Stalin Sculpture at National D-Day memorial- your opinions

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

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.

T_P_O

But it's a D-Day Memorial, which Stalin played absolutely no part in. There should be no statue of Stalin at the D-Day Memorial.

So we should have a statue of this **** because he "urged" us to make D-Day happen? That is simply not enough, and you might as well make a statue of every single person who supported this invasion, which of course is just simply ludicrous.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

But it's a D-Day Memorial, which Stalin played absolutely no part in. There should be no statue of Stalin at the D-Day Memorial.

TheAbbeFaria

So we should have a statue of this **** because he "urged" us to make D-Day happen? That is simply not enough, and you might as well make a statue of every single person who supported this invasion, which of course is just simply ludicrous.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] Well, you could say that at the Tehran conference in 1943, Stalin complained and encouraged the UK and US forces to make it happen in 1944. Though that's not much, it's hyperbole to say he had "nothing to do with it" at all.T_P_O

So we should have a statue of this **** because he "urged" us to make D-Day happen? That is simply not enough, and you might as well make a statue of every single person who supported this invasion, which of course is just simply ludicrous.

I'm not angry at all. . .

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.

CuDDKiDD

[QUOTE="wstfld"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] So, You're saying no Indians fought back? "In 1835, the Seminoles refused to leave Florida, leading to the Second Seminole War. The most important leader in the war was Osceola, who led the Seminoles in their fight against removal. While based in the Everglades of Florida, Osceola and his band used surprise attacks to defeat the U.S. Army in many battles" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removalSnipes_2

How did you assume that I meant no Indians fought back? I didn't assume that you meant there were no innocent Indians. Anyway. Here is a fact: Andrew Jackson forcefully removed peaceful, Christian, "civilized" Indians from their own lands resulting in the death of 4,000 innocent people.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="wstfld"]

How did you assume that I meant no Indians fought back? I didn't assume that you meant there were no innocent Indians. Anyway. Here is a fact: Andrew Jackson forcefully removed peaceful, Christian, "civilized" Indians from their own lands resulting in the death of 4,000 innocent people.

wstfld

Sure it's historically accurate, but I don't think a statue is appropriate. Perhaps some kind of plaque with a descriptionof what Stalin and the Soveits did for D-Day?

Sure it's historically accurate, but I don't think a statue is appropriate. Perhaps some kind of plaque with a descriptionof what Stalin and the Soveits did for D-Day?

bruinfan617

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I don't think they were just killed for no reason. IT appears as if Most Died from disease according to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removalSnipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="wstfld"] I am honestly baffled how you don't think that their forced march was the cause of those deaths. That's like saying most Americans in Japanese POW camps died of disease, starvation and exposure, so it really wasn't Japan's fault. wstfld

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I don't think they were just killed for no reason. IT appears as if Most Died from disease according to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removalSnipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="wstfld"] I am honestly baffled how you don't think that their forced march was the cause of those deaths. That's like saying most Americans in Japanese POW camps died of disease, starvation and exposure, so it really wasn't Japan's fault. CreasianDevaili

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I never said it wasn't our fault that they died. The Indians were introduced to diseases they haven't encountered before, but we didn't slaughter them like Stalin did to the Hungarians.

Snipes_2

Who said they lived in white settlements? In any case, yes it is. Killing someone is killing someone. Whether you do it by gun or by death march.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="wstfld"] They died of diseases you get from marching across the country without shelter or enough food. A forced death march is slaughter. They were Christians with white missionaries living among them. They dressed like us. They spoke English. How the hell could they not have encountered European diseases by 1830? wstfld

Who said they lived in white settlements? In any case, yes it is. Killing someone is killing someone. Whether you do it by gun or by death march.

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I never said it wasn't our fault that they died. The Indians were introduced to diseases they haven't encountered before, but we didn't slaughter them like Stalin did to the Hungarians.

Snipes_2

They were told to leave, and where they could go. There was enforcement, but there was almost no support. That is why many died as well on the journey. This was an act that showed little care as to what shape they got there in. To say that wasnt deliberate, is somewhat sad to hear from someone. Just because you turn your head to not see the evil, does not make one's hands clean from it by any means. Purposely putting people in a life threatening journey, with no care or support in getting there, is deliberate.

[QUOTE="wstfld"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Many of them didn't live among White Settlers. In any case, Dying of disease is not comparable to Hundreds of Thousands slaughtered deliberately. Snipes_2

Who said they lived in white settlements? In any case, yes it is. Killing someone is killing someone. Whether you do it by gun or by death march.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Well, if we can make excuses as to why those indians who died wasnt a big deal, then the same logic can be applied to stalin. We pushed the indians out because we wanted them out. Stalin did the same. You can apply logic all you want but it works both ways. The moment you started making the death of the indians not a big deal, because enough of them didnt die to amount to what stalin had done, puts you at odds with trying to condemn stalin.CreasianDevaili

They were told to leave, and where they could go. There was enforcement, but there was almost no support. That is why many died as well on the journey. This was an act that showed little care as to what shape they got there in. To say that wasnt deliberate, is somewhat sad to hear from someone. Just because you turn your head to not see the evil, does not make one's hands clean from it by any means. Purposely putting people in a life threatening journey, with no care or support in getting there, is deliberate.

[QUOTE="wstfld"]

Who said they lived in white settlements? In any case, yes it is. Killing someone is killing someone. Whether you do it by gun or by death march.

Put it up. Stalin, while arguably more evil than Hitler did play an important part in the war effort. Like it or not, he deserves to be up there.

It's D-Day, not V-E day. Stalin should not be there... The memorial should be dedicated to British, Canadian, and American soldiers.

Also, Germany lost the war because Italy invaded Greece.

No, The Indians weren't deliberately slaughtered. They were being Relocated and a good amount of them died from disease. Not to mention the War in Florida. Snipes_2

They were told to leave, and where they could go. There was enforcement, but there was almost no support. That is why many died as well on the journey. This was an act that showed little care as to what shape they got there in. To say that wasnt deliberate, is somewhat sad to hear from someone. Just because you turn your head to not see the evil, does not make one's hands clean from it by any means. Purposely putting people in a life threatening journey, with no care or support in getting there, is deliberate.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]

They were told to leave, and where they could go. There was enforcement, but there was almost no support. That is why many died as well on the journey. This was an act that showed little care as to what shape they got there in. To say that wasnt deliberate, is somewhat sad to hear from someone. Just because you turn your head to not see the evil, does not make one's hands clean from it by any means. Purposely putting people in a life threatening journey, with no care or support in getting there, is deliberate.

CreasianDevaili

It shouldn't be there but not because of the atrocities (if you did then you'ld have to remove all the other military and leader busts as all are responsible for 1000s of deaths) but because he did not play a pivotal role in that campaign. Of course in a general WW2 museum he should be included along side Hitler and Churchill as they were all major figures. History should not be edited because it's seen as 'offensive'.markop2003

But... Stalin was part of the European Theatre of conflict... :|MattUD1

Not DDay.......

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Relocation and Disease is not Deliberately slaughtering someone. They had Care, White men also died from disease on that march as well. Who were they deliberately killed by? The Indians?Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Erm.. The first groups that were told to leave did so without support pretty much. That is where most of them died. It wasnt disease, and maybe you should check out other historial documents aside from wiki. It was AFTER some of the generals saw how many died due to the horrid journey, that they conversed and got permission to have them escorted, which took down the death toll by alot. The first groups who were forced to travel west was a death march. CreasianDevaili

[QUOTE="wstfld"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Many of them didn't live among White Settlers. In any case, Dying of disease is not comparable to Hundreds of Thousands slaughtered deliberately. Snipes_2

Who said they lived in white settlements? In any case, yes it is. Killing someone is killing someone. Whether you do it by gun or by death march.

Are you playing dumb or are you ignorant as to the differences of a war march and the forced march (that would be one where soldiers that have guns are making people without guns go some place on foot) of women and children for 1,000 miles in the winter, while lacking adequate shelter and food?

You need to link this Stalin killing Hungarians thing for me. He killed a lot of people and I'm ignorant as to this particular incident. I know that Hungary invaded Russia, got beaten and occupied, but I'm not sure where the killing comes in. I think Stalin was dead by the time of the Hungarian Revolution, but I'm not sure.

Regardless, I'm not arguing that what Stalin did (whatever it is) was okay. I'm in no way saying that killing people is okay no matter how you do it. You seem to be saying that killing people by marching them across the country is okay, which it is not. If you let your dog starve to death, you killed it. If you let 4,000 people die from exposure and starvation, you killed them.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="wstfld"]

Who said they lived in white settlements? In any case, yes it is. Killing someone is killing someone. Whether you do it by gun or by death march.

wstfld

Are you playing dumb or are you ignorant as to the differences of a war march and the forced march (that would be one where soldiers that have guns are making people without guns go some place on foot) of women and children for 1,000 miles in the winter, while lacking adequate shelter and food?

You need to link this Stalin killing Hungarians thing for me. He killed a lot of people and I'm ignorant as to this particular incident. I know that Hungary invaded Russia, got beaten and occupied, but I'm not sure where the killing comes in. I think Stalin was dead by the time of the Hungarian Revolution, but I'm not sure.

Regardless, I'm not arguing that what Stalin did (whatever it is) was okay. I'm in no way saying that killing people is okay no matter how you do it. You seem to be saying that killing people by marching them across the country is okay, which it is not. If you let your dog starve to death, you killed it. If you let 4,000 people die from exposure and starvation, you killed them.

"Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938."

"Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines"

"Some have also included deaths of 6 to 8 million people in the 1932–1933 famine as victims of Stalin's repression."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Umm hell no it shouldnt be there.. And frankly im getting tired of the russians saying they beat germany single handedly.00-Riddick-00

They pretty much did though.

[QUOTE="wstfld"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] So, everyone that died during the Marches in the Civil War or any war get related back to the Country they fought for? They weren't Deliberately killed, Stalin Deliberately killed Hungarians for no apparent reason. And white people also died during these Relocations as well, from disease.

Snipes_2

Are you playing dumb or are you ignorant as to the differences of a war march and the forced march (that would be one where soldiers that have guns are making people without guns go some place on foot) of women and children for 1,000 miles in the winter, while lacking adequate shelter and food?

You need to link this Stalin killing Hungarians thing for me. He killed a lot of people and I'm ignorant as to this particular incident. I know that Hungary invaded Russia, got beaten and occupied, but I'm not sure where the killing comes in. I think Stalin was dead by the time of the Hungarian Revolution, but I'm not sure.

Regardless, I'm not arguing that what Stalin did (whatever it is) was okay. I'm in no way saying that killing people is okay no matter how you do it. You seem to be saying that killing people by marching them across the country is okay, which it is not. If you let your dog starve to death, you killed it. If you let 4,000 people die from exposure and starvation, you killed them.

"Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938."

"Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines"

"Some have also included deaths of 6 to 8 million people in the 1932–1933 famine as victims of Stalin's repression."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I disagree. How were they supposed to know the Death Toll? After they realized that a lot of them were dying they started escorting them, that in and of itself says something. They had no idea that they could not make that journey.

Snipes_2

I will end this by agreeing with you. Stalin was evil because he knew what he was doing. The goverment in light of "The trial of tears" is absolved of the same judgement because they were drooling fools who thought davy crocket was mute during the hearings to do this.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] ...Oh boy. You really think, that people who have traveled long distances back then, would send people in a large group that would not be able to properly feed that many on a 1000 mile journey that does not allow them to stop and camp for the winter season, also without adequate preparation in food/supplies... and not know they many would die? A FEW people, had a heart, and took steps to try and not see so many die as more groups were sent. The projected mentality of the officials was indifferent. It was almost a straight 1000 mile march. CreasianDevaili

I will end this by agreeing with you. Stalin was evil because he knew what he was doing. The goverment in light of "The trial of tears" is absolved of the same judgement because they were drooling fools who thought davy crocket was mute during the hearings to do this.

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]Umm hell no it shouldnt be there.. And frankly im getting tired of the russians saying they beat germany single handedly.Domobomb

They pretty much did though.

[QUOTE="Domobomb"]

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]Umm hell no it shouldnt be there.. And frankly im getting tired of the russians saying they beat germany single handedly.00-Riddick-00

They pretty much did though.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="wstfld"]

Are you playing dumb or are you ignorant as to the differences of a war march and the forced march (that would be one where soldiers that have guns are making people without guns go some place on foot) of women and children for 1,000 miles in the winter, while lacking adequate shelter and food?

You need to link this Stalin killing Hungarians thing for me. He killed a lot of people and I'm ignorant as to this particular incident. I know that Hungary invaded Russia, got beaten and occupied, but I'm not sure where the killing comes in. I think Stalin was dead by the time of the Hungarian Revolution, but I'm not sure.

Regardless, I'm not arguing that what Stalin did (whatever it is) was okay. I'm in no way saying that killing people is okay no matter how you do it. You seem to be saying that killing people by marching them across the country is okay, which it is not. If you let your dog starve to death, you killed it. If you let 4,000 people die from exposure and starvation, you killed them.

wstfld

"Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938."

"Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines"

"Some have also included deaths of 6 to 8 million people in the 1932–1933 famine as victims of Stalin's repression."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"][QUOTE="Domobomb"]

They pretty much did though.

wstfld

Umm hell no it shouldnt be there.. And frankly im getting tired of the russians saying they beat germany single handedly.00-Riddick-00

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]Umm hell no it shouldnt be there.. And frankly im getting tired of the russians saying they beat germany single handedly.Eleckidding

Let's not forget that he made a Treaty/Pact with Nazi Germany.

The only reason he got involved was because they broke that Pact.

"On 23 August 1939, the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, negotiated by Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop.[107] Officially a non-aggression treaty only, an appended secret protocol, also reached on 23 August 1939, divided the whole of eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.[108][109]
The eastern part of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and part of Romania were recognized as parts of the Soviet sphere of influence,[109] with Lithuania added in a second secret protocol in September 1939.[110] Stalin and Ribbentrop traded toasts on the night of the signing discussing past hostilities between the countries.[111]""On 1 September 1939, the German invasion of its agreed upon portion of Poland started World War II.[107] On 17 September the Red Army invaded eastern Poland and occupied the Polish territory assigned to it by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, followed by co-ordination with German forces in Poland.""After Stalin declared that he was going to "solve the Baltic problem", by June 1940, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were merged into the Soviet Union, after repressions and actions therein brought about the deaths of over 160,000 citizens of these states""After the Tripartite Pact was signed by Axis Powers Germany, Japan and Italy, in October 1940, Stalin traded letters with Ribbentrop, with Stalin writing about entering an agreement regarding a "permanent basis" for their "mutual interests.""In an effort to demonstrate peaceful intentions toward Germany, on 13 April 1941, Stalin oversaw the signing of a neutrality pact with Axis power Japan"

"During the early morning of 22 June 1941, Hitler broke the pact by implementing Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of Soviet held territories and the Soviet Union that began the war on the Eastern Front.[125] Although Stalin had received warnings from spies and his generals,[126][127][128][129][130] he felt that Germany would not attack the Soviet Union until Germany had defeated Britain.[126] In the initial hours after the German attack commenced, Stalin hesitated, wanting to ensure that the German attack was sanctioned by Hitler rather than the unauthorized action of a rogue general""While the Germans pressed forward, Stalin was confident of an eventual Allied victory over Germany."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] "Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938." Yes, 4,000 People dying is terrible. Not comparable to Actually now that I look at it, The Millions killed by Stalin.

"Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938."

"Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines"

"Some have also included deaths of 6 to 8 million people in the 1932–1933 famine as victims of Stalin's repression."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Snipes_2

I agree. Stalin helped win WWII, so when we include the other head of state for the war (Churchill), we sure as hell should include him. You can't just ignore his involvment.

[QUOTE="Domobomb"]

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]Umm hell no it shouldnt be there.. And frankly im getting tired of the russians saying they beat germany single handedly.00-Riddick-00

They pretty much did though.

Japan did not defeat the USA. Japan did attack the USSR. The USSR defeated most of the German army, and took Berlin.

Aside from being pumped with supplies, the USSR did single handedly defeat Germany.

[QUOTE="Eleckidding"][QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]Umm hell no it shouldnt be there.. And frankly im getting tired of the russians saying they beat germany single handedly.00-Riddick-00

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="wstfld"] Where is the Hungary stuff? I already know Stalin killed a ton of people. Andrew Jackson killed 4,000. I'm not comparing and contrasting heinous acts. wstfld

I agree. Stalin helped win WWII, so when we include the other head of state for the war (Churchill), we sure as hell should include him. You can't just ignore his involvment.

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]

But... Stalin was part of the European Theatre of conflict... :|Domobomb

Not DDay.......

[QUOTE="wstfld"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Andrew Jackson did many other things during his Presidency. Having Statues of Him are mainly because every president we've ever had has had some sort of Statue or something made for him. "Approximately 350,000 Hungarian officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956." From the Wikipedia article I linked. Snipes_2

I agree. Stalin helped win WWII, so when we include the other head of state for the war (Churchill), we sure as hell should include him. You can't just ignore his involvment.

[QUOTE="wstfld"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Andrew Jackson did many other things during his Presidency. Having Statues of Him are mainly because every president we've ever had has had some sort of Statue or something made for him. "Approximately 350,000 Hungarian officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956." From the Wikipedia article I linked. Snipes_2

I agree. Stalin helped win WWII, so when we include the other head of state for the war (Churchill), we sure as hell should include him. You can't just ignore his involvment.