City renames itself Stalingrad to mark battle

[Uncle J]

Russia now is in the same situation in which was the France in the time of the Restoration - remember ritual curses upon the Revolution and the "Corsican monster",they are strongly reminiscent of a modern anti-Stalinism, are not they? . The era of revolutions and counter-revolutions in Russia is not over, so the final assessment of the Russian Revolution and its leaders is a matter for the future. Stalingrad certainly will be Stalingrad because the city has become known worldwide just under this name.

As for your praise of democracy - democracy has never been a power of the people, any democracy is only the way of organisation of the ruling class. Democracy in the Greek city-states was only for free men and had nothing to do with the majority - the slaves-helots. Helots in the Greek polis was 9/10 of population. The same was true for the medieval feudal republic like Novgorod or Genoa. Democracy there existed only for the elite, but not for serfs.

Therefore, bourgeois democracy is only a political influence proportional to the size of capital.

[JR*]

Bakunin was right ... Do we know this Comrade ? Yours from Beria's Basement, JR.

[Nickdfresh]

Not sure, but some one seems a bit more Nordic than Russkie, at least according to location...

[Clarkson]

I am well aware, my friends, that modern democratic forms are a sham.

But better a sham in some areas and a success in others rather than a failure right across the board.
I will ask one thing though. Do you think for a moment that the Soviet union could have survived "Barbarossa" and its variants without resort to tyranny?

Could a democratic Russia have been internally strong enough to take all the big hits without going down for the count, as France did, defeated in the morale perspective?

Many modern russians are asking themselves this exact question. They look at the excesses of the stlain regime in this light. Do we have a right to call their view on this matter incorrect? Was Stalinism absolutely necessary for the survival ofthe soviet union as a political entity, and therefore, the survival of a partially 'free' slavic society?

National Socialism's plan for them was horrific. No alternative at all.

Was Josef Stalin necessary for Russian survival?

[tankgeezer]

Not sure, but some one seems a bit more Nordic than Russkie, at least according to location...

Indeed ! The Soviet Postal service at its usual best. (Do I hear the lilting strains of the Internationale ? )

[Rising Sun*]

I am well aware, my friends, that modern democratic forms are a sham.

But better a sham in some areas and a success in others rather than a failure right across the board.

As Churchill said, in his often but almost always wrongly quoted statement in Parliament in 1947 (wrong by leaving out "it has been said" i.e. he's referring to others, not his unique opinion)

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...arliament-bill

I will ask one thing though. Do you think for a moment that the Soviet union could have survived "Barbarossa" and its variants without resort to tyranny?

It wasn't a resort to tyranny.

Just a continuation of the well established tyranny which saw the starvation, imprisonment and execution of millions under Stalin, along with brilliant preparation for the coming war by wiping out the bulk of the competent officer corps. And which continued unabated after WWII.

Could a democratic Russia have been internally strong enough to take all the big hits without going down for the count, as France did, defeated in the morale perspective?

Who knows?There has not been a democratic Russia to date, nor is one in prospect.

Was Josef Stalin necessary for Russian survival?

Probably. But only as an unintended consequence of the usual dictator's willingness to sacrifice his (there not being any comparable women so far I can recall) country to preserve his power and reign.

[Chevan]

The era of revolutions and counter-revolutions in Russia is not over, so the final assessment of the Russian Revolution and its leaders is a matter for the future.

Are you crazy? No one would wish to survive another one bloodiest revolution !! No more revolutions there...

[Chevan]

It wasn't a resort to tyranny.
Just a continuation of the well established tyranny which saw the starvation, imprisonment and execution of millions under Stalin, along with brilliant preparation for the coming war by wiping out the bulk of the competent officer corps. And which continued unabated after WWII.

The matter of tyrany is not that obvious, endeed mate. According the latest statistical papers- the "millions of executed" under Stalin is a big exaggeration.As wel as the doubtful military competence of purged officers in 1937-39 - many of then , as it comes to truth, were just a civil war war criminals , like marshal Tuckhachevsky, who personally participated in pathification of anti-bolshevic upritings. Another one paradoxal conclusion , which comes from pure statistical analisys - is that de-facto the population of Russia under Stalin increaced while under Putin - decrease. Which make one to conclude that the "tyrany" isn't so bad compared the autocracy

Who knows?There has not been a democratic Russia to date, nor is one in prospect.

The democracy isn't the primary goal for man, mate. The hight standards of living of ordinary people - is the goal. So if democracy kills you , but tyrany helps you - why should we hesitate of tyrany?
Why do we really need a "democracy"? I need the good job,education , healt and social guaranties for my family . And if classical tyrany
provides more right for me ( like the National-Socialistic germany for it's root nation) - why not to chose the tyrany instaed of democracy?

Probably. But only as an unintended consequence of the usual dictator's willingness to sacrifice his (there not being any comparable women so far I can recall) country to preserve his power and reign.

The power of usial dictator - is its people and their support of him. The clever dictator will never sucriface or waste his population - just becouse of fear of revenge and revolt! The political genius of Stalin was that he was able to succesfully unite the soviet society - in a face of wild and strong race-porpagand of mortal enemy! No doubts , the Russia never faced such a military and ideologicaly motivated strong enemy in newest history as Nazi Germany ( the Napoleon is a not count) in late 1941 the fate of entire Russia and continental Europe hang in the balance. And we could survive. With help of God or stalin.That's becouse of the manies in modern Russia ready to forgive Stalin the cruelty and cult of person.

[gumalangi]

I'm crossing some linguistic borders here, but so far as Putin is concerned it might be more appropriate to name any city after him as Putagrad.

http://www.languagerealm.com/spanish/puta.php

The quote refers only to Putin, not the city or its people.

it is harsh man,. harsh,. but entertaining

[MilitaryWOBORN]

I recently came across such rare interesting photos of Germans in Stalingrad. I recommend you to take a look

https://www.relicsww2.net/rare-color...on-stalingrad/

[robertkwright]

I have never read about Russian history. Such an interesting thread.