Allies and Soviets should not be a single command

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

The stalking off comment was in reference to another comment on another thread, because after all, this thread doesn't exist in a vacumn.

Generally when I make a remark, I am speaking after having seen nuumerous comments that I take as a whole.

I have for instance noticed two threads that were recently locked.

And additionally, I have noticed over the past, that one line of thinking often will span several threads (due to the predictable desire of ordinary people have the equally ordinary desire, to pursue a personal viewpoint).

Which accounts for my post preceeding this one, having comments, that might not be entirely exclusive to this thread.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

I think that this should be a selectable option. You get to choose if you control them or not. Good idea? Bad idea>

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b:

In Axis and Allies the consensus of friends, is defaulting the Russian player to the US player in a 4 person game is not only stupid, but makes a shambles of portraying the real world friction of the time (then again, you can't let the Brit run them eh).

Trouble is, with only 4 players, you are stuck putting the Axis as one player (oh well, so one side is an over worked player, next time find a 5th player ).

So you've never thought of combining the US and UK into one player in a 4 player game?

[JerseyJohn]

Agreed fully with the original point that seperate Soviet and Anglo/American play would be best and more historical.

At various times during the Russian campaign there were thoughts of either a cease fire or an outright peace -- Stalin did not want to be bound by the Churchill/Roosevelt position of going for total victory.

It would probably be very hard to incorporate any of that in the game, however.

Were it possible for the USSR to have a seperate peace treaty, should it then go to neutral or random? After Hitler's breaking of the ten year non-aggresion pact I doubt either side would have taken peace treaties very seriously.

The Axis command would also be more realistic if divided. Mussolini saw himself as conducting a seperate war from Germany in which Italy took the Riviera, Yugoslavia, Greece, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and the Sudan. His grand design remained unspoiled by any hint of Italian victories anywhere!

-- -- -- --

An early 1940 evaluation regarding Italy's possible entry into the war:

"If they remain neutral we'll need one infantry division to watch the Alps; if they join Briton we'll need two divisions to hold the Alps; if they join us we'll need twelve divisions to hold Italy."

-- Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt

[EB.]

See--Jersey John offers some constructive comments just like I hoped for. By basic original point was that combining the Allies and Soviets into a single human player just is not realistic.

Also, it has always been my understanding that the Allies sought to minimize their own casualties while allowing the Soviets to do most of the fighting. That doesn't seem controversial at all to me, as the evidence is so overwhelming. I can think of many examples from documents by FDR, Churchill, their generals, even Truman. It doesn't seem even arguable to me, in fact. Otherwise, why didn't the Allies land in France in 1942 or even 1943 instead of well into 1944? Obviously because they were afraid of casualties. Surely nobody in the West seriously doubts this, do you? If so, then I wonder what reasons have convinced you otherwise.

Also, I refuse to be bullied into submission. Too many times, we have had to listen to the old western line about "crazy Stalin making irrational, idiotic, disastrous decisions". Instead of mindlessly repeating this nonsense, I have carefully researched over many years beginning from the basic premise of "well, if the decisions of Stalin were so crazy, then why did he win?" Piece by piece, our people have all gone through the same kind of analysis, which is why most of our citizens have a very positive view about Stalin and his role as leader in our history. You can deny this in your minds, but it still exists. I mean, when they are rebuilding Stalin monuments throughout the cities of Russia on these very weeks, then mine are obviously not isolated opinions. Some friends say that it is silly to bother trying to explain things to you all in the West, but it has greatly puzzled me how you can say so many things about the history of the war which are completely contradicted by the course of history in the war. On a theoretical level, many of the things said by my opponents seem to make perfect sense and may have even turned out to be correct--that is, if we were arguing in 1941. But now that the war is over and all of the theories and arguments against Stalin were disproven by actual events, then how can you still believe the original points? Just like in science--you can come up with any hypothesis you want, but if it does not stand up to testing and experimentation, then the hypothesis fails. Take the Purges, for example. It is SO fahionable to attack the purges as a mistake. The argument is that the purges weakened the Red Army. If this were true, then the Soviets would have lost and lost badly. As this was not the case, then obviously the original hypothesis is wrong and the new hypothesis is :"the purge removes disloyalty from the army and therefore strengthens the army". Again, if you were right, then we would have lost, but we won, so you must be wrong. Plus, I never say anything that is not backed up by careful thought and research. I don't just read books uncritically, either--I look into the original documents which are very often ignored by even the "best" experts.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Mussolini saw himself as conducting a seperate war from Germany in which Italy took the Riviera, Yugoslavia, Greece, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and the Sudan.

You should add Switzerland to that list. In 1940, Mussolini was originally planning to invade Switzerland, Yugoslavia, and Greece simultaneously; before finally settling on just Greece after he was told he didn't have enough manpower to invade all 3 countries at once.

Given the historical Italian performance in Greece, it's amusing to imagine what would have happened if Mussolini went with his original plan.

[Melchett]

Originally posted by EB.:

The argument is that the purges weakened the Red Army. If this were true, then the Soviets would have lost and lost badly. As this was not the case, then obviously the original hypothesis is wrong

Might want to re-phrase this a bit -- the hypothesis doesn't state "if you purge, you will lose". This is like hypothesizing "chopping off a healthy limb is not a good idea", and subsequently concluding "I chopped off my arm and I'm still alive, so the hypothesis is false".

If you're going to invoke the Scientific Method, it's vital to play by the rules. In this case, the critical step that was skipped is the one after you've got the hypothesis (purge weakens army) and you've come up with an experiment (fight a war). The next step is to ask yourself "does the experiment truly test the hypothesis?". In this case, no.

The western powers fell into this same trap after World War One. Because they had won the war, they told themselves "because we won, our hypotheses about the supremacy of fixed defenses are thus proven correct." The Germans, of course, had a different opinion...

[ October 18, 2002, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Melchett ]

[EB.]

Melchett: thanks for your comments--you are very correct on scientific method. If I had typed for a few more minutes, I would have pointed out that when you study the war in great detail, you can see many instances where disloyalty produces defeat and where the removal of disloyal officers prevented units from surrender. For our analysis, the perfect example of the dangers of NOT purging a military of disloyal elements is the case of France where treacherous elements surrendered to the enemy without much of a fight--specifically, Petain and his companions, who for their treachery were allowed to have power in Vichy France. Now in the case of our country, you can see the case of Vlasov who actively collaborated with the Germans against our people. Make no mistake--he was a traitor in our eyes. Without a purge of the Red Army, there would have been countless more such traitors. In terms of politics, those officers purged were pro-Trotsky. They were against the Stalin regime and Stalin's industrialization drive. They refused to follow Stalin's orders and were in general very insubordinate. They wanted immediate militarization with light tanks in the early 1930's to face what they claimed was an imminent threat from outside--and they wanted this immediate militarization INSTEAD of the rapid industrialization of the country, which of course would have been a huge mistake when the actual war did come--no factories, no quantities of medium tanks, no victory. Every one of the officers shot was very specifically against Stalin and had wanted to remove Stalin by a coup. This was will understood at the time by EVERYONE, especially by the enemies of Stalin--the only way to remove him and to reverse his policies was a military move by Tukhachevsky against Stalin. So Stalin saw this and counter-moved against it. If he had not done so, then he would have been shot himself and his policies reversed, leading to the defeat of our country. The Germans had the same analysis of the purge as is fashionable in the West now--namely, that it was a mistake which weakened the Red Army, and that it would only take a kick to bring the whole "house of cards" tumbling down. Interesting hypothesis, but as they found out, they were wrong. In the end, Hitler saw that the greatest mistake of his life was his failure to purge the German military; he said that he envied the "bolshevik" army which had loyalty and acted like a single will. Instead, Hitler himself almost was removed by his disloyal officers.

Anyway, I agree that any hypothesis should be tested to the extreme. Of course the key fact in this process should always be the eventual Soviet victory. If you want to learn how to win, then don't just listen to the losers and discount the winners' moves. Massive victories like in VOV / WW2 don't happen by accident but as the result of years of careful, wise decisions.

[dgaad]

Nice attempt, Melchett. Futile, but nice.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

In terms of politics, those officers purged were pro-Trotsky. . . . Every one of the officers shot was very specifically against Stalin and had wanted to remove Stalin by a coup. This was will understood at the time by EVERYONE, especially by the enemies of Stalin--the only way to remove him and to reverse his policies was a military move by Tukhachevsky against Stalin. So Stalin saw this and counter-moved against it. If he had not done so, then he would have been shot himself and his policies reversed, leading to the defeat of our country

Truely amazing, isn't it folks?

[Zeres]

Dgaad it is truly amazing. I have to admit that I find your exchanges with EB the best things on this board. I find EB's perspective quite unusual and it's hard to believe some of his statements could be anything but a piss take..I have this vision in my head of EB with a big picture of Stalin above his fireplace. (LOL) Say it ain't so!!! And Dgaad I've got to tell you, your a funny MF, man..Keep at him...Nobody does it better. Thanks guys, it makes for good reading.

[dgaad]

I have this vision of the son of an apparatchik who spent his childhood years playing with hundreds of little stick figures charging the fascist imperialist foe yelling oooRRAAAA-pobeidaaaaaaaa!!!! Currently residing in the squalor that is Kaluga, frustrated by the lack of jobs for True Believers, talking the ears off of anyone who doesn't think that Uncle Joe was, in fact, the closest thing to God on Earth. While he may not know it, he's the main reason Vladimir Zhirinovsky and the Russian LDP has only 1 remaining vote in the oblast.

[ October 19, 2002, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[Mike Oberly]

'Also, it has always been my understanding that the Allies sought to minimize their own casualties while allowing

the Soviets to do most of the fighting. '

There is no doubt that the Western Allies sought to minimize their own casualities,and it's equally obvious that the Soviets had very little concern for casualties.What that proves other than Stalin had little value for Russian lives,I have no idea.

I have to admit,it's incredible to watch someone try to defend Stalin's policies-I think EB may be somehow pulling people's leg here.If he's not,he is a seriously deluded individual.

[Ancient One]

Say what you will about Stalin, but it was his 5 year plans that made the USSR powerful. In spite of the severe hardship his people suffered, they were probably better off in the long run than they would be under German occupation, which is what would have happened if Stalin chose gentler methods to encourage modernization.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

Say what you will about Stalin, but it was his 5 year plans that made the USSR powerful. In spite of the severe hardship his people suffered, they were probably better off in the long run than they would be under German occupation, which is what would have happened if Stalin chose gentler methods to encourage modernization.

There are plenty examples of industrialization in history, and the level of industrialization in the Soviet Union in 1941 was of great assistance to providing the means for the people of the Soviet Union to eventually defeat the Nazi armies that invaded them.

The question is whether it was necessary to do things like outlaw private plot farming to do this. The question is whether it was necessary for 10 or 20 million people to die to achieve that industrialization.

I've read about the economic issues facing the Soviet Union in 1928-1930, and I frankly can't see the reason it was necessary to tear up 1/4 acre private plots that were worked during off hours simply to provide some extra vegetables for the family. I can't see why it was necessary for 3 or 4 million people to be sent to the Gulag to die a slow death. The economic plans of Bukharin, Zinoviev, and others, were likely to create as much heavy industrial capacity by 1941, certainly more personal wealth, and many more people still alive.

[ October 19, 2002, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[JerseyJohn]

AncientOne -- Agreed, Switzerland was always worried about an Italian invasion.

I get a laugh at the image of old Benito sauntering in to Hitler's HQ to make a personal surprise announcement, "Fuhrer, We are on the march!" heralding his "invasion" of Greece.

Meanwhile, it was the start of the rainy season in abyssmal terrain with an army in Albania that had actually been weakened to mislead Allied intelligence (like that mattered to the Greeks!) -- Add to which the fact that Hitler was at that very moment trying to form a series of Balkan alliances, including Greece and Yugoslavia, to cover his rear while he struck at Russia. I imagine him bent over a map cringing with Mussolini making his bombastic statement in the doorway.

I believe there was a single Italian victory against the British in East Africa, they overran a small Red Sea British holding and captured a British Camel unit en masse, much to Churchill's humiliation. Naturally, the whole Italian East African colony was doomed since they could never be resupplied while Britain held the Suez.

[dgaad]

The Italians occupied British Somaliland soon after the Italian declaration of war on June 14, 1940.

[JerseyJohn]

dgaad, as usual thanks for the info -- I was going nuts trying to remember which colony it was and hadn't gotten around to looking it up.

Haven't found much of any real use on Italy in the war but two books I like are (1) "Hitler's Italian Allies" by MacGregor Knox and (2) an older book from the sixties about the Ethiopian invasion "The Civilizing Mission" by A.J. Barker.

For me Mussolini and his bunch are the '62 Mets of WW II. Other nations fared just as badly, were crushed and conquered, but none of them went about it with such chest pounding and bombastics only to be decked by every little guy they tried to bully. There's something about them that's unique in all of history!

[EB.]

Ancient One: thank you for your comments which show a level of objectivity and respect for our people which I do not often find in the West. You have my respect.

Dgaad: It shows how far removed your mind is from current Russian politics that you think that Zhirinovsky is on our side. My God, he is one of our greatest enemies, an open agent of the current Mafia regime. Everybody in Russia knows that. And the LDP is nothing but a fabrication which exists only on paper. To think that he and Stalinists are on the same side in politics is absolutely ridiculous and far removed from reality. When you come to Russia, we will have to eat together at Moscow McDonald's and discuss how great capitalism is. Oops--too late for that.

Also, we have no fireplace here. But the portrait is there of course. And when I was a kid, we had no "stick figures" but little metal vehicles and men. I do not know what stick figures even means.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

Also, we have no fireplace here. But the portrait is there of course. And when I was a kid, we had no "stick figures" but little metal vehicles and men. I do not know what stick figures even means.

So, you are the son of an apparachik!

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by EB.

Ancient One: thank you for your comments which show a level of objectivity and respect for our people which I do not often find in the West

Then, you have not had great occasion to meet, and actually know very many Americans.

There surely are those who will mistrust Russia since it was the officially designated Creep-Show Ghost for lo these many long and tedious decades.

It is commonly understood that a power seeking Group requires its bellicose bogeys and simpering scapegoats. If not Russian, then China; or Iraq; or North Korea; or... O gosh almighty, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

Having come of age in the 50s and 60s, I was, as many of my generation, whipsawed between two mutually opposing views: 1) Red Menace will eat all and sundry, and not bother to apologize for the belch; and 2) Mao and Fidel and Che and others of revolutionary ilk were fighting the good fight for oppressed peoples everywhere.

Well, I personally have learned that NEITHER view has much lasting credence, though there are stalwart holdouts in each camp, no doubt.

For myself, I as American can associate with and care for whomever I please. This is NEVER a given -- we always, and then once again, need be alert to phony, rights-denying tyrants (these are not so helpful to incipient democracy, as the original Greek ones were), but reckon this my friend -- we will -- O yea indeed, we surely will. You are welcome here there or anywhere, as far as I am concerned.

Further, it is my ongoing respect for Russian artists that causes me to feel... ahem -- comradely in the first place.

Dostoevsky (there are various spellings, I appreciate, but I prefer this one) is without any doubt one of the 3 greatest writers who ever lived. There has been no dancer as scintillant and imaginative as Nijinsky.

The Russian poets are underappreciated and may yet gain more world renown. The ballet has been brilliant. And what makes all this elegant and artistic endeavor possible -- in my mind, the Russian people MUST have large and ALL encompassing souls, else the former Art could not have been accomplished.

So. Do not be so awful surprised that Russia (the folks, NOT the provisional governments... and, I by this I mean to say that EVERYTHING is provisional, from the quark in the attic to the steamer trunk in the basement) is held in high esteem by myself, and many others.... I won't speak for a single one of them, that would be reckless and arrogant.

Instead I myself being of clear and easy mind, say this: the World has grown infinitely smaller and terribly more vulnerable... it seems to me to be LONG past time to put away tribal defense-mechanisms and knee-jerk chauvanisms and commence the incredibly difficult task of making of our poor old Earth a decently livable place for -- each and every and all, yes?

[dgaad]

Immer Etwas : Surely in all your years you learned the difference between a True Believer and a critical thinker? The most eloquent appeals to reason, liberally sprinkled with respectful odes to the True Believer's belief or culture, can at best only result in politeness from them, not a recognition of the falsity of any of their dogma.

[JerseyJohn]

Extremely interesting thoughts from all the preceding posts -- Immer's entry about Russian writers, etc. is well taken -- also, Russian composers --Shostakovitch, Prokofieff, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Katchaturian and numerous others, not to mention pre-twentieth century Tchaikovsky, Mussorsky, Rimsky-Korsakoff, Borodin, etc. & etc.,--combined with outstanding figures in every form of creative art and the USSRs half century domination of International Chess (before which the world champion was a Russian emigree, Alexander Alejkhin), then there's Sergei Eisenstein and countless others, making it obvious that Russia has always been the nesting place of innumerable intellectuals and people of creative genius.

It's unfortunate that we who came of age in the 50s and 60s had to have so much of our character deformed by McCarthyism and the Cold War. There must have been a similar deformity for those who grew up in the former USSR.

Personally I find Stalinism hard to take but respect EBs statements in it's defense. I also enjoy dgaad's counter strokes, hopefully EB won't be offended by the satire because it's often very amusing. The AncientOne's observation about the Five Year Plans are also insightful.

Russia, having been completely torn apart three times in the twentieth century, was not likely to be led by a Thomas Jefferson, the leader had to be someone who clubbed his way to the top and was willing to keep clubbing those behind him before they clubbed him.

Lenin, Stalin & Trotsky are all interesting and meet the basic prerequisites but, of the three, Stalin, being the least idealistic, was probably most suited to retain power the longest and to exert the greatest influence. At least it wasn't someone like Berria who might have produced an equal or greater bloodbath with no positive results.

I've been led to believe Stalin was a sociopath and the very embodiment of the Anti-Christ. Sure, he built dams and industries and subways and helped modernise Russia, but was it really necessary to do it in such a brutal, murderous fashion? Was the death of untold millions some sort of requirement?

During the seventies and eighties I had occasion to know many Russian emigres, not all of them having left the USSR for religious reasons. One of them, a noncom during WWII, was suddenly sent to a penal battalion in 1943 for reasons never disclosed! He didn't speak much about his experiences but I noticed he didn't hate Stalin, which seemed incredible to me. Perhaps he didn't associate him with it. Leaders like Hitler and Stalin always seperate themselves from misdeeds while entwining themselves in the positive results.

Did circumstances dictate method? So much blood flowed during the revolution and afterwards that it seems hard to imagine a single man could have been responsible for all of it. But then, the same can be said of Hitler and the holocaust; I doubt we'll ever fully understand either tragedy.

I think it's unlikely that Americans who lived through four decades of Cold War can ever really understand the mind-set of people raised in a Stalinist society and probably the reverse is true as well.

At least in recent decades we in the West have been recoginzing that our own leaders and polices were often something less than altruistic. Not long ago such utterances were met with remarks like "My country right or wrong" and "Better Red than Dead." The one I used to always get was "If you think it's so bad over here you oughta go live over there!" And I, truthfully, was nobody's idea of a radical.

Most of the points I was making about American and British leaders involving shady policies are today thought of as regular history.

Anyway, it's good that we're openly exchanging our thoughts and phillosophies. A few weeks ago I didn't think anyone on earth would try to justify the purges and gulags, as always, being forced to re-examine long closed viewpoints has been a very beneficial experience.

---

Lady Astor to Winston Churchill, "If I were your wife that snifter would be filled with hemlock."

Churchill to Lady Astor, "Madam, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."

[ October 21, 2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[dougman4]

I like all Allied countries having the same turn. In my mind, this is a wonderful abstraction of the A&A rules which makes hotseating & PBEM move more quickly.

Good job, Hubert!

[dgaad]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Russia, having been completely torn apart three times in the twentieth century, was not likely to be led by a Thomas Jefferson, the leader had to be someone who clubbed his way to the top and was willing to keep clubbing those behind him before they clubbed him.

Lenin, Stalin & Trotsky are all interesting and meet the basic prerequisites but, of the three, Stalin, being the least idealistic, was probably most suited to retain power the longest and to exert the greatest influence. At least it wasn't someone like Berria who might have produced an equal or greater bloodbath with no positive results.

I've been led to believe Stalin was a sociopath and the very embodiment of the Anti-Christ. Sure, he built dams and industries and subways and helped modernise Russia, but was it really necessary to do it in such a brutal, murderous fashion? Was the death of untold millions some sort of requirement?

While I agree, that's just a fancy way of saying Stalin was the most ruthless and the least likely to care about the number of people who's lives were destroyed in order to accomplish what Stalin felt was an important goal. In such a case, it would be nice if the goals had a rational basis. Lincoln and Roosevelt killed alot of people too, if you think about it that way, but there was a nobler purpose to it.

Much of Stalin's program was linked only to his own paranoia and need for adulation. He was not quite a sociopath, and not quite a psychotic, but was very close to both.

About the only thing Stalin "accomplished" was the increase in industrialization prior to WW2, but this was incidental to his paramount psychological needs. He built big factories so he could say "I built big factories" and receive the adulation of even more people around the world.

I say incidental because Stalin also benefitted from the tremendous enthusiasim of the Soviet people, who believed that for the first time in their history they were working for a better Russia. For the first time, the common people of the Soviet Union had a stake in the outcome of their labor; even if that stake was remote and reduced to the benefit that all were required to share by their increased labors, it was nevertheless a far greater stake than they had hitherto had where they had worked almost exclusively for the benefit of the Boyars, the Tsar, and the Landlords.

It remains to me a doubtful proposition that Stalin is responsible for this so-called accomplishment. Its much more likely that it was the natural outgrowth of Bolshevik enthusiasm inspired by the ideas of Lenin and fomented by dedicated Cadres. Stalin, at best, merely happened to be there when the real results of the Revolution and its sea change in the attitudes of the Russian people finally began to set in and take hold. At worst, Stalin squelched this outflow of the Revolution and the Russians actually did far worse under him than they would have under another, rational, leader.

If he were truely a committed Bolshevik, he would have acted in such a way as to make Bolshevism personally appealing to people not in the Soviet system. He didn't. People outside the Soviet system became terrified of what Stalin, by his deeds, came to represent, and by the judgement of history the "Stalinist way" of murder and terror came to be understood as the natural effect of communism. Stalin himself ended any chance that the Soviet system or communism would be extended to the rest of the world. A leader like Trotsky, on the other hand might have succeeded.

I am a libertarian and I think Marxism, personally, is fundamentally flawed as an organizing system that does not take sufficient account of what is likely to motivate human beings to higher achievement and the creation of wealth. For example, it places almost no value on intellect or rational decision making ability, and all value on pure labor. It does not take account of the fundamental human concept of possession. It does not take account of the primary motivation of wealth creating behavior as, in part, the desire to possess and acquire wealth.

That being said, Marxism is a noble political statement. It posits that humans can be motivated by the desire to assist their fellow man over and above personal considerations. In that context, what Stalin did to the concept and name of Marxism can be added to the long list of his crimes.

During the seventies and eighties I had occasion to know many Russian emigres, not all of them having left the USSR for religious reasons. One of them, a noncom during WWII, was suddenly sent to a penal battalion in 1943 for reasons never disclosed! Understandably he didn't speak much about his experiences but I noticed he didn't seem to hate Stalin. That seems incredible to me. On the other hand, people like Hitler and Stalin always seperate themselves from misdeeds while entwining themselves in positive results.

Yes, I've encountered this respect for the Stalinist legacy. A person visiting Moscow among a visiting group was around the place by a native Russian who pointed out various buildings and so forth (sometime in the 80s). If a building was built during Stalin's time, he always said "That was built by Stalin" as if to say "That building is solid and much better than the other buildings." You had to be there to understand what I mean.

Totally misplaced respect in my opinion. Stalin happened to be the man on the spot when the real fruits of the Bolshevik Revolution came to ripen for the Russian people.

Also, Stalin benefitted not only from the inspiration of the Russian people, but from the tremendous number (in the millions) of German, Japanese and other skilled workers who had been captured during the war, and who were forced at gunpoint to work throughout Russia for years after the war until they finally died or they were sent home after Stalin died.

I've read numerous accounts of the prisoners having among them more skilled workers and engineers than the Russians were able to produce for any particular project. These prisoners worked with dedication because of the ancient idea that if you make yourself valuable to your captor, he won't kill you.

Did circumstances dictate method? So much blood flowed during the revolution and afterwards that it seems hard to imagine a single man could have been responsible for all of it. But then, the same can be said of Hitler and the holocaust; I doubt we'll ever fully understand either tragedy.

I think it's unlikely that Americans who lived through four decades of Cold War can ever really understand the mind-set of people raised in a Stalinist society and probably the reverse is true as well.

Anyway, it's good that we're openly exchanging our thoughts and phillosophies. A few weeks ago I didn't think anyone on earth would try to justify the purges and gulags, as always, being forced to re-examine long closed viewpoints has been a very beneficial experience.

Don't let a True Believer do more than cause you to undergo the process of critical thinking. The Stalinist way assumes that people will betray others, that everyone is suseceptible to weakness, that the only solution is pure terror, and that the individual has no right to life much less any other kind of right.

I truely hope that someday EB and people like him will come to a more sober analysis of Stalin and his methods, an analysis which gives more credit to the great strength, industry, patience, fortitude, and sacrifices of the Soviet and Russian peoples, rather than to the individual born as Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili -- credit which he himself gladly took. Even the famous city of Stalingrad was named after him when all he in fact did at the city during the Bolshevik revolution was execute a couple of boatloads (literally) of those whom he suspected of treason (quite wrongly I would add) -- a terrible precursor of things to come. I truely hope that they will someday see that the Bolshevik Revolution and the strength of Soviet Russia would have been multiplied many times over if Stalin ("Steel Man") had NOT been in control.

[ October 21, 2002, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]