> Date sent: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:35:53 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Soviet balance sheet
Barkley:
1) On the plus side the Soviet role in defeating
> Adolf Hitler.
Implicit here is the claim that Stalin may have been bad but without
his rapid industrialization program Hitler would have won
the war. But a key feature of the Terror of 1936-8 was
Stalin's elimination of the military cadres, including its
leadership, which almost led to Russia's defeat in 1941-42.
The remaining officers were afraid to take the initiative, when
Hitler launched his surprised invasion, and waited for their Great
Commander to tell them what to do.
Yet, this Commander, when he was told that German attack was
imminent, if not already a fact, brushed aside such claims. His
lackeys were unwilling to question him, so there Russia stood
paralyzed as Hitler moved deep into its territory.
Later he acknowledged the invasion but thought it might be mere,
avoidable, provocation on the part of the Germans. When he was told
the Germans were near Minsk, Stalin, the "Man Of Steel", went into a
state of psychological paralysis; he simply could not deal with the
fact and, so some biographers say, did nothing for a few days! He was
in a state of shock. Luckily for him, no one was there to replace him
as he had wiped out every possible leader.
Barkley:
>2) On the negative side the millions killed and imprisoned in the
USSR itself, whichever estimate one > accepts.
This is the problem with this whole debate: there is no way to
"balance" the death of millions of people on
the grounds that such a cost might have helped the left in the West!
> Furthermore, I note that any analysis of either of the
> above, or other questions such as the roles of Soviet
> industrialization/ag collectivization, etc. depends on what
> would have been the counterfactual. Are we talking a
> reimposition of a tsarist regime? A right-wing military
> dictatorship under Denkikin? A social democratic regime
> under Kerensky? And to what extent did Stalin play a role
> in helping to bring Hitler to power in Germany in the first
> place? All of these are difficult to answer and I suggest
> that the course of alternative history and thus the
> possible bottom line on this balance sheet depends on which
> of these counterfactuals would have happened and what it
> would have done. Not a simple business.
I agree. I am tempted to add "if Lenin had nod died so early",
but Lenin should also be held responsible for the crimes of
Stalin, not only because he created the political structure
that allowed someone like Statin to rise to power but
initiated such crimes himself.
ricardo
> Barkley Rosser
> Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
