Putin Renames Volgograd to Stalingrad For 1 Day, For "one of the greatest examples of world heroism. - Polidicks

[QUOTE]VOLGOGRAD, Russia: The city of Volgograd was renamed Stalingrad for a day as Russia marked the [B]70th anniversary[/B] of the brutal battle in which the Red Army defeated Nazi forces and changed the course of World War II. The President, Vladimir Putin, called the battle ''one of the greatest examples of world heroism'' during a stirring address to veterans on Saturday that played up the nationalist themes of his third Kremlin term.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Source: [URL]http://www.smh.com.au/world/no-shame-in-a-dictators-name-as-putin-enlists-spirit-of-stalingrad-20130203-2dsfv.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The battle marked Hitler's first big defeat and led to a Nazi retreat from Soviet territory after the lightning invasion in June 1941 that had caught Stalin unaware. [/QUOTE] That paragraph is wrong in so many ways.

I wish that insead of making another Western series Spielberg did something on Stalingrad, I think he'd do a good job and there are a lot of stories to tell.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;39461926]I wish that insead of making another Western series Spielberg did something on Stalingrad, I think he'd do a good job and there are a lot of stories to tell.[/QUOTE] The film 1993 film Stalingrad is really good if you're looking for one that's fairly impartial. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_%281993_film%29[/url]

[QUOTE=The mouse;39461919]That paragraph is wrong in so many ways.[/QUOTE] i cant believe people still believe this. [editline]3rd February 2013[/editline] i dont think one thing about that paragraph was really true.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39462068]i cant believe people still believe this. [editline]3rd February 2013[/editline] i dont think one thing about that paragraph was really true.[/QUOTE] I know little of battles pre-stalingrad. How is it wrong?

[QUOTE=The mouse;39461959]The film 1993 film Stalingrad is really good if you're looking for one that's fairly impartial. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_%281993_film%29[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah I know it but what I'd really like is Spielberg production values with BoB/Private Ryan style scenes

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39462233]I know little of battles pre-stalingrad. How is it wrong?[/QUOTE] well the problem is that it's mostly half truths that imply things that are outright false. "The battle marked Hitler's first big defeat and led to a Nazi retreat from Soviet territory after the lightning invasion in June 1941 that had caught Stalin unaware." 1. the battle did not mark hitler's first big defeat. you can call operation typhoon(battle for moscow) hitler's first big defeat, you could also call the battle of smolensk hitler's first big defeat. 2. the battle did lead the nazis into a retreat since case blue was a total failure, but it still took until 1943 before the gains made during case blue were totally reversed. also the retreat wasn't permanent. people generally look at kursk as being the last major attempt for an offensive in the eastern theater iirc. 3. while the initial invasion can be considered "lightning", it was only so until the center army group made it to smolensk and got bogged down for months. the initial invasion was a pretty big failure as well(hence why the germans launched case blue to take stalingrad and baku) 4. stalin was unaware, but mostly by the timing rather than the attack itself. stalin was more surprised and pissed off that he didn't get the chance to attack first. there is even some conjecture that stalin was preparing to launch his own surprise attack; which might explain why the soviets had begun mobilizing their troops near the german border. both sides [i]knew[/i] that they were going to go to war, it was just a matter of when. [editline]3rd February 2013[/editline] i mean it plays off this weird assumption that stalin was simply ill prepared and completely caught off guard by operation barbarossa and it was only a few strokes of luck and fate that actually saved the ussr. in reality stalin had prepared(although his defence doctrine was horrible in the inital phase of the war), the ussr was expecting a war, and it was hard fighting and resistance from the red army that prevented total catastrophe for the soviets.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39462325]well the problem is that it's mostly half truths that imply things that are outright false. "The battle marked Hitler's first big defeat and led to a Nazi retreat from Soviet territory after the lightning invasion in June 1941 that had caught Stalin unaware." 1. the battle did not mark hitler's first big defeat. you can call operation typhoon(battle for moscow) hitler's first big defeat, you could also call the battle of smolensk hitler's first big defeat. 2. the battle did lead the nazis into a retreat since case blue was a total failure, but it still took until 1943 before the gains made during case blue were totally reversed. also the retreat wasn't permanent. people generally look at kursk as being the last major attempt for an offensive in the eastern theater iirc. 3. while the initial invasion can be considered "lightning", it was only so until the center army group made it to smolensk and got bogged down for months. the initial invasion was a pretty big failure as well(hence why the germans launched case blue to take stalingrad and baku) 4. stalin was unaware, but mostly by the timing rather than the attack itself. stalin was more surprised and pissed off that he didn't get the chance to attack first. there is even some conjecture that stalin was preparing to launch his own surprise attack; which might explain why the soviets had begun mobilizing their troops near the german border. both sides [i]knew[/i] that they were going to go to war, it was just a matter of when. [editline]3rd February 2013[/editline] i mean it plays off this weird assumption that stalin was simply ill prepared and completely caught off guard by operation barbarossa and it was only a few strokes of luck and fate that actually saved the ussr. in reality stalin had prepared(although his defence doctrine was horrible in the inital phase of the war), the ussr was expecting a war, and it was hard fighting and resistance from the red army that prevented total catastrophe for the soviets.[/QUOTE] Quite a debatable point of view. I wouldn't call you or the article wrong, as both have their facts and reasons. The article isn't a bad generalization considering it's target audience of the population that are less educated.

It wasn't Putin.. it was Volgograd. Thats like saying Obama is responsible for every cities actions. [QUOTE]On Wednesday, the council of Volgograd passed a decision to restore the city's wartime name of Stalingrad on six specific days a year. The dates, all associated with military commemorations, are 2 February, 9 May, 22 June, 23 August, 2 September and 19 November.[/QUOTE]

but you are really making bad assertions that aren't really backed up by fact. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_Missed_Chance[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Typhoon[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Smolensk_%281941%29[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk[/url] wikipedia for convenience of course.

Stalin was a murdering tyrant that killed more than Hitler in workcamps, executions and the like sometimes based purely on paranoia. To call him a Hero is pretty disgusting, regardless of his other achievements like making the USSR very powerful in a short period.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;39462663]Stalin was a murdering tyrant that killed more than Hitler in workcamps, executions and the like sometimes based purely on paranoia. To call him a Hero is pretty disgusting, regardless of his other achievements like making the USSR very powerful in a short period.[/QUOTE] Stalin basically continued the legacy of Lenin, just he wasn't really a Communist revolutionary and more wanting to turn Russia into a world power.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;39462663]Stalin was a murdering tyrant that killed more than Hitler in workcamps, executions and the like sometimes based purely on paranoia. To call him a Hero is pretty disgusting, regardless of his other achievements like making the USSR very powerful in a short period.[/QUOTE] nobody is calling him a hero. The name Stalingrad represents the battle today even if it means Stalin's city.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;39462663]Stalin was a murdering tyrant that killed more than Hitler in workcamps, executions and the like sometimes based purely on paranoia. To call him a Hero is pretty disgusting, regardless of his other achievements like making the USSR very powerful in a short period.[/QUOTE] I think it's more along the lines that the soldiers who fought in the battle themselves were heros.

The people who support renaming the city to Stalingrad are supporting it in the interests of the cities national historical value.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39462770]The people who support renaming the city to Stalingrad are supporting it in the interests of the cities national historical value.[/QUOTE] Yes, lets suppost a tyrannical dictatorship that killed of millions of people because of paranoia and the need to control people.

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;39462895]Yes, lets suppost a tyrannical dictatorship that killed of millions of people because of paranoia and the need to control people.[/QUOTE] it isn't supposting(?) anything by changing the name to stalingrad for a day. it's an acknowledgement of history and one of the most brutal battles that have ever been fought in the history of mankind.

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;39462895]Yes, lets suppost a tyrannical dictatorship that killed of millions of people because of paranoia and the need to control people.[/QUOTE] Can you read?

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;39462895]Yes, lets suppost a tyrannical dictatorship that killed of millions of people because of paranoia and the need to control people.[/QUOTE] You're not getting how much this battle has embedded itself into the cultural identity. People still talk about it almost like it just happened yesterday, they still call it "THE war" I mean shit the Russian government still sends letters abroad to its vets on their victory day. It's a big fucking deal.

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;39462895]Yes, lets suppost a tyrannical dictatorship that killed of millions of people because of paranoia and the need to control people.[/QUOTE] And lets not forgot about the man who had to industrialize a semi-medieval Russia in a span of two decades in order for his country to win a future conflict.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;39462965]And lets not forgot about the man who had to industrialize a semi-medieval Russia in a span of two decades in order for his country to win a future conflict.[/QUOTE] Russia was already rapidly industrializing before Stalin came to power. Fuck, it was already doing it before the revolution. Nobody cares about Sergei Witte. :c

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39463268]Russia was already rapidly industrializing before Stalin came to power. Fuck, it was already doing it before the revolution. Nobody cares about Sergei Witte. :c[/QUOTE] I know who Sergie Witte is, and... you're playing with the facts. Russia was industrializing, yes, but not at Stalinist rates and certainly not at a rate comparable to anything going on in Western Europe (speaking about the turn of the century 1880s-1914). And to respond to the Stalin not being a communist, you need to differentiate between 'internationalist' commies like Trotsky and 'Slavophile' or 'Soviet' commies like Stalin. Stalin obviously falls under the Soviet category of the second group. Russia was always one of the "Great Powers" of Europe - in a sense a world power, but after 1922 focused on its own development. After the failure of the Russo-Polish War, the Soviets gave up for the time being of the idea that world revolution would come in short order, so they focused on the development of the Soviet Union rather than try and spread revolution (the aim of the Russo-Polish War was not Warsaw - it was Berlin). When Lenin died in '26, we all know Stalin won out because of his position to appoint members of the politburo and force Trotsky into exile. Stalin then embarked on the "Communism in one country" policy of rapid industrialization in the Soviet Union. Two points from this - Stalin was a certain type of commie. He certainly was one, just not in the orthodox "Let's all fight about the legacy of the Third International" sense. Second, Witte was a legendary reformer in Russia during the late Empire, but there was nothing 'rapid' about Russian industrialization until Stalin. If you want to scrap about kilometres of railroad and industrial output... pm me I guess but don't feel obliged to continue this. ... As for the actual topic, Putin is gold. He is the pinnacle of manliness.

The Russian public's relationship with Stalin has always been intriguing to me. They should hate him with a passion, but it seems like a lot of people still revere him as a hero for winning the war and turning their nation into a superpower.

One can only assume that most of Russia has no legitimate history books/internet and cannot look up someone who many would consider one of the top 3 scumbag leaders of modern history.

[quote] ''one of the greatest examples of world heroism''[/quote] Hah, one of the greatest examples of world heroism my ass. The only reason people went on to defend Stalingrad was because it was more of a symbol, to defend the name of our glorious leader Stalin from nazi and krautz. If they wouldn't throw their forces in there but instead refortify positions further, they could've saved a million of lives, but instead chose to zerg rush. RIP to all my grandfathers who fought and died in the war, but IMO they overdid it with Stalingrad.

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;39462895]Yes, lets suppost a tyrannical dictatorship that killed of millions of people because of paranoia and the need to control people.[/QUOTE] It was temporarily renamed Stalingrad in memory of the Battle of Stalingrad, not in Stalins memory you knuckle dragger, read the damn article.

[QUOTE=Sixer;39464072]I know who Sergie Witte is, and... you're playing with the facts. Russia was industrializing, yes, but not at Stalinist rates and certainly not at a rate comparable to anything going on in Western Europe (speaking about the turn of the century 1880s-1914).[/quote] Uh yes it was: [url]http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1658/papers/Borodkin.pdf[/url] [quote]Figure 1 show the effect of increasing the rate of industrial growth from 5 to 6.65%. If we take as our starting point the original estimates of Goldsmith, then in its rate of growth and the growth of productivity of labor in Russia for the last 25 years before World War I is comparable with that of the main rapidly growing industrial countries. In Russia, the increase in the number of workers in industry was more significant than in Germany and Britain, and compared to the growth of numbers of employed persons in the US. If we take the highest estimate by Kafengauz, it appears that Russian industrial growth was much faster than economic growth in the leading industrial countries (for comparisons see Fig. 2). [/quote] Remember that all the development of, and investment into Russian industry started to get really going around the turn of the century. [quote]And to respond to the Stalin not being a communist, you need to differentiate between 'internationalist' commies like Trotsky and 'Slavophile' or 'Soviet' commies like Stalin. Stalin obviously falls under the Soviet category of the second group.[/quote] He was one for political expediency. [quote]Russia was always one of the "Great Powers" of Europe - in a sense a world power, but after 1922 focused on its own development. After the failure of the Russo-Polish War, the Soviets gave up for the time being of the idea that world revolution would come in short order, so they focused on the development of the Soviet Union rather than try and spread revolution (the aim of the Russo-Polish War was not Warsaw - it was Berlin).[/quote] The target wasn't Berlin. It would have been literally impossible for the Soviets to advance on Berlin, even if they beat the Polish. Remember that the USSR was on the brink of collapse between 1917 and 1922, and a push on Berlin was logistically impossible. [quote]When Lenin died in '26,[/quote] 1924. [quote]we all know Stalin won out because of his position to appoint members of the politburo and force Trotsky into exile. Stalin then embarked on the "Communism in one country" policy of rapid industrialization in the Soviet Union.[/quote] His policies were horribly backward, especially with regards to agriculture. [quote]Two points from this - Stalin was a certain type of commie. He certainly was one, just not in the orthodox "Let's all fight about the legacy of the Third International" sense. Second, Witte was a legendary reformer in Russia during the late Empire, but there was nothing 'rapid' about Russian industrialization until Stalin.[/quote] It was pretty strong in the pre-war years. Pre-war agriculture never really recovered during the history of the USSR in fact. [quote]If you want to scrap about kilometres of railroad and industrial output... pm me I guess but don't feel obliged to continue this. ... As for the actual topic, Putin is gold. He is the pinnacle of manliness.[/QUOTE] He's a despot and a cruel man.

Oh, my uncle Ivan lives in Volograd. I visited it once, it's an okay place.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39464326]Uh yes it was: [url]http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1658/papers/Borodkin.pdf[/url] Remember that all the development of, and investment into Russian industry started to get really going around the turn of the century. He was one for political expediency. The target wasn't Berlin. It would have been literally impossible for the Soviets to advance on Berlin, even if they beat the Polish. Remember that the USSR was on the brink of collapse between 1917 and 1922, and a push on Berlin was logistically impossible. 1924. His policies were horribly backward, especially with regards to agriculture. It was pretty strong in the pre-war years. Pre-war agriculture never really recovered during the history of the USSR in fact. He's a despot and a cruel man.[/QUOTE] Sorry about the date of death, should have verified. As for saying "rapid", again I still have to disagree with you. Rapid is a relative term - if you want to look at sheer numbers of people moving into factories in Russia during the time period, of course it's going to be staggering: from the end of serfdom until 1914 isn't a long time to put millions of people into cities. However, one source that contradicts a few others doesn't necessarily make Russian growth around the turn of the century "rapid". It was, if anything, growing at what we might consider fairly natural and healthy economic growth if we're talking 5.1% to 6.65%. Canadian GDP, for example, grew by 2.45% in 2011 during a recession. Rapid, though? China is rapid by comparison. World Bank data (available through Google Data) shows China's ebb in GDP growth over the last 20 years is still higher than the Russian industrial growth rate at it's highest estimate. Russian pre-WWI industrial growth clearly wasn't "rapid" enough. As for the source in the article, something that someone writes in their prison cell is certainly going to have a political axe to grind, rightly or wrongly. Putin: Despot or not, have you seen that guy without a shirt? I mean, [I]damn[/I]