Stalin Sculpture at National D-Day memorial- your opinions

So a National D-Day memorial park in Virginia is planning on putting up a bust of Josef Stalin (busts of FDR and Churchill are already up). I found an article about it,thisarticle is clearly opposed to the statue buttheyhave a video which does show both sides of view.

So there are two main arguments:

1. The Statue glorifies a murder and is disrespectfuland inappropriate in a D-Day museum meant to honorthose who died fighting for freedom.

2. Stalin had a role in planning D-Day (not the operations so much, but he begged the U.S. and Britain to open up a Second Front against the Nazis) and he was an ally during the war.

Note on this poll I've decided to go ex officio, and won't vote.

It's to praise his efforts at the moment in time. Not to glorify the rest of his reign. The Russian contributions to the WWII effort was indespencible. I'd have no problem with recognizeing Stalin for his efforts in defeating the Nazis.

Considering the pivotal role the Soviet Union played in the Allied victory in WWII, I would find it hilariously ironic if we now choose to try to remove them from the picture, considering that that was a practice that Stalin often did when confronted with inconvenient historical facts.

I have very little knowledge about the whole subject or about the guy so bear with me if I sound ignorant, but if somebody murdered that many people, why are they getting a statue? he doesn't sound like a hero, he sounds like a monster.

I could see why he's not up there though..He didn't really do much involving D-Day. But the Soviets are also was the main reason that Nazi Germany didn't win the whole war..

Considering the pivotal role the Soviet Union played in the Allied victory in WWII, I would find it hilariously ironic if we now choose to try to remove them from the picture, considering that that was a practice that Stalin often did when confronted with inconvenient historical facts.

GabuEx

Yeah, I think it should be there. Stalin may have caused a hell of a lot of deaths, but that doesn't remove the fact that he and the USSR were an integral part of the Grand Alliance in the Second World War. D-Day and the liberation of France would've been far worse without the Soviets fighting the Germans and preparing for Operation Bagration upcoming in the Eastern front. Hell, in the latter stages, Stalin was arguably more important than Churchill was, and he's got his own bust there on display.

I have very little knowledge about the whole subject or about the guy so bare with me if I sound ignorant, but if somebody murdered that many people, why are they getting a statue? he doesn't sound like a hero, he sounds like a monster.XilePrincess

.. Andrew Jackson signed the bill which killed thousands to tens of thousands of Cherokee in the Indian Removal Act.. As well as displacing many more, this was just one of many of his questionable things.. Yet we honor him as a president and most certainly have statues and what not him.. I would agree if this practice was actually done, but it isn't.. To me this seems like historical convience to overwrite people they do not agree with..

I have very little knowledge about the whole subject or about the guy so bear with me if I sound ignorant, but if somebody murdered that many people, why are they getting a statue? he doesn't sound like a hero, he sounds like a monster.

XilePrincess

Because this is a memorial dealing with WWII, and it would be blatantly historically inaccurate to solely credit the Allied victory in the European theater to the Americans and the Brits.

I have very little knowledge about the whole subject or about the guy so bare with me if I sound ignorant, but if somebody murdered that many people, why are they getting a statue? he doesn't sound like a hero, he sounds like a monster.XilePrincess

While it may be "Historically Accurate", why do we need a Statue of Stalin?

While it may be "Historically Accurate", why do we need a Statue of Stalin?

Snipes_2

If every other leader has a statue with the specific event, why not him too?

[QUOTE="XilePrincess"]I have very little knowledge about the whole subject or about the guy so bare with me if I sound ignorant, but if somebody murdered that many people, why are they getting a statue? he doesn't sound like a hero, he sounds like a monster.sSubZerOo

.. Andrew Jackson signed the bill which killed thousands to tens of thousands of Cherokee in the Indian Removal Act.. As well as displacing many more, this was just one of many of his questionable things.. Yet we honor him as a president and most certainly have statues and what not him.. I would agree if this practice was actually done, but it isn't.. To me this seems like historical convience to overwrite people they do not agree with..

While it may be "Historically Accurate", why do we need a Statue of Stalin?

Snipes_2

To give him his fair shake for his efforts. There are statues of the other leaders and his belongs up there with them.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

While it may be "Historically Accurate", why do we need a Statue of Stalin?

sSubZerOo

If every other leader has a statue with the specific event, why not him too?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

While it may be "Historically Accurate", why do we need a Statue of Stalin?

Snipes_2

If every other leader has a statue with the specific event, why not him too?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="XilePrincess"]I have very little knowledge about the whole subject or about the guy so bare with me if I sound ignorant, but if somebody murdered that many people, why are they getting a statue? he doesn't sound like a hero, he sounds like a monster.XilePrincess

.. Andrew Jackson signed the bill which killed thousands to tens of thousands of Cherokee in the Indian Removal Act.. As well as displacing many more, this was just one of many of his questionable things.. Yet we honor him as a president and most certainly have statues and what not him.. I would agree if this practice was actually done, but it isn't.. To me this seems like historical convience to overwrite people they do not agree with..

Stalin like Jackson isn't being honored for that though, no one is saying Stalin is a bundle of love.. The point being is every supposed great person out there in history has done numerous questionable things on today's standards.. People are cherry picking.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="XilePrincess"]I have very little knowledge about the whole subject or about the guy so bare with me if I sound ignorant, but if somebody murdered that many people, why are they getting a statue? he doesn't sound like a hero, he sounds like a monster.XilePrincess

.. Andrew Jackson signed the bill which killed thousands to tens of thousands of Cherokee in the Indian Removal Act.. As well as displacing many more, this was just one of many of his questionable things.. Yet we honor him as a president and most certainly have statues and what not him.. I would agree if this practice was actually done, but it isn't.. To me this seems like historical convience to overwrite people they do not agree with..

He's not being honored for the mass murders. He'e being honored for his contributions in defeating the Nazis.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

While it may be "Historically Accurate", why do we need a Statue of Stalin?

Snipes_2

If every other leader has a statue with the specific event, why not him too?

Neither, many would argue, was FDR, but that does not change the fact that he was the leader of a country whose contributions to WWII were integral to the Allied victory.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

While it may be "Historically Accurate", why do we need a Statue of Stalin?

Snipes_2

If every other leader has a statue with the specific event, why not him too?

No he's not, but respect where it's due.

And this is coming from someone who thinks Stalin was as as bad as Hitler.

no need for a statue, Russia won the second world war, the allies only made sure they didnt take all of Germany

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

While it may be "Historically Accurate", why do we need a Statue of Stalin?

CuDDKiDD

To give him his fair shake for his efforts. There are statues of the other leaders and his belongs up there with them.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

If every other leader has a statue with the specific event, why not him too?

taj7575

No he's not, but respect where it's due.

And this is coming from someone who thinks Stalin was as as bad as Hitler.

In all honesty I wouldn't honor him like others.. But YET again if we were not to honor him based on that, I would be in full favor to the numerous supposed honors great leadres around the world have gotten but have done some really awful things by today's standards.. So in my mind we either honor him or not to, just as long as there is not a historical bias (well there always is, but nothing that blantent)..

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

If every other leader has a statue with the specific event, why not him too?

GabuEx

Neither, many would argue, was FDR, but that does not change the fact that he was the leader of a country whose contributions to WWII were integral to the Allied victory.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

If every other leader has a statue with the specific event, why not him too?

taj7575

No he's not, but respect where it's due.

And this is coming from someone who thinks Stalin was as as bad as Hitler.

[QUOTE="CuDDKiDD"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

While it may be "Historically Accurate", why do we need a Statue of Stalin?

Snipes_2

To give him his fair shake for his efforts. There are statues of the other leaders and his belongs up there with them.

By this argument we really can demonize any great supposed leader in history.. Afterall why should we honor the founding fathers in the US? They were pompus arrogant nobles who really only cared for democracy amongst the upper class.. Who more or less fully supported slavery and having women treated as second class citizens.. Or Nepolean, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, etc etc.. All have a closet of skeletons or thigns we find immoral or distasteful by today's standards.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

If every other leader has a statue with the specific event, why not him too?

Duckman5

Stalin did play a pivotal role in WW2 as well as the Soviets. So I dont see why they cant be placed there. So we will sweep them under the rug because we didnt like these historical facts?

[QUOTE="CuDDKiDD"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

While it may be "Historically Accurate", why do we need a Statue of Stalin?

Snipes_2

To give him his fair shake for his efforts. There are statues of the other leaders and his belongs up there with them.

The statue isn't honoring him for that :|

It's honoring him for standing with the Allied Troops in bringing down Nazi Germany.

Like Gabu noted....Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal policy lead directly to the deaths of ten's of thousand native american's yet he's on the $20 bill and dozens of statues and memorials.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] He's not exactly anything to look up to.

sSubZerOo

No he's not, but respect where it's due.

And this is coming from someone who thinks Stalin was as as bad as Hitler.

In all honesty I wouldn't honor him like others.. But YET again if we were not to honor him based on that, I would be in full favor to the numerous supposed honors great leadres around the world have gotten but have done some really awful things by today's standards.. So in my mind we either honor him or not to, just as long as there is not a historical bias (well there always is, but nothing that blantent)..

Yeah I understand. Maybe a plaque would be enough eh?

[QUOTE="Duckman5"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] He's not exactly anything to look up to.

Snipes_2

Yeah but those countries didnt suffer the worst of the war either ;)

[QUOTE="Duckman5"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] He's not exactly anything to look up to.

Snipes_2

Yes and they're all being recognized for those efforts. Russia should to.

[QUOTE="Duckman5"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] He's not exactly anything to look up to.

Snipes_2

and those countries arn't being forgotten either.. The poitn being is if your going to cherry pick this, it becomes a matter of hypocrisy and cultural bias.. Where we begin demonizing other nations leaders and what not while completely ignoring the leaders we have immortalized in stone.. The founding fathers for instance in politics it seems to be as a shining ray of light that they are the ultimate good.. When they were most certainly not.. They were like just about every other person around that time period.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] He's not exactly anything to look up to.

Snipes_2

No he's not, but respect where it's due.

And this is coming from someone who thinks Stalin was as as bad as Hitler.

..Okay?

I think this is just ignorant on our part. During the parade for the Great Patriotic War (WWII) this year in Russia, they had US and French soldiers march along with the Russian soldiers. They were the main country fighting wise during WWII and they deserve respect no matter what.

We respect ignorant people in this country too.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

No he's not, but respect where it's due.

And this is coming from someone who thinks Stalin was as as bad as Hitler.

taj7575

In all honesty I wouldn't honor him like others.. But YET again if we were not to honor him based on that, I would be in full favor to the numerous supposed honors great leadres around the world have gotten but have done some really awful things by today's standards.. So in my mind we either honor him or not to, just as long as there is not a historical bias (well there always is, but nothing that blantent)..

Yeah I understand. Maybe a plaque would be enough eh?

Only if we put a plaque of every other leader in history that we have done actiosn and the like that have caused numerous bad things to happen or we find distasteful to downright horrifying.. I mean we like to consider Columbus as a great explorer who did no harm.. But did he? His discovery led to the systematic genocide of the natives within the region.. Who are we to deserve historically speaking what leader deserves and doesn't if its based on an entire track record and not just the event they are beign given.

We arent honoring him for his mass murder..... We are honoring him for standing with the Allies and help bringing down Nazi Germany

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

In all honesty I wouldn't honor him like others.. But YET again if we were not to honor him based on that, I would be in full favor to the numerous supposed honors great leadres around the world have gotten but have done some really awful things by today's standards.. So in my mind we either honor him or not to, just as long as there is not a historical bias (well there always is, but nothing that blantent)..

sSubZerOo

Yeah I understand. Maybe a plaque would be enough eh?

Only if we put a plaque of every other leader in history that we have done actiosn and the like that have caused numerous bad things to happen or we find distasteful to downright horrifying.. I mean we like to consider Columbus as a great explorer who did no harm.. But did he? His discovery led to the systematic genocide of the natives within the region.. Who are we to deserve historically speaking what leader deserves and doesn't if its based on an entire track record and not just the event they are beign given.

I guess because of how big the situation was. Thats the only thing I could think of.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

Yeah I understand. Maybe a plaque would be enough eh?

taj7575

Only if we put a plaque of every other leader in history that we have done actiosn and the like that have caused numerous bad things to happen or we find distasteful to downright horrifying.. I mean we like to consider Columbus as a great explorer who did no harm.. But did he? His discovery led to the systematic genocide of the natives within the region.. Who are we to deserve historically speaking what leader deserves and doesn't if its based on an entire track record and not just the event they are beign given.

I guess because of how big the situation was. Thats the only thing I could think of.

Put it in this perspective.. We honor Andrew Jackson for being a war hero and "the common man" politican of his time.. Either we honor him specifically for those qualities, or we just conviently forget he was a blantent racist who signed the Indian Removal Act.. Which lead to one of the largest Native American tragedies in history, the Trail of Tears.. I mean if we are going to knock up one tree on that Stalin shouldn't be honored speciifcally for other thigns he did.. Well then I have a huge list of people I want statues knocked down, but clearly they have done awful things too.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Only if we put a plaque of every other leader in history that we have done actiosn and the like that have caused numerous bad things to happen or we find distasteful to downright horrifying.. I mean we like to consider Columbus as a great explorer who did no harm.. But did he? His discovery led to the systematic genocide of the natives within the region.. Who are we to deserve historically speaking what leader deserves and doesn't if its based on an entire track record and not just the event they are beign given.

sSubZerOo

I guess because of how big the situation was. Thats the only thing I could think of.

Put it in this perspective.. We honor Andrew Jackson for being a war hero and "the common man" politican of his time.. Either we honor him specifically for those qualities, or we just conviently forget he was a blantent racist who signed the Indian Removal Act.. Which lead to one of the largest Native American tragedies in history, the Trail of Tears.. I mean if we are going to knock up one tree on that Stalin shouldn't be honored speciifcally for other thigns he did.. Well then I have a huge list of people I want statues knocked down, but clearly they have done awful things too.

And he's on the $20 note to boot!

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Only if we put a plaque of every other leader in history that we have done actiosn and the like that have caused numerous bad things to happen or we find distasteful to downright horrifying.. I mean we like to consider Columbus as a great explorer who did no harm.. But did he? His discovery led to the systematic genocide of the natives within the region.. Who are we to deserve historically speaking what leader deserves and doesn't if its based on an entire track record and not just the event they are beign given.

sSubZerOo

I guess because of how big the situation was. Thats the only thing I could think of.

Put it in this perspective.. We honor Andrew Jackson for being a war hero and "the common man" politican of his time.. Either we honor him specifically for those qualities, or we just conviently forget he was a blantent racist who signed the Indian Removal Act.. Which lead to one of the largest Native American tragedies in history, the Trail of Tears.. I mean if we are going to knock up one tree on that Stalin shouldn't be honored speciifcally for other thigns he did.. Well then I have a huge list of people I want statues knocked down, but clearly they have done awful things too.

I agree with you there. Like I said, even in US history, there are many people, like Jackson, who did a lot of terrible things and are still honored/remembered for a few good things they did.

Having Stalin on side was key to victory - While the actions of the Red Army and his orders may have been objectionable, his support for the allied cause was vitally important. The sacrifices the soviets had to make, irrespective of their own misdeeds, far exceeds what the US, France or the UK suffered in terms of casualties, both civilian and military.

We could criticise the way the allies carved up the world into spheres of influence for themselves and the soviets, but we don't. We can near enough lay the Korean and Vietnam wars at their feet...but don't, along with who knows how many sympathetic dictators to one side or the other.

He is symbolic of Russian defiance, sacrifice and resilience in the face of Nazi aggression. He was no saint, but was their leader in the struggle against Nazism. Without his support the War in the Pacific and the Western front would have been far harder for the Allies to win.

Churchill ordered the British fleet to whipe out the French fleet while they were still british allies, just to make sure it didn't fall into German hands. Thousands of french were killed, basically in cold blood. Many leaders make hard decisions during war, and do bad things. so whatever you say about stalin, he and russia saved western Europe, and deserve recognition

Stalin may have done many terrible things, but you can't deny he really helped in WW2. The effort Russia made is very underappreciated. I have been studying Russian history and they did so much during WW2. The Battle of Stalingrad alone was one of the biggest battles during WW2. You can't be politcally correct in this case, Stalin needs to be mentioned despite the horrible things he did.

Stalin may have done many terrible things, but you can't deny he really helped in WW2. The effort Russia made is very underappreciated. I have been studying Russian history and they did so much during WW2. The Battle of Stalingrad alone was one of the biggest battles during WW2. You can't be politcally correct in this case, Stalin needs to be mentioned despite the horrible things he did.

Film-Guy

I did a report on the Battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets did really take a lot of punishment. We cant just mark off Stalin and the Soviets from their involvement in the war.

I think people dont want it there because they dont want the atrocities from one of the so called "good guys" to stain the reputation of the rest and their efforts.