Yes, I saw that first link, but I also found a lot more that dispute it. So, it seems that issue is still unresolved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Churchill was neither PM, nor serving in India during the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, so how is that relevant?

Yeah, but this is just another article about the same book, so that isn't too helpful.

I'm not saying it didn't happen like this and if it did, then you're correct, my opinion of Churchill would certainly diminish drastically. But, I'm not going to change my outlook on him based on one author's take on the situation.

If we are just discussing Churchill it's not. It was more a point about the Era in general. However during the Massacre. Churchill was serving in Parliament as the Secretary of State for War.

If you'd like I could dig up so vicious quotes Churchill supposedly said to indian leaders about Ghandi during the depression. Something about how if India was undergoing a famine why hadn't Ghandi starved to death yet.

If I recall another article pegged him as a warhawk, and linked him to the escalation of WWI, 2 and the cold war. I suspect that article is ridiculously biased but it is certainly worth noting.

http://mises.org/daily/1450 , http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html , http://sanseverything.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/joseph-epstein-nostalgia-for-the-empire-and-the-closet/

The first link is the second article I talked about.
The Third link has the quote about Churchill wanting Ghandi to starve to death
The Second link is just an article on Churchill that I thought you might find interesting.

I can't vouch for the validity of any of these sources but I have oft heard some of this stuff repeated.

Well, every country has done terrible things, so that really isn't worth discussing. I was speaking of Churchill in particular.

Also, I'm not too interested quotes and certainly not "supposed" quotes. They are simply too easy to forge and even if he actually said them, they aren't necessarily indicative of his actions.

My point is this: People with a reasonable understanding of history understand that Churchill wasn't a saint. But, to equate him with Stalin is a bit silly. To equate him with Hitler is absolutely absurd.

http://www.tripatlas.com/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O129-USSR.html http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/demographics_of_the_soviet_union.html

I'm off to bed, but I'll take a look at those sites later.

I will grant you the actions of Hitler at times bordered on brutal. Even for that era, and I certainly cannot and will not suggest that there actions are equal. Just both reproachable. However save for the atrocities of the great purge, I see no reason why parallels between Stalin and Churchill are that unreasonable. Please enlighten me.

Also if you get a chance check out the links I posted above they contain the information I was talking about.

I'll talk to you later Abe, sleep well and thank you for this interested discourse.

Side note: Thanks Warsprite for those links. I know they were directed at a different conversation but the information in them will be quite useful for the essay I'm working on about the USSR. Just wanted to make sure you were thanked for them.

I do enjoy how people can deny British responsibility for not only the Bengal famine, in which there was NO crop failure, but the multitude of other famines which occurred in their colonies, but yet scream bloody murder about everything/anything the Soviets did.

"http://www.tripatlas.com/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union"

This is the one link that worked, and oddly enough some of it is accurate. But then it gets this weird jump from 1939 to 1941 - somehow the USSR gained 28 million people in 2 years according to this link.

I know they held a census in '39 (the number here is accurate), but definitely not in '41 so I'm wondering how those numbers were calculated.

http://www.evilmilk.com/pictures/In_Soviet_Russia263.htm

@Putin - have you seen this? fun funny.

Nice.

Churchill talked openly about wanting to use poison gas on 'uncivilized tribes'. Nice guy, that drunken lout. This was his quote in a response from a request from the RAF to experiment with poison gas to suppress "recalcitrant Arabs".

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

Hitler, because nationalism rocks.

Honestly, I feel like we have strayed way off topic in this thread. Every leader in history has had bad things happen under their regime that they can be blamed for. There is always going to be a negative view on things as well as a positive. Hell, Roosevelt did some pretty shitty things.

The point here though is to stand back and look at it objectively. As I said before, I would take Hitler - although only if it was Hitler before he became a mentally ill psycho, so lets say pre-1942-43. After that, a commie is better than a crazy man.

Putin33
“That he achieved two monumental tasks - 1 - leading the Soviets in defeating fascism and 2 - industrializing the USSR in a short timespan, is undeniable.”
Specifically what did Stalin do that led to defeating fascism? Was it his “Not a step back” policy? He controlled a country with more than double the population, and so able to produce much more. His total military was also double that of Germany. Considering that he lost about three times as many troops for every German on his front, his army was incredibly disorganized and lacking competent leadership (his own fault). And if Hitler had not been incredibly stubborn and insane by 1942-3 then an idiot could have taken Moscow just as you said. Hitler however brought his country out of the worst depression ever into a dominant military and scientific power in less than ten years. How can you compare that to the 3 five year plans, which did industrialize the country, but over a longer time period and less considering they weren't as hard hit by the depression.

I suppose you could argue there was a elaborate and ingenious plan by Stalin to let Germany invade and eliminate the Ukrainians, and think that they were all incompetent, all the while preparing for a massive come back. Then at the last moment before Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow were taken, surprise, now we can beat you.

Although as it has been stated before, both leaders changed dramatically over the course of their time in power. Hitler before 1942 was in my opinion better than Stalin ever was (as a leader...they both committed various atrocities, Churchill is really only loved by warmongering conservatives), but after that he only declined and then yes I'd consider Stalin a better leader.

British/Americans purposely waited to build forces and keep Soviets weak; they could have sent waves and waves of troops at the Germans with no regard for life like the Soviets did, but letting the Soviet Union fight the brunt of the war was a decision made by the British and Americans. Its like any strategy game, you let your enemies beat the crap out of each other before you get involved.

I’ve never heard 70 million. I’ve always heard it was between 12 and 27 of Soviet Union, and even that was over the course of more than a decade. So yes Western Capitalist changed history a bit to brainwash people against the Communists. There is no need to keep repeating your redundant and exaggerated claims that the Communists It is just as likely that your information is very biased.

There is no need to keep repeating your redundant and exaggerated claims...of anti-communist propaganda. Get over it.

Oh where to begin.

"Specifically what did Stalin do that led to defeating fascism? Was it his “Not a step back” policy? He controlled a country with more than double the population, and so able to produce much more."

Do people not realize that labor is only one factor of production? The population was not "more than double". It was a little less than double. 170 million vs 90 million. And for those who claim the population was higher, remember Stalin issued a new census in 1939 because the outcome of the 1937 one (162 million) was thought to be too low.
According to people here, China and India should have blown away America in terms of economic might a long time ago, that is if we go by population alone. German was considerably more developed economically than Russia and had been since their own industrialization drive in the mid 1800s. The Soviet had just endured a painful and destructive civil war in the 1920s. To go from that to an industrial power in less than 2 decades is Meiji Restoration level astonishing."

The most productive raw material producing areas of the Soviet Union had been seized in the early stages of the war (which is why the Germans invaded to begin with), therefore during most of this period production levels between the two countries weren't even close. What is remarkable, and the Soviet leadership deserves credit, is how they were able to cope with these losses, and reconstitute production at a high level once these areas were liberated in 1944. I'd like to see any production statistics you have whatsoever, world economic survey, I don't care, which show that the Soviets were somehow producing way more than Germany.

Germany was producing more than 30 million tons of steel in 1942-1943. 35 million when you included occupied territory production. The USSR was producing 8.5 million tons of steel during that same time period. Largely because again, their most productive areas were controlled by the Germans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/soviet_german_war_01.shtml

"His total military was also double that of Germany"

Not when the invasion began. The Germans outnumbered the Soviet military during the initial. http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf

The fact that the Soviets were able to mobilize and train a huge number of reservists points to 1-yet another reason why the leadership should be given credit for defeating fascism and 2-the brutality and barbarity of the German occupiers which incensed the occupied population, facilitating mobilization.

"Considering that he lost about three times as many troops for every German on his front, his army was incredibly disorganized and lacking competent leadership (his own fault)."

No, it points to the barbarity of the German army in the occupied territories. They murdered and executed massive numbers of Soviets on sight. Huge numbers of POWs were butchered by the Germans. Those that didn't get executed died in captivity as slaves or in poor conditions in POW camps in miserable winter weather. To point to that and say it was the Soviets fault is disgusting, and absolves the barbarism of the Hitlerites, which is your goal anyway.

"And if Hitler had not been incredibly stubborn and insane by 1942-3 then an idiot could have taken Moscow just as you said"

Hitler's insanity preceded 1942. Unless you're saying he should have nixed the fight to the death order and retreated like Napoleon. But his entire strategy was idiotic from the get go. He is a highly overrated politician, military strategist, orator, everything. The only thing he was "good" at was killing people industrial-style.

."Hitler however brought his country out of the worst depression ever into a dominant military and scientific power in less than ten years."

Germany was a dominant scientific and industrial power in particular, long before Hitler.
The myth that Hitler spectacularly improved the economy is a particularly pernicious one. He did nothing of the sort. Average standard of living didn't increase by very much, in fact wages declined significantly despite the decline in unemployment. Most of the reduction in unemployment came from putting people in the armaments industry. Germany repeatedly suffered from foreign reserve and currency problems - a reason behind their goal for "self-sufficiency", which they did not achieve.

"How can you compare that to the 3 five year plans, which did industrialize the country, but over a longer time period and less considering they weren't as hard hit by the depression."

They weren't hit by the depression at all, in fact they were thriving. Why? Because of economic planning. They weren't subject to the whims of the market. So yeah I'd say that compares very favorably. You're pretending like Germany wasn't already an industrialized power before 1933. Germany was one of the leading industrial powers as early as 1900. So engaging in Keynesian employment reduction programs is not very impressive, especially when considering these policies created problems of inflation and Germany's war-economy led to an import/foreign reserve crisis.

"I suppose you could argue there was a elaborate and ingenious plan by Stalin to let Germany invade and eliminate the Ukrainians, and think that they were all incompetent, all the while preparing for a massive come back. Then at the last moment before Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow were taken, surprise, now we can beat you."

This sounds like gibberish to me. I don't even know what you're talking about here. Many Ukrainians were collaborators. Lots of these collaborators wrote history books that were used by Conquest and his ilk. It's not as if the Nazi invasion did anything to hurt Ukrainian nationalism. In fact most Ukrainian nationalists welcomed it.

"Although as it has been stated before, both leaders changed dramatically over the course of their time in power. Hitler before 1942 was in my opinion better than Stalin ever was (as a leader...they both committed various atrocities, Churchill is really only loved by warmongering conservatives), but after that he only declined and then yes I'd consider Stalin a better leader."

Because of public works projects? Because he was rearming when the rest of Europe was tired of war? Hitler's "success" by and large had been pre-staged by the Weimar regime, which convinced the Allies to get of any real punishment for WWI, withdraw from the Ruhr, etc and secured a sweetheart deal with the Americans on reparations and loans.

"British/Americans purposely waited to build forces and keep Soviets weak; they could have sent waves and waves of troops at the Germans with no regard for life like the Soviets did, but letting the Soviet Union fight the brunt of the war was a decision made by the British and Americans. Its like any strategy game, you let your enemies beat the crap out of each other before you get involved."

Uh...the Soviets did not engage in "human wave" tactics. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. Stalin explicitly forbade column formations. See Directive No. 306.



" It is just as likely that your information is very biased."

Just as likely? I've provided sources for much of my information. You've provided nothing but the usual unsubstantiated nonsense.

"Honestly, I feel like we have strayed way off topic in this thread. Every leader in history has had bad things happen under their regime that they can be blamed for."

It's a moral imperative to stray way off topic when the "topic" is asinine and the "objective" answers are repugnant.

@Putin - my only disagreement with you is your claim that Russia ended Facism. They were instrumental in the fall of the Nazi empire, but they didn't do it alone. Had not Britain, the US, and the French Resistance fought back and tied up German resources, Russia would not have withstood the German advances. It was a team effort is all I'm saying.

Erm, guys, do you not get it? His name is "Putin". He is simply playing in character.

And also, I see there is significant debate about who actually won WWII. The numbers do not lie: the Soviets contributed far, far more than the other western Allies. The only reason Hitler even got as far into Russia as he did was simply his amazing luck (he would've needed "godly", not simply "amazing", luck to actually beat the Soviets).

So, what numbers am I talking about?:

Feb 1943 is when the Germans surrendered at Stalingrad, and when the Russians started beating them back.
June 1944 is when the Western Allies opened up another front.

~1.2 million men is how much the Germans dedicated to Stalingrad alone, not to mention tanks, planes, etc.
~0.4 million men is how much the Germans sent against the whole of Operation Overlord.

Etcetera, etcetera. Putin is close to right on one thing at least.

A couple more things:

"Hitler could have taken Moscow."
How would that have helped in the least? Hitler needed oil and gas. As far as I know, there's none of that in Moscow. Stalingrad, on the other hand, would not only have cut off supplies to the Russian army, but also allowed Hitler to take over said oil and gas himself, and then probably win the war. Hitler's choice to go after Stalingrad instead of Moscow, is in my opinion very justifiable.


"Hitler brought Germany out of a depression."
My ass he did. Have any of you actually studied Nazi economic policies? Those guys would have been laughed down by any university professor in economics today. The only thing that kept Germany's economy afloat was the war, not only due to production of weapons et al, but also due to all the pillaging. Without the invasion of Poland and France, Germany would have collapsed economically within a year, year and a half, or so.

So, had Operation Overlord never happened nor any of the followup assaults, the Germans would have had 33% more troops to hit Russia with, yet russia wouldn't have had any more troops to fight back with. Are you saying that 400 thousand troops wouldn't have made a difference if they had been free to push into Russia? Come on and get real...

I think the timeline speaks for itself. The Soviets had already won big victories at Leningrad and Stalingrad and had begun driving the Nazis back well before the opening of the western front. In terms of the war in Europe, "Allied" contributions were minimal. There is good reason to believe that the invasion of France only occurred because had it not, the Allies would be seeing Soviet troops rolling into France.

The Germans had humiliated the British at Dunkirk. There was nothing going on in western Europe from pretty much the Battle of Britain until Overlord. The Americans were no where to be seen in Europe until pretty late in 1942 with Operation Torch, despite the much bally-hooed strategy declaration at the Arcadia conference. In '42 and '43, despite Soviet pressure for an invasion of western Europe, the British and Americans decided to postpone any large-scale invasion of western Europe. In fact while the Soviets had been promised by the allies an invasion of France as early as the summer of 1942 (Stalin in fact refused to meet with the Allies unless this issue was discussed), the Allies decided to invade Italy and concentrate on the Mediterranean war instead. Only after the Moscow conference did they finally commit to it, after two years of British excuse-making. The Balkan partisans diverted nearly as many German troops away from reinforcing the eastern front as the Allied offensive in Italy.

You can read for yourselves the excuse-making about the second front, and see if it is persuasive. The "Allies" were prepared to "fight" the Germans with every ounce of Soviet blood.

French and Belgian collaboration with the Germans was widespread and an embarrassment. People exaggerate the contributions of the "French Resistance" now because of this shameful history. I do not blame France for their total defeat in 1940, in fact the French army in many cases fought heroically - but the "Resistance" did not do much.

"So, had Operation Overlord never happened nor any of the followup assaults, the Germans would have had 33% more troops to hit Russia with, yet russia wouldn't have had any more troops to fight back with"

It's not as if the Germans would have whole sale vacated France if Overlord had not occurred. By June 1944 the Soviets were already well into Poland and had liberated Belarus, had liberated Crimea, had captured Sevastopol, etc.

"Erm, guys, do you not get it? His name is "Putin". He is simply playing in character"

Not really in character. I'm a big fan of Prime Minister Vladimir Vladimirovich, but I believe every word of what I've written here.

>In terms of the war in Europe, "Allied" contributions were minimal.

I'm not going to bother getting into a pissing match whether the Soviet Union could have defeated the Axis single handedly - they could not, and not even Russian historians believe they could have - but here's a little more fuel for your nationalistic fire, Putin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR

The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).[8]

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. U.S. supplies of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.

***

But of course, the Soviets did it all by themselves. Go team!

Putin, you're totally brainwashed. Only reading Russian sources and history books can do that to anyone.

1. Putin is a dictator. You may adore him for his nationalistic PR, 'restoring Russian pride' and a glorious victory against the might Georgians... but that does no change the fact he'll be in power for the foreseeable future and will squash any opposition with all means necessary. Plus, is your self-esteem as a person really so tied to how big the borders of the country you live in are, or how big is the military? :)

2. If you think the USSR would have won WWII without the heavy support from US/UK you're totally deluded. You lost 50 million people in this war because you had no guns and bullets. To be more precise - the soldiers attacking the German tanks didn't - the MP behind them (making sure noone retreats) did have all the ammo they needed to shoot their own comrades.

3. As deranged as Hitler may have been, Stalin was much more brutal. When the German army entered Kiev they were met by half a million people greeting them as liberators. Because Stalin organized a famine killing some 16 million Ukranians few years before that (~1936 when 80% of USSR's agricultural output was coming from Ukraine at the time). True, the Nazis were stupid enough to start killing and pillaging, so soon after everyone hated them even more.

4. The allies objective in WWII was to defeat GER, not to help USSR. They made their plan accordingly. You may not like it, but most other countries are not really keen on sending millions of recruits to fight with bare arms. Bitching around that others didn't want to kill so many of their people as you ... kind of stupid really. Democracies find it hard to deal with wars and casualties - and I think it's better this way.

"I'm not going to bother getting into a pissing match whether the Soviet Union could have defeated the Axis single handedly - they could not, and not even Russian historians believe they could have - but here's a little more fuel for your nationalistic fire, Putin."

First off, I'm not a nationalist. I'm not even Russian, I'm American. I just think when millions of heroes died saving your hide, you better show some gratitude. Instead we here in the West spit on their graves, claim the Nazis were less brutal, the soldiers and generals were incompetent, while applauding ourselves for sending trucks in their hour of need, or make glowing tributes to "Britain's finest hour" when they fought to a draw in one battle. It's ridiculous. You people here might not respect the Soviet soldier of WWII, but the German generals did (at least in terms of their prowess, if not their humanity). The military loss ratio of Soviet to Axis was 1.3:1, which belies this insulting and mendacious "human wave"/"sent to the front without guns" tale some of you keep telling. Stop getting your World World II history from Enemy at the Gates. The Soviet army was outproducing the Germans in weapons, but we never hear any tales about German soldiers being sent without guns.

Lend-Lease and trucks, trains, and planes, while not nothing, do not make up for the fact that the USSR was stuck fighting the German war machine for 3.5 years without any help with the fighting. Plus, most of the trucks you mention had to be assembled in Soviet factories before they could be used. Also, most of the supplies got to the Soviet Union after 1942, after the most critical fighting was over and the likelihood of Nazi conquest had faded.

The point is not that the Allies did nothing, but that compared to how western historiography portrays their contributions, their contributions were insignificant. And compared how much the Soviets did to smash the Nazi war machine, the lack of recognition given to them is downright insulting.

The Soviets defeated the Germans with Soviet weapons, Soviet organization, Soviet tactics, and Soviet manpower. These are the facts - in 1942, there were 240 German divisions fighting in the East and 15 in North Africa, in 1943 there were 257 in the East and up to 26 in Italy and in 1944 there were more than 200 in the East compared to 50 divisions in the West.


The aircraft amounted to 10% of Russian production

And what of the Lend-Lease?