Skip to main content

Can you compare Joseph Stalin to a modern day dictator?

For me, Stalin is incomparable to today's dictators simply due to the number of people he killed and the capriciousness way in which he killed them.  Yes, some of his killing was genocidal, as his farming program went specifically after Ukrainians, Armenians, and Kazakhs during the Holodomor but he also targeted his own people just as badly.  He killed his top generals during the military purges of 1937 and he also targeted the clergy in...

For me, Stalin is incomparable to today's dictators simply due to the number of people he killed and the capriciousness way in which he killed them.  Yes, some of his killing was genocidal, as his farming program went specifically after Ukrainians, Armenians, and Kazakhs during the Holodomor but he also targeted his own people just as badly.  He killed his top generals during the military purges of 1937 and he also targeted the clergy in an attempt to make the Soviet Union the world's first (and only) atheist empire.  Unlike today's dictators who kill based on religious and ethnic differences, Stalin destroyed anyone who was not useful to him.  



Stalin was also an effective dictator, or at least he appeared to be, and he was not afraid to let the world see how effective he thought he was.  Unlike the current regime in North Korea, which is very secretive, Stalin invited Westerners to his country for them to see how his five-year plans were going.  Many Americans came back home to say that Stalin had found a way to end unemployment and poverty; they never saw how Stalin had destroyed his own people to do it.  Unlike regimes in North Korea and Hussein's regime in Iraq, Stalin did not want to openly go to war with the West, though his use of spies served as a potential "fifth column" during WWII and the early Cold War which created the Iron Curtain.  Today's dictators are murderous, but Stalin is incomparable in terms of quantity of people killed and overall cunning.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the meaning of "juggling fiends" in Macbeth?

Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a... Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a sense of guilt, and that man tells him: Despair thy charm. And let the angel whom thou still hast serve...
Post a Comment
Read more

What are some external and internal conflicts that Montag has in Fahrenheit 451?

 Montag, the protagonist of Fahrenheit 451, faces both external and internal conflicts throughout the novel. Some examples of these conflicts are: External Conflicts: Conflict with the society: Montag lives in a society that prohibits books and critical thinking. He faces opposition from the government and the people who enforce this law. Montag struggles to come to terms with the fact that his society is based on censorship and control. Conflict with his wife: Montag's wife, Mildred, is completely absorbed in the shallow and meaningless entertainment provided by the government. Montag's growing dissatisfaction with his marriage adds to his external conflict. Conflict with the fire captain: Montag's superior, Captain Beatty, is the personification of the oppressive regime that Montag is fighting against. Montag's struggle against Beatty represents his external conflict with the government. Internal Conflicts: Conflict with his own beliefs: Montag, at the beginning of th...
Post a Comment
Read more

In A People's History of the United States, why does Howard Zinn feel that Wilson made a flimsy argument for entering World War I?

"War is the health of the state," the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War. Indeed, as the nations of Europe went to war in 1914, the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches. -- Chapter 14, Page 350, A People's History of the United States Howard Zinn outlines his arguments for why World War I was fought in the opening paragraph of Chapter 14 (referenced above). The nationalism that was created by the Great War benefited the elite political and financial leadership of the various countries involved. Socialism, which was gaining momentum in Europe, as was class struggle, took a backseat to mobilizing for war. Zinn believes that World War I was fought for the gain of the industrial capitalists of Europe in a competition for capital and resources. He states that humanity itself was punished by t...
Post a Comment
Read more