USSR, and thus probalby at the end seek thier security with the UK and the US (just as between the wars they sought security with the UK and France). The Soviets were not willing to take the chance, so they decided to take over directly.

I wouldn't be so sure about anti-communism. Communists were part of many elected governments in the west after WWII, because people associated them with the resistance against Nazi Germany. Similar things could happen in eastern europe.

And the Soviets didn't go for direct rule in case of Finland, despite the country fought with Germany as well. Still, Finland didn't turn into a threat afterwards, they even had treaties with the USSR regarding mutual support, and they bought sometimes weapons from the USSR (like MiG fighters).

About the size of the German economy: 1945 it was next to non-existent, and any help for economic recover, like the ERP, could well be coupled with political pressure. Also, other countries in Europe, esp. France feared a new economically strong Germany as well, so the initial steps to the European integration were aimed to control Germany's economy to some extent, which lead to the so-called montan union between six euro states including Germany, although a bit later (in 1952).

Thing is, you cannot take these developments out of context, and you cannot speak of Germany 45-49 as an independant state which had control over its own policies, economy etc. The two German states were not much more souvereign in those aspects for a long time after 1949. So any status of Germany depended on the will of the Allies, so it could be negotiated between the USSR and the west.

[Serb]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes. Just keep in mind many of us have a low opinion of Stalin and Stalinism. But it's an all-points-of-view-among-commies party.

Cool. Consider I'm in (everyone think that I am a redass commie anyway).