One of the greatest accomplishments in the history of mankind

[Huzington]

Stalin said, "We are . . . one hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten." And this is precisely what he had done.

Stalin, starting in 1928, had concentrated on building brick factores, coal mines, cement plants, oil refineries, power stations, steel mills, and so forth. In the Urals-Kuzbadd region a new industry of iron and steel had begun. In Stalingrad an enormous tractor plant had opened. With the lenient use of labour camps, Stalin had put an end to unemployment, whilst the rest of the world had suffered from mass unemployment. The figure of the 1914 level of industrial production had increased by seven times. Stalin had nationalised all Soviet farmland. Giant farms on which workers worked collectively and efficiently had replaced the Kulaks. The USSR had become industrialised in less than ten years; it had overtaken Britain as an industrial nation by 1939.

Through the limitless genius of a single leader, and the enthusiastic willingness of a formerly exploited people, within a short space of time the USSR had escaped the confines of the mediaeval ages and settled itself in the space age.

[Fade]

I don't know what to say.

Hitler did almost the same thing. A charismatic dictator can move mountains, because he doesn't care that people are going to die in the process. If you honestly think what he did was, objectively, a good thing, I pity your frail sanity and grasp of history. Russia was built on mountains and MOUNTAINS of bones.

The rest of the western world rightfully decried it.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Fraeybol
"With the lenient use of labour camps, ..." Interesting use of the word lenient.

Didn't Hitler also do a great job on Germany's economy? ... Nevermind, beaten to it.

Walt

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Fade
I don't know what to say.

Hitler did almost the same thing. A charismatic dictator can move mountains, because he doesn't care that people are going to die in the process. If you honestly think what he did was, objectively, a good thing, I pity your frail sanity and grasp of history. Russia was built on mountains and MOUNTAINS of bones.

The rest of the western world rightfully decried it.

Now you compare Stalin with Hitler. What an absurdity. Very much like the Bush-Hitler comparisons.

First of all, Stalin was not very charismatic.

Secondly, above all Stalin cared about the masses, and they cared about him.

Thirdly, nothing is "objectively a good thing". The statement that something is objectively good is a is self-contradictory statement. For goodness is not a quality of the objective world. Goodness is invariably an subjective opinion (which is a redundancy), invariably an unverifiable opinion (which is another redundancy). One can know absolutely everything about history and think it all neither good nor bad. One's moral code has no bearing on one's historical knowledge.

Fourthly, I see the forementioned accomplishment as neither good nor bad, probably because I am objective and my mind does not adhere to unverifiable moralisms and other statements which are impossible to verify.

Fifthly, the burden of proof is on those who claim that Russia was "built on bones". There is no evidence of such a thing.

[Fade]

Didn't Hitler also do a great job on Germany's economy? ... Nevermind, beaten to it.

:D

I think a lot of Americans don't really understand how horrible these regimes were because they never directly dealt with their effect on history. The US is disparate from the Eurasian land mass, so the influences didn't spread in the same ways. I grew up with Holocaust survivors, and people that fled Russian regimes (well mostly their children, and their childrens children) and I got to hear all sorts of wonderful stories about the brutal conditions the Russian people had to face under their perverted leadership.

Now you compare Stalin with Hitler. What an absurdity. Very much like the Bush-Hitler comparisons.

What? Bush, as much as I hate the man, isn't putting people into death camps, and forcing millions of people into horrible poverty.

Stalin did.

Bush doesn't have a secret police ready to kill us for any subversive words. I am still free to assemble, speak my mind, and everything else that I could do before Bush was elected. Russia didn't have that, neither did Germany.

Also, I said "Hitler did the same thing" not "Hitler and Stalin are exactly the same."

Reading comprehension. Please.

There is no evidence of such a thing.

50 million deaths doesn't constitute evidence :confused: :confused:

[Pyrrho]

Yes, and Lysenko advanced the science of agriculture and biology straight into the 18th century.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Interesting use of the word lenient.

Didn't Hitler also do a great job on Germany's economy? ... Nevermind, beaten to it.

Walt

I do not care about what Hitler had done. Hitler's accomplishments have nothing to do with yours, with mine, with Robert the Bruce's, with JFK's, with Churchill's, with Stalin's....

[davefoc]

Fraeybol is any of this stuff true?

Posted from BBC sit on Stalin http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/modern/stalin/stalihtm.htm#q1
Peasants had to pool their machinery and livestock on large farms, which were controlled by the State. 5,000,000 richer peasants, Kulaks, were murdered or starved to death.
On the Collective farms, peasants were forced to hand over their produce to the government and were either paid wages or had to feed themselves on what was left over. the ensuing result was a devastating famine. Kulaks burnt their crops and killed their animals, rather than hand them over. 5,000,000 people starved to death in the Soviet Union between 1932 to 1934 . Agricultural production fell by 15%.

Collectivisation was part of the first Five Year Plan. This was an attempt to modernise industry by the state taking over all firms and businesses:
Each business or factory was given a target that it had to meet every year for a five-year period. the targets were worked out by "Gosplan" in Moscow. This organisation had half a million workers who did nothing but set targets for every factory and works and then check how much was actually produced. the First Five year plan was actually cut to four years to make people work harder. Punishment for failing to meet targets was severe. Managers of factories could be executed. Workers were forced to work longer hours and were not allowed to change their jobs. Being away from work became a crime.

Those who objected to Stalin's methods ended up in slave labour camps called Gulags. these were often in Siberia or in Northern Russia, where the weather in winter was very cold. Here they worked with little food for ten years or more. Many died from exhaustion.
Many factories faked production figures, or disregarded the quality of goods produced. So long as the numbers were right, nothing else mattered. It was estimated that half of all tractors made in the 1930s broke down.

Overall the first three Five Year Plans, which ran from 1928 to 1941, increased industrial production by about 400%, but how much of that increase was genuine is very difficult to say.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Yes, and Lysenko advanced the science of agriculture and biology straight into the 18th century.

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lysenko2.jpg

"The details and an evaluation of the scientific debate between Lysenko and the Morganists, and the remarkable, ignored, and original insights by Lysenko that have since turned out to be true in botany, soil science, and other fields" are examined here:

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/chap3.html

[Huzington]

"Bush . . . isn't putting people into death camps, and forcing millions of people into horrible poverty.

"Stalin did."

Stalin did put terrorists, criminals, wreckers of the five year plans, etc in labour camps. "Historians" such as Conquest include ALL criminals and ALL causes of death in their absurd figures.

Bush doesn't have a secret police ready to kill us for any subversive words.

Nor did Stalin.

Also, I said "Hitler did the same thing" not "Hitler and Stalin are exactly the same."

Reading comprehension. Please.

Now you childishly insult the arguer. It is quite apparent that it was a Hitler-Stalin comparison.

50 million deaths doesn't constitute evidence.

Oh, so it is fifty million now? I thought it was ten thousand? I thought it was ten million? I thought it was thirty million? I thought it was sixty million? Please....

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Fraeybol
Now you compare Stalin with Hitler. What an absurdity. Very much like the Bush-Hitler comparisons.

Agreed, there is no comparision. Hitler was a girl scout compared to Stalin.

First of all, Stalin was not very charismatic.

He didn't have to be.

Secondly, above all Stalin cared about the masses, and they cared about him.

Stalin cared only that enough of them died to suit him. Written documentation exists showing that he exhorted his minions to kill more and more. If the masses cared about him, they cared about him in the way a whipped dog cares about his master.

Thirdly, nothing is "objectively a good thing". The statement that something is objectively good is a is self-contradictory statement. For goodness is not a quality of the objective world. Goodness is invariably an subjective opinion (which is a redundancy), invariably an unverifiable opinion (which is another redundancy). One can know absolutely everything about history and think it all neither good nor bad. One's moral code has no bearing on one's historical knowledge.

Well, that's rather sociopathic, isn't it?

Fourthly, I see the forementioned accomplishment is neither good nor bad, probably because I am objective and my mind does not adhere to unverifiable moralisms and other statements which are impossible to verify.

Fifthly, the burden of proof is on those who claim that Russia was "built on bones". There is no evidence of such a thing.
Yes, there is:

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/09/26092002150432.asp


Memorial says the majority of those victims were probably killed during the Great Terror of 1937-38, when Stalin sought to eliminate the old guard of the Communist Party and consolidate his personal power. Until the discovery of the Toskovo grave, only one other mass grave had been discovered near St. Petersburg. It is believed to contain the remains of up to 8,500 people.
Honor Stalin if you wish, but don't pretend he was a nice guy.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by davefoc
Fraeybol is any of this stuff true?

Posted from BBC sit on Stalin http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/modern/stalin/stalihtm.htm#q1


Thank you for your excellent responses

To answer your question: True in many respects, but it ignores other facts which cannot be ignored. I have dealt with this in some of my previous posts. I will deal with it again when I return from a quick trip.

[mbp]

Originally posted by Fraeybol

Fourthly, I see the forementioned accomplishment as neither good nor bad, probably because I am objective and my mind does not adhere to unverifiable moralisms and other statements which are impossible to verify.

Why do you call it a great accomplishment then?

[bignickel]

I would pay $50 to get this guy and JK in a room together.

This would a great way to raise funds for the JREF. Who's with me?

[davefoc]

A. Lysenko's scientific theories with regard to the environment inducing hereditary changes have no mainstream scientific support. Instead of quoting some geocities website that is touting a crank theory, try to find a prominent biologist or genetic scientist of any kind that believes to the contrary.

B. This is part of what a Russion Author had to say about him:
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/lysenko.html

Became dictator in biological sciences under Stalin, whose cult he supported. In effect, he became a Stalinist deputy for science, like Zhdanov for culture, Voroshilov for the army, Beria for everything in the country. [Lysenko] was personally responsible for the exile, torture, and death of many talented scientists, and for an environment of oppression and backwardness in Soviet science.

Fraeybol, where are you coming from? Are you a believer in some Stalinist revisionist cult? Are you just acting as a troll, throwing up whacky theories to get a response? Do you have such a deep belief in the inevitable good of socialism that it drives you to see even one of the most horrific episodes in human history as a good thing?

What is your point?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Fraeybol
Stalin said, "We are . . . one hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten." And this is precisely what he had done.

Stalin, starting in 1928, had concentrated on building brick factores, coal mines, cement plants, oil refineries, power stations, steel mills, and so forth. In the Urals-Kuzbadd region a new industry of iron and steel had begun. In Stalingrad an enormous tractor plant had opened. With the lenient use of labour camps, Stalin had put an end to unemployment, whilst the rest of the world had suffered from mass unemployment. The figure of the 1914 level of industrial production had increased by seven times. Stalin had nationalised all Soviet farmland. Giant farms on which workers worked collectively and efficiently had replaced the Kulaks. The USSR had become industrialised in less than ten years; it had overtaken Britain as an industrial nation by 1939.

Through the limitless genius of a single leader, and the enthusiastic willingness of a formerly exploited people, within a short space of time the USSR had escaped the confines of the mediaeval ages and settled itself in the space age.

Ah, it seems that George Orwell was right...

"People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement."

George Orwell - Politics and the English Language: 1946

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


Ah, it seems that George Orwell was right...

...

George Orwell - Politics and the English Language: 1946

That's a great essay of his.

Plus, see the Chomsky quote in my sig.

[voidx]

Yes, it was an amazing achievement, as long as you also acknowledge that it came at a horrible and inhumane cost. Industrialization on that scale, in such a short time period can only come about at the expense of freedom of personal liberties, rights, and choice. Changes of that magnitude to a culture take time, and to do them quickly is always met with resistance. Resistance that must be put down firmly, and in most cases historically it is this firm put down of resistance to the "new" ideal that goes to peoples heads and gets out of control, especially in a society where clear and disparate class lines still exist. It was quite an amazing feat how much both Germany and Russia were able to mobilize industry from horrible conditions in such a short period of time. But it can only have been done at the costs of lives and freedom. Something has to give in a scenario such as that, and its generally the already under-priviledged that suffer for it, its built upon their breaking backs.

[kittynh]

I just finished reading the book ,"How I Got My Inheritance" (sorry forgot author, and book is at library).

This woman grew up in a Russian Jewish family that escaped the Czars. They all thought it was going to be hunky dory under Stalin. They would all but spit when you mentioned Trotsky.

A member every once in awhile would move back, and then quickly return to the US saying, "well, many must die for the good of the masses...." But, they didn't exactly want to die for the masses themselves.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by voidx
Yes, it was an amazing achievement, as long as you also acknowledge that it came at a horrible and inhumane cost. Industrialization on that scale, in such a short time period can only come about at the expense of freedom of personal liberties, rights, and choice. Changes of that magnitude to a culture take time, and to do them quickly is always met with resistance. Resistance that must be put down firmly, and in most cases historically it is this firm put down of resistance to the "new" ideal that goes to peoples heads and gets out of control, especially in a society where clear and disparate class lines still exist. It was quite an amazing feat how much both Germany and Russia were able to mobilize industry from horrible conditions in such a short period of time. But it can only have been done at the costs of lives and freedom. Something has to give in a scenario such as that, and its generally the already under-priviledged that suffer for it, its built upon their breaking backs.
Yes...Stalin didn't do it, the common people did it, under extremely hard circumstances. It is an amazing feat, considering the despots such as Stalin who made their lives so difficult. It's a bit amusing to see Stalin being given credit for the accomplishments of the common people. I mean, isn't such a thing against the very tenets of communism?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by voidx
Yes, it was an amazing achievement, as long as you also acknowledge that it came at a horrible and inhumane cost. Industrialization on that scale, in such a short time period can only come about at the expense of freedom of personal liberties, rights, and choice.

It was quite an amazing feat how much both Germany and Russia were able to mobilize industry from horrible conditions in such a short period of time. But it can only have been done at the costs of lives and freedom. Something has to give in a scenario such as that, and its generally the already under-priviledged that suffer for it, its built upon their breaking backs.

This is one of the classic pro stalinist sleights of hand. To get people to believe that there was a rapid modernisation of the Russian economy under soviet management, which could not have been done using more humane bourgeois methods. Its the old "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" argument.

In fact it's balls.

I have seen an analysis of economic growth in the 1919 to 1941 period using official Soviet Stats ( ex hypothesi beyond criticism ) which show growth of about 3% per annum. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

Think.......under the Czars Russia blocks a german invasion for more than three years. Under Stalin they are at the gates of Moscow in three months.

The fact is that Russia would have grown economically as fast or faster under the Czars or under a democratic government. The deaths, torture and slavery were for nothing.

As regards Germany, this was one of the worlds leading industrial powers. It's hardly surprising that it could make a lot of arms if it wanted to. I believe Hitler used unsustainable deficit financing to pay for military construction in the pre war period. The whole system was based on the gamble that Germany would obtain its lebensraum by 1942 or 1943. Otherwise, economically speaking the wheels would start to fall off.

[Skeptic]

C'mon people: this guy's an obvious troll. REAL Stalin fans (if there are any left) don't mention his gulags and other crimes; they certainly don't go around calling them "lenient". This and other verbal clues easily show he's just posting to get attention.

Five bucks that if this "long live Stalin" post doen't elicit enough angry responses, he'll get another username and start posting "the jews are evil" (or something similar).

[kittynh]

Well, and he hasn't talked yet about how Trotsky was killed by a jelous boyfriend, but if he HAD been killed by Stalin he would have deserved it.

They are still touchy about Trotsky.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Fade
I don't know what to say.

Hitler did almost the same thing. A charismatic dictator can move mountains, because he doesn't care that people are going to die in the process. If you honestly think what he did was, objectively, a good thing, I pity your frail sanity and grasp of history. Russia was built on mountains and MOUNTAINS of bones.

The rest of the western world rightfully decried it.

one of Mao Tse-Tung's legacies

Chinese "laogai" --- gulags (http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1995/4/15_3.html)

Work is Freedom!

North Korea has and continues to have gulags Korean Concentration Camps (http://www.hrwf.net/newhrwf/html/north_korea___political_prison.html)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Fraeybol


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush doesn't have a secret police ready to kill us for any subversive words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Nor did Stalin.




Are you aware of all the Russian literary figures that were denounced and or arrested and sent to gulags during the many purges during Stalin's reign of terror?

here are some:

Sent to forced labour camps or exiled to Siberia ("d" conotes death while in the gulags or in exile):

Isaak Babel - d

Nikolai Klyuyev - d

Osip Mendelshtam - d

Boris Pilnyak - disappeared

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn - survived

Titsian Tabidze - disappeared

Artem Vesely - disappeared

Pavel Vasilyev - died in purge

Denounced in literary purges:

Anna Akhmatova

Mikail Zoshchenko

and countless others :(

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Agreed, there is no comparision. Hitler was a girl scout compared to Stalin. Hitler once said of Stalin, He is a beast, but he's a beast on a grand scale who must command our unconditional respect. In his own way, he is a hell of a fellow! (Stalin Breaker of Nations, p.xvi).

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hitler once said of Stalin, He is a beast, but he's a beast on a grand scale who must command our unconditional respect. In his own way, he is a hell of a fellow! (Stalin Breaker of Nations, p.xvi).

And of course, let's not forget the central role of his paranoia in leaving the USSR virtually un-prepared to face Hitler's Army....

[Victor Danilchenko]

Shaun from Scotland

And of course, let's not forget the central role of his paranoia in leaving the USSR virtually un-prepared to face Hitler's Army....Some interesting analyses were done using documents that came to light under Glasnost. Apparently, Stalin was more than prepared -- he was fully ready for invading Germany. The western border was mobilized for attack, the open passage lines were cut into the mine fields girding the Soviet border in former Poland, etc. Hitler supposedly beat Stalin to it by about 2 weeks -- he did the only thing he could; which would also explain his bizarre timing in starting the war on USSR before closing the british front.

However, the fate of the wat was decided by winter 1941. The moment hitler failed to win blitz-krieg, the war became a question of resources -- which resources USSR has far more of.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Shaun from Scotland

Some interesting analyses were done using documents that came to light under Glasnost. Apparently, Stalin was more than prepared -- he was fully ready for invading Germany. The western border was mobilized for attack, the open passage lines were cut into the mine fields girding the Soviet border in former Poland, etc. Hitler supposedly beat Stalin to it by about 2 weeks -- he did the only thing he could; which would also explain his bizarre timing in starting the war on USSR before closing the british front.

However, the fate of the wat was decided by winter 1941. The moment hitler failed to win blitz-krieg, the war became a question of resources -- which resources USSR has far more of. Victor,

I was hoping you would show up. I am curious as to your opinion of Fraeybol's concerning Ukrainians, forced collectivization, purges and those dreaded rich peasants that were gumming up the works. Actually much of his opinions are here: The Black Book of Communism" - Flawed Basic Premise? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22806&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

Forgive the way I phrased the question. It obviously expresses my bias. I'm certain that your knowledge is much better than mine. I have found you to be intellectually honest (don't tell win) so I will respect whatever your response is. Of course feel free to avoid the question altogether if I am out of bounds.

RandFan

[Victor Danilchenko]

RandFan

I was hoping you would show up. I am curious as to your opinion of Fraeybol's concerning Ukrainians, forced collectivization, purges and those dreaded rich peasants that were gumming up the works.Frayerbol is a clueless morons. Stalin starved to death 10-12 million Ukrainians (I am a Ukrainian, BTW). What's more, the ones who were starved -- 'kulaks', large farmers -- were in fact the most enterprising and hard-working of ukrainian peasants.

Famine in Ukraine is ridiculous, kinda like a flood in Sahara. We are talking about a land where you can stretch your hand in a random direction, and bring it back with a handful of food! it's some of the richest agricultural land in the world; but the government set impossible production quotas, collected all agricultural produce including seed crops, locked them up in storage silos, and shoot anyone who tried to approach them... All at Stalin's command. It was outright undisputable, indefensible genocide.

Agricultural production under collectivization in Ukraine dropped -- all the best peasants were starved to death. It was done not to improve economic state of USSR, but to extend the communist party's control.

Whatever Stalin's achievements, none justify deaths of millions of innocents.

Actually much of his opinions are here: The Black Book of Communism" - Flawed Basic Premise? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22806&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) I have seen enough of his opinions in this thread. He sounds like an ethically anacephalous idiot to me.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
RandFan

Frayerbol is a clueless morons. Stalin starved to death 10-12 million Ukrainians (I am a Ukrainian, BTW). What's more, the ones who were starved -- 'kulaks', large farmers -- were in fact the most enterprising and hard-working of ukrainian peasants.

Famine in Ukraine is ridiculous, kinda like a flood in Sahara. We are talking about a land where you can stretch your hand in a random direction, and bring it back with a handful of food! it's some of the richest agricultural land in the world; but the government set impossible production quotas, collected all agricultural produce including seed crops, locked them up in storage silos, and shoot anyone who tried to approach them... All at Stalin's command. It was outright undisputable, indefensible genocide.

Agricultural production under collectivization in Ukraine dropped -- all the best peasants were starved to death. It was done not to improve economic state of USSR, but to extend the communist party's control.

Whatever Stalin's achievements, none justify deaths of millions of innocents.

I have seen enough of his opinions in this thread. He sounds like an ethically anacephalous idiot to me. I knew that you were Ukranian, I remember when someone else guesed that you looked "Russian" and you corrected the error.

Your discription is as I remember reading about it. You seemed an appropriate person to get an opinion from.

Thanks.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Fraeybol
Stalin said, "We are . . . one hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten." And this is precisely what he had done.
Good lord!!:eek: :eek:

Fraeybol, it blows my mind that you would try to clear Stalin's name. Normally when a person gives Stalin as an example for why communism is bad, he or she is told by a communist that Stalin's version of communism wasn't actually communism. You're a complete rejection of that line of thought.

[corplinx]

Excuse me while I VOMIT...... If I met someone on the street who started singing the praises of Stalin, I do believe he would get his ass whipped.

[Fade]

Victor SaidBUNCH OF STUFF

Okay. Now I know what to say!

[LW]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

Some interesting analyses were done using documents that came to light under Glasnost. Apparently, Stalin was more than prepared -- he was fully ready for invading Germany. The western border was mobilized for attack, the open passage lines were cut into the mine fields girding the Soviet border in former Poland, etc.

Do you have references for these analyses. I've heard of them but never seen any details. Have they uncovered anything concrete like detailed attack plans? I ask this because attacking Germany in summer 1941 would have been patently stupid thing to do since the Red Army was still in middle of reorganization after the Winter War against Finland had shown its abysmal weaknesses. Of course, Stalin was not above making stupid decisions.

One explanation for the front-heavy deployment of forces was the soviet defensive doctrine that called for first destroying the attacking forces in a heroic defence and then conducting an all-out counterattack into the enemy territory.

And as a more general side note about labor camps. Solchenitsin writes in Gulag Archipelago about an analysis that showed that a prisoner cost 1/2 of a free worker. However, he was only 1/3 as effective. As an example Solchenitsin gives the Stalin's Channel connecting Lake Onega to the White Sea. When it was planned the engineers calculated the amount of eath that had to be digged. According to the work records the prisoners digged twice this amount but still the channel ended up being too shallow for ships. The reason? The prisoners were given a nearly impossible daily work quota (digging and transporting away 3 m^3 soft earth or 1 m^3 cliffside per day). The surest way to survive was to bribe the record keepers.

[Victor Danilchenko]

LW

Do you have references for these analyses.It was done by a military historian Vladimir Rezun, publishing under nom de plume 'Viktor Suvorov'. He wrote an article about it Journal of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies in 6/85, which was later expanded into books, 'Icebreaker' and 'The Last Republic'.

I've heard of them but never seen any details. Have they uncovered anything concrete like detailed attack plans?Not to my knowledge -- but then again, there's a lot of nasty stuff of Stalin's that direct documentation was never disdciovered for; but the pulled together a lot of circumstantial evidence, such as supply records for the western border stockpiles: millions of light boots well-suited for european roads but near-useless in USSR, for example; or the concentration of airplanes on the western border -- only useful for offense

I ask this because attacking Germany in summer 1941 would have been patently stupid thing to do since the Red Army was still in middle of reorganization after the Winter War against Finland had shown its abysmal weaknesses. Of course, Stalin was not above making stupid decisions.Neither was Hitler -- attacking USSR was stupid in general due to its sheer size and resourse base, and attacking it as a second front was doubly so. It was a race condition...

One explanation for the front-heavy deployment of forces was the soviet defensive doctrine that called for first destroying the attacking forces in a heroic defence and then conducting an all-out counterattack into the enemy territory.That is highly unlikely, given that Stalin's refusal to accept the imminence of German attack is well-documented. USSR was mobilizing for war, but they weren't mobilizing for defense.

And as a more general side note about labor camps. Solchenitsin writes in Gulag Archipelago about an analysis that showed that a prisoner cost 1/2 of a free worker. However, he was only 1/3 as effective.That sounds plausible. As with many other things, Stalin was interested in control even more than in industrial growth.

[Victor Danilchenko]

A good on-line starting point may be http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/raack2.htm