cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/8181688
undefined
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
247 points (82.2% liked)
Anarchism
1429 readers
3 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Stalin was also partially to blame for the rise (and, to give him his due, fall) of Hitler. The recalcitrance of the Communist party in Weimar Germany was a big part of what prevented a left coalition from being able to take power and cut the Nazis off at the root.
To be fair, in the German context the conservatives were also terrified of the socialist democrat party, who were relatively moderate and if I remember correctly did not have too close ties with Soviet. Hindenburg made the fatal mistake of being more afraid of moderate socialists than of radical fascists.
I also wouldn't give Stalin too much credit for defeating Hitler. The Soviet Union only turned on Germany when they were invaded, and Stalin's military strategy was ruthless and incredibly inefficient. When the Red Army freed Europe I'd argue it was in spite of Stalin rather than because of him.
Maybe I'm looking at history with a view to avoid giving Stalin credit for anything, but turning on a fascist country only when they invade you does not impress me much, and ordering your soldiers to march into a meat grinder without weapons is not an efficient military strategy.