Why are the Crimes of Stalinism Overlooked?

[Smitty-48]

Well, if we had known that when we put NATO together, maybe we would have let the USSR participate.

Tellin' ya, dude, if you hate bolshies, Stalin is a funny guy, he didn't just kill them, he made it fun, he had a good time doin' it, he played with his food before he ate it.

I don't hate the bolshies, I just overlook the crimes of Stalinism against them.

I don't overlook, I simply don't see a crime; Stalin killed the Bolshies? Atta boy, Koba, doin the Lord's work there. Stalin killed the Nazis? Hey, thanks there, Koba, doin' us a solid.

[Hastur]

Because Marxists control the media, universities, and government schools. Next question.

I agree that the media has been very liberal slanted for decades, but what about the millions of servicemen, families etc. that knew the truth of it? I wonder why they didn't make more of a ruckus and speak out more? And especially after the publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn book there was absolutely no credibility in denying the effects of Stalinism.

Why does Americans believe that communism == liberalism. It bugs me every time.
I mean, if people really believe that Stalin was a liberal, why would they think ill of him?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I think that is sort of the point.

The argument is that liberals are not sufficiently anti-Stalin.

[Martin Hash]

The language is distorted, and people are unaware what the sides are.

To The Left: Republicans == Bolshis. Antifa & BLM are the core of the Red Army. I often see The Left bemoaning the fact that they don't have a Leader; they lust for a Stalin. Remember, the Communist Revolution was against The White Army.

[GloryofGreece]

Stalin wasn't very charismatic, certainly no Martin Luther King, Churchill, Hitler, T. Roosevelt etc. Progressives have had charismatic leaders hell Trotsky was but Stalin was more like a mob hitman than a politician. Stalin's speeches its like come on, really...

[DBTrek]

It was only after Stalin, with Khruschev, that the Soviets suddenly became all idealistic and confrontational with America. Stalin would never have put missiles in Cuba, not a chance, if someone had suggested it, I don't know if he would have had them shot, but he probably would have slapped them around and called them a crazy jackass.

C'mon man, it's Stalin.

Of course he would've had them shot.

[DBTrek]

Stalin wasn't very charismatic, certainly no Martin Luther King, Churchill, Hitler, T. Roosevelt etc. Progressives have had charismatic leaders hell Trotsky was but Stalin was more like a mob hitman than a politician. Stalin's speeches its like come on, really...

Who is not charismatic, pig dog?!?

[Ex-California]

We built NATO to address the crimes of Stalinism... and then pretty effectively addressed them.

How many full command economies are left in the world?

People don't know this about NATO, but it was also built to address the German question. Basically, Germany was perceived rightly or wrongly for starting both world wars. It certainly started the second one. Europe did not want a strong Germany to stir shit up again, so NATO was built in part to make sure this didn't happen, and have a firm alliance against Stalin and a potential future German threat. Here is where it gets weird. Stalin was also quite worried about Germany, the same way Western Europe was, so he actually was sort of happy that Germany was partitioned after the war, even though his enemies controlled the other half. In his mind, the division of Germany was a great issue to rally the masses, and complain of Capitalistic threats on his border etc, while at the same time ensuring that his once rival was separated and weak. The United States felt the same way about Germany. So despite the Berlin airlift etc, both sides of the Cold War kind of breathed a sigh of relief at the German outcome, at least initially after WW2. It is more complex than that, and there was real rivalry between the US and the USSR over East and West Germany, but that is a big reason why NATO was formed. The EU was initially more modest than it was today, and it also started as a means to address the German problem. I believe it was started as some kind of weird trade deal between German and French coal and steel companies. This is way oversimplifying on my part, but Germany was on everyone's mind at this time period.

And look, now we have today's Germany ruining Europe in a different way

Good post though

[DBTrek]

Beginnings

The Treaty of Brussels was a mutual defence treaty against the Soviet threat at the start of the Cold War. It was signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom. It was the precursor to NATO. The Soviet threat became immediate with the Berlin Blockade in 1948, leading to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948.[13] However, the parties were too weak militarily to counter the military power of the USSR. In addition the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état by the Communists had overthrown a democratic government and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin reiterated that the best way to prevent another Czechoslovakia was to evolve a joint Western military strategy. He got a receptive hearing in the United States, especially considering American anxiety over Italy (and the Italian Communist Party).[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Beginnings

Not seeing much about NATO being against Germany there.
Seeing its origins as being an alliance against the Soviets though.


Where do you guys get your alternative history facts from?

[Speaker to Animals]

Where do you guys get your alternative history facts from?

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/