History

Virginia's Stalin Problem

|

Back in the U.S. and A.!

The city of Gori in the formerly Soviet Republic of Georgia is not the only place in the world with controversial commemorations to mustachioed mass murderer Josef Stalin. Take, for example, um, Bedford, Virginia?

The small town of Bedford, Va., is home to 21 men who sacrificed their lives on D-Day, June 6, 1944. It is now also the home of one of the world's few public memorial busts of communist dictator Josef Stalin.

Local citizens and organizations have expressed their outrage over the installation of the bust at the National D-Day Memorial, which honored the 66th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy over the weekend. The bust of the Soviet Union's wartime leader was unveiled last week to accompany existing busts of U.S. Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman as well as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. […]

The president of the D-Day Memorial Foundation, William McIntosh, did not return three calls from The Washington Times. He has told reporters that the foundation merely sought to mark Stalin's role in the war.

Complexity

Joe Fab, who co-directed and wrote a recent documentary on the story of the soldiers of Bedford, titled "Bedford: The Town They Left Behind," said he understood from an artistic standpoint why one might include a Stalin icon, adding that he likes to "try to keep an open mind" about such things.

"All kinds of art have dimensions and complexity," he said. "If it leads to thoughtful reflection and provokes discussion, then it may have a purpose."

European diplomats and U.S. residents of European descent, unsurprisingly, don't share Fab's appreciation for complexity. The president of the memorial foundation defended the decision here.

Reason on Stalin iconography here.

NEXT: "Chicago will need some new and sensible legislating"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. To this day, Stalin gets a pass on a legacy that dwarfs both Hitler’s and Mao’s in ruthless, mindless terror. Shame.

    1. This is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really very helpful information. Keep it up. Keep blogging. Looking to reading your next post.

  2. The giant Hitler head in my yard says “Charlie Chaplin: not a Jew” under it.

    Dimensions.

    1. My Obama lawn jockey says “Not Black, Look At My Mom” under it.

      1. +1

      2. Oh god, Coffee in the nasal cavities.

  3. My question is: what the fuck does Stalin have to do with D-Day? Which beach did the Russians land on?

    1. The claim here is that he was a crucial distraction on the Eastern Front.

      1. I thought he was having a fit over that invasion and wanted one closer to his front. Am I misremembering my ancient history?

        1. His main complaint was that it came later than it should have. The Allies disagreed with his strategy, of course.

      2. That’s one way to phrase it. A more accurate way to phrase it is that D-Day was a distraction from the Eastern Front, where the real war was. Something like 80% of German casualties occurred in the East.

        And if you want to read a spectacular bummer, try The Forgotten Soldier.

          1. My comment reads like I was trying to be a dick. Sorry about that; I wasn’t.

            1. Teen 1: Yeah, he’s cool.

              Teen 2: Are you being sarcastic?

              Teen 1: I don’t even know, anymore.

        1. Does that include the number of Germans who tried surrendering but were killed anyway?

      3. I think that you could counter-argue that D-Day was a crucial distraction on the Western Front. It wouldn’t go with this memorial’s motif of wartime leader statue busts, but the creators could’ve made an exception and created a tribute to the Soviet WWII troops–rather than acknowledge Stalin. At least they didn’t add Charles de Gaulle and his nose.

        1. But they DID add a bust of DeGaulle and his Gallic nose! Plus Clement Attlee and Chang Kai Sheck. The D-Day Memorial has lost its way–it was originally conceived to honor the US and Allied service members who participated in D-Day, period, not politicians and genocidal maniacs.

      4. Ummm, wasn’t the D-Day a minor distraction on the Western front, if you really think about it?

    2. Russia’s continued destruction of Germany’s military and their advance on Germany made D-Day possible.

      Without Russian’s dying in the East by the millions, France doesn’t get liberated.

      1. I’d rather go with: Without Hitler screwing is alliance with Russia and trying to invade them, France doesn’t get liberated.

    3. He has told reporters that the foundation merely sought to mark Stalin’s role in the war.

      By that logic, they should also have a bust of the German leader there, too, who played a prominent role in the war.

  4. Notice that the bust already has a nice patina, which normally takes years to form. The artist has given Stalin a makeover in more ways than one.

    1. Maybe it’s from all the urine.

      1. I’m green with envy.

  5. Mr. McIntosh, tear that statue down.

    1. Actually, a better version would be, “Mr. McIntosh, tear down this statue!”

  6. Stalin’s only roll in D-Day was perhaps inspiring the good guys to move as quickly as possible so we could meet that particular Georgian monster as far east as possible.

    1. Did he have a spring role or is that an urban legend?

      1. With butter

        1. I would prefer butter with a wheat roll, not a spring role.

  7. Of course if you want to commemorate the leaders who played a decisive role in winning the war in Europe, then you pretty much have to commemorate Stalin- more German soldiers died on the Eastern front than everywhere else in Europe combined.
    People are presumably objecting to a bust of Stalin because he willfully killed a large number of innocent people. But then I notice that there is also a nice bust of President Truman, who had no problem incinerating some 300 thousand Japanese noncombatants. All of course, for the greater good of defeating the Japanese Empire.
    The lesson to draw from this is not that there should be no Stalin bust, but that there shouldn’t be busts for any of these people.

    1. Umm. 30 Million Russians, over which he governed are not equivalent to hostile noncombatants of a declared enemy.

      1. They don’t have to be equivalent for neither to deserve a bust and for both to be murderers.

        1. Civilian deaths happen in war.

          It’s a reminder to people what can happen when their government gets out of control and why they should always ensure their government doesn’t needlessly endanger everyone’s lives by starting wars…

        2. That would be a good point if, say, the US had started the war with Japan and Japan wasn’t pretty much trying to take over the world.

    2. Re: Lars,

      The lesson to draw from this is not that there should be no Stalin bust, but that there shouldn’t be busts for any of these people.

      Agreed. In my mind, there is no difference between someone that murders thousands of innocents (Truman), millions (Stalin, Mao), or dozens (Ted Bundy). They were all blood-thirsty, amoral deviants.

      1. murders thousands of innocents (Truman)

        Fuck you. The Japanese were not innocent.

        1. By that metric, you would be fine with US civilians being murdered were we to start a war with some polity? I do not suspect this is the truth.

    3. Please tell me we aren’t going to start this “Truman killed civilians……WAAAAA” nonsense again. While maybe it can be debated whether this ultimately saved Japanese lives or not, it is undeniable that it saved US lives. Remember Tojo among others wanted to keep fighting AFTER the bombs were dropped.

      Do the Truman critics really have that little understanding of what needs to be done in a war. This is why war sucks so hard…..you need to be ruthless.

      We should be willing to put Truman busts on display with no shame.

      1. Re: PM770,

        Please tell me we aren’t going to start this “Truman killed civilians……[…]”

        He didn’t kill them, he murdered them.

        Do the Truman critics really have that little understanding of what needs to be done in a war.

        Same can be said about any other despot – people simply don’t understand what’s “needed to be done.”

        The ends justify the means – the lefty credo. I knew the subject of WAR outs closet lefties and anti-freedom Statists of every ilk.

        1. Ah, I see. This is just Team Blue v. Team Red foolishness.

      2. The complete disregard for human life followed by all sides in WWII should always be remembered with shame.

      3. While maybe it can be debated whether this ultimately saved Japanese lives or not, it is undeniable that it saved US lives.
        I think it’s plenty debatable whether the bombing Nagasaki saved American lives or not. There is considerable evidence that Japan would have surrendered (different terms) after the bombing of Hiroshima.

        1. While the sitting government of the Empire of Japan may have been willing to surrender, there were still several Japanese divisions rampaging through Manchuria who were not so inclined.

          1. Soviets who had fought them about that time might tend to disagree.

        2. There is considerable evidence that Japan would have surrendered (different terms) after the bombing of Hiroshima.

          They had ten days. They chose to negotiate rather than surrender.

          Too bad.

        3. Re: Wesley

          How long do you wait for them to figure it out? Remember the thousands of US prisoners of war.

          Don’t forget Tojo among others wanted to keep fighting after the Nagasaki bombing.

        4. If you lose the war you started, you don’t get to set the surrended terms.

    4. I have been to Pearl Harbor and The Arizona Memorial. I have only one thing to say regarding the 300,000+ Japanese killed at Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

      Lars, fuck you.

      1. You too, OM

        1. Thank you, Cuctator, that is so gracious of you.

          I have one for you, too: You’re a Lefty. You can’t deny it.

          1. Lefty? Not hardly. Not even close. Even a Libertarian would say that the use of Government force against a clear case of foreign aggression is justified. That’s what the Government is supposed to do. Protect its Citizens from foreign aggression.

            If you go to War, you go to win. The Japanese had many opportunities to surrender, and chose not to. An invasion of the Main islands of Japan would have been at immense cost to the Marines, Army & Navy in terms of lives lost. I would prefer that in any War, the enemy lose more lives (and treasure) than the U.S.

            We carpet bombed on both fronts to reduce the enemies power to make war and also to attempt to break the will of the Governments and the people.

            Do you think the Japanese at Pearl Harbor were worried about civilian casualties? No. They were trying to convince the American Government (and the People) that it didn’t make sense for us to get into a war with Japan.

            It’s unfortunate that it came to what it came to, because it raised the level for every succesive war. Do we use Nukes? Will they use Nukes? But I have no heartburn at all that we dropped an A-Bomb. Like they say on the schoolground, “He started it”

            1. Re: Cunctator,

              Lefty? Not hardly. Not even close.

              Really? See below:

              If you go to War, you go to win.

              “The end justifies the means.”
              Lefty Credo.

              We carpet bombed on both fronts to reduce the enemies power to make war and also to attempt to break the will of the Governments and the people.

              “The end justifies the means.”
              Lefty Credo.

              Do you think the Japanese at Pearl Harbor were worried about civilian casualties? No. […] Like they say on the schoolground, “He started it”.

              “Two wrongs make a right”
              Lefty Credo.

              You’re a lefty.

              1. OM

                “The end justifies the means.” (1) I didn’t say that. What is your alternative solution in this particular case, if you are trying to win the war? If you are not trying to win, just surrended out of the gate.

                “The end justifies the means.” (2) Again, I never said that. This is what you do in war. You try to end it as quickly as possible. the Allies enjoyed air superiority and manufacturing superiority, coupled with home populations that supported the war. Again, what is your alternative?

                “Two wrongs make a right” I never said dropping the A-Bombs was wrong. To the contrary, I believe it was the right thing to do. You may believe it was wrong, but that doesn’t make my statement a justification of two wrongs, since I don’t agree with you.

                So, questions:
                What would you have been in favor of at that particular point in time?

                If you think we should have invaded Japan, how many American casualties would you have found to acceptable?

                Should we have just called the whole war of after the Island campaign and hope to contain Japan?

              2. “It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it”

                Douglas MacArthur, renown leftist

              3. OM, fuck off you Imperialist Japan loving asshole.

      2. I have seen the memorial, and I also have to say something about it:

        F.D.R., FUCK YOU!

      3. 57 civilians killed at pearl harbor justifies 300,000+ civilians being incinerated. I guess non-americans aren’t really people or something.

        1. That’s it? I always heard that the Japanese engaged in an actual war with us, complete with sinking ships, shooting down planes, flying aircraft into our carriers, ground combat, the works…

          Am I wrong about that? They wanted a war, they got a war. If they had made it to the Pacific Coast, they would have shelled our cities and if they had a nuke, there’s a good chance they would have used it.

          A.)If you don’t want lots of dead civilians on your home soil, don’t start wars.
          B.)If you’re a civilian, make sure YOUR government follows A

          1. c.) Don’t throw rocks at cops

          2. And they fucking killed an raped civilians every chance they had and sliced up captured soldiers for fun. OM and libertytexan think ass steaks are delish.

        2. You keep writing as if there were realistic scenarios in which civilians Japanese, Chinese, or SE Asian would not have died in large numbers if the war would have been concluded conventionally. This isn’t the case.

          1. That’s right. The firebombing of Tokyo would have been carried out across all of Japan. I’m pretty sure a few civilians died in that.

            1. Japan was firebombing the USA long before the first firebomb hit them. USA more effective with Japan’s own invention.

        3. No. The 2,000,000 potential American casualties saved by dropping the bomb justifies it. The US had just fought in Okinawa; they didn’t want to have to fight that battle again against millions of troops, and a population that was ready to fight to death, or commit suicide.

          You can definitely argue that the bombs should have been dropped on military targets; I can’t debate that point. However, there were many in the Japanese military who were ready to fight to the death of their last soldier. Even after the bombs were dropped, there was an attempt at a coup d’etat by hardcore members of the Japanese military who wanted to keep fighting.

          1. Re: BakedPenguin,

            No. The 2,000,000 potential American casualties saved by dropping the bomb justifies it.

            That number was a post facto invention. Actually, it was then 1,000,000. Now is double – it is clear Statists of every ilk bend over backwards to justify the State regardless of the morality of its actions.

            1. OM, did you see the Okinawa link? There were 50,000 US casualties. They were facing 100,000 Japanese soldiers. Had the US invaded Japan, they would have been facing about 3,000,000 Japanese soldiers, in addition to however many the Japanese could have brought back from China, and “home guard” type troops, as well as fanatical civilians. 2,000,000 casualties for an invasion of Japan does not seem like an excessive figure at all.

              The reasons the state should exist are few: to defend the nation and attack aggresors is definitely one, unless you are an anarchist.

              1. Re: BakedPenguin,

                There were 50,000 US casualties. They were facing 100,000 Japanese soldiers.

                So? The estimates at that time did not come CLOSE to the 2,000,000 you mention:

                http://www.afa.org/media\enolagay\sson3.asp

                A June 18 estimate from the military chiefs said that casualties in the first thirty days of the Kyushu invasion could be 31,000. Adm. King estimated 41,000. Adm. Nimitz said 49,000. MacArthur’s staff said 50,000. Casualty estimates for Olympic and Coronet combined ranged from 220,000 to 500,000+.(19)

                The million men casualty estimate was a figment of the post-war apologists’ imagination.

                1. From your link:

                  “I asked General Marshall what it would cost in lives to land on the Tokio plain and other places in Japan,” Truman said later. “It was his opinion that such an invasion would cost at minimum one quarter of a million casualties, and might cost as much as a million, on the American side alone, with an equal number of the enemy. The other military and naval men present agreed.

                  I was wrong – I don’t remember where i heard the 2MM figure, but it is double the worst case scenario, assuming your link is accurate. Nevertheless, I think the scenarios they present were rather rosy, given the incredibly fierce resistance the Japanese had shown at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

                  I still say the use of the atomic bomb was valid, although I will repeat that it should have been dropped on a primarily military target. Like Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not contributing to the war effort in any significant way, and should not have been attacked.

                  I don’t think we will be able to convince each other – we may as well agree to disagree.

                2. So 220,000 to 500,000 additional American (or Allied) casualties in a War that we did not start are okay with you?

                  Not only fuck you, but you appear to be an asshole.

    5. You might want to read up on Unit 731 sometime.

    6. You imperialist loving BASTARD!

      But then I notice that there is also a nice bust of President Truman, who had no problem incinerating some 300 thousand Japanese noncombatants.

      Who were trying to enslave an entire continent! Those were military targets and everybody there was supporting their war effort!

      All they had to do was unconditionally surrender and it would have been one bomb instead of two. Should have been 10.

  8. The U.S.S.R. took a tremendous beating and was instrumental in the war ending when and how it did, but without U.S. aid, they’d have lost early on.

    Incidentally, the heroic Man of Steel wouldn’t have had to fight the war he did if he’d allied himself with the West in the first place. His shenanigans allowed Hitler to risk war with France and the U.K. by invading Poland without worrying about Russia.

    1. And the war might have been a lot shorter if Stalin hadn’t gutted his officer corps in the 1937 purges. He left the Soviet Army completely unprepared for war in 1941. And that allowed the Germans to march to the gates of Moscow in six short months. Had he been ready, the Germans might have been defeated earlier.

      1. Or if he hadn’t invaded Finland with his new officer-less army in 1939, showing Hitler how inept his army was.

      2. And the war would have been even shorter still if the French hadn’t been a bunch of pussies and would have actually started fighting when the war started.

        1. Let’s not forget that Stalin was an ally of Hitler before he was an enemy. There was no end to his duplicity.

          1. Let’s not forget that Stalin was an ally of Hitler before he was an enemy. There was no end to his duplicity.

            The last shipment of materiel to Germany from the Soviets was delivered the morning of Operation Barbarossa.

        2. We did fight back.

          1. Too bad your leadership pulled your comrades out of Germany in 1939, when they could have actually done something.

        3. The war would never have started at all if the French had started shooting at the handful of German soldiers who were moved into the Ruhr valley (soldiers with orders to scurry back into Germany if any resistence was encountered).

          Lots and lots of moments that Hitler could have been stopped early on with little or no bloodshed, but hardly anyone then realized what a sociopathic megalomaniac he was.

      3. It also would have been shorter if the Germans didn’t stall at Dunkirk.

        1. Shorter still if there had never been a Big Bang.

          1. Fucking Big Bang.

        2. It would have been even shorter if there’d been no World War I.

      4. This, really, is quite questionable. Some of the executed commanders (i.e. Tukhachevsky) were notoriously inept, and some of their replacements had turned out to be quite good.

        1. False Tukhachevsky was not only a very competent officer (though ruthless, was infamous for his use of poison gas against rebellious peasants) but many of the Soviet victories (especially Bagration Stalingrad) were based on his theory of deep operations. In fact he was the teacher of many of those quite good replacements.

          His mistake was to criticize Stalin for his failures during the Polish-Soviet War (errors to which many historians attribute the Soviet defeat in Warsaw) which, combined with the Vozhd’s fears of a coup d’etat sealed his fate.

  9. Joe Fab, who co-directed and wrote a recent documentary on the story of the soldiers of Bedford, titled “Bedford: The Town They Left Behind,” said he understood from an artistic standpoint why one might include a Stalin icon,

    … as opposed to a rational standpoint, I would pressume.

    […]adding that he likes to “try to keep an open mind” about such things.

    I don’t think he likes to keep an open mind about these things; rather, he’s showing a certain degree of pig-headedness.

  10. A couple of random strategic thoughts:

    If D-Day had failed, Hitler could have moved Army Group West (which included many of his best units) to the Eastern Front, at which point the eventual Soviet success would have been, shall we say, less than guaranteed.

    Without both fronts, Hitler’s defeat would have come when the Americans deployed their nukes against Germany. Because of our willingness to use nuclear weapons, our victory was guaranteed.

    Without the western front, Russia’s victory was anything but guaranteed.

    1. In addition, Hitler stripped his best units from the Eastern Front in December 1944 to launch the Battle of the Bulge offensive in the west.

  11. I’m betting the town of Bedford is going to have to place a guard/cop at the site to prevent vandalism. If the monuments at Gettsyburg are continually hit by vandalism, it is hardly speculation to think Stalin’s will survive unscathed.

  12. It is interesting. People love to whine about the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and our area bombing of Germany. But nary a word is ever said about Operation Keelhaul where the US and British forcibly repatriated hundreds of thousands of Russian in Western Europe to their certain deaths.

    1. It was shameful. But then, FDR’s performance at Yalta was just the last shameful performance in a life full of them.

      1. Not quite the last. Leaving Truman wholly unprepared to assume his Constitutional duties upon his inevitable death in office had deadly consequences for Eastern Europe after the war. The region merely swapped Nazi totalitarianism for Stalinism. FDR was the father of the Cold War and Eastern Bloc misery.

      2. Wasn’t much that FDR could’ve done at Yalta. The Red Army was 50 miles from Berlin at that time. In addition, Yalta was the only place that Stalin would meet Roosevelt and Churchill–Tehran was the meeting place in 1943 and was supposed to be the spot in 1945, but Stalin wanted to prove the point that this conference wasn’t going to be a negotiation and chose the Romanov’s old summer vacation home to further that point.

    2. Who knows about this except a handful of historians? There’s a bunch of Ukranians buried at Ft. Mott, NJ who hung themselves rather than get sent back to Russia. (They were German Army POWs captured by the American Army.) Some Captive Nation folks put flowers on their graves (circa 1966) and were vilified in certain quarters as being pro-Nazi.

      1. If you put flowers on Wehrmacht graves, being vilified as pro-Nazi is a rather expected outcome.
        According to eyewitnesses, though, when it came to something like hunting down Jews, those “captive nations” usually managed to terrify even Germans.

  13. And on this same vein:

    How many Japanese soldiers is Mao Tse Dong responsible for killing? Where’s his bust?

    1. Re: Lars,

      How many Japanese soldiers is Mao Tse Dong responsible for killing? Where’s his bust?

      In Anita Dunn’s bosom.

      1. So I have been suckling at the wrong teat? Oh noes!

  14. Incidentally, the heroic Man of Steel wouldn’t have had to fight the war he did if he’d allied himself with the West in the first place.

    Actually, he wouldn’t have to fight at all if he didn’t start bullying Germany’s alies like Romania and Bulgaria, which prompted Hitler to believe Stalin was a dangerous expansionist.

  15. There’s an easy fix: put a statue of Patton urinating on Stalin.

    1. I pictured a statue of Patton Oswalt peeing on Stalin. Pretty sure that’s not the Patton you meant, but it might be funnier.

  16. Well, why not a bust of Adolf Hitler ?

    Hitler, more than anyone else, contributed to Germany’s defeat.

    Had Hitler died in 1938 and was replaced with a grown-up who had the same goal of getting more Lebensbraum , said grown-up would have led a Russian army of liberation into Moscow, the path cleared by generous doses of Jewish science doled out by the kiloton.

    1. The Ukrainians and Bellarussians initially greeted the Germans as liberators. Had they treated the occupied territories as anything but animals, they could have ended the Soviet Union forever.

      1. Re: John,

        You can “thank” Gauleiter Erich Koch for turning the staunchly anti-Soviet Ukranians into fanatically anti-German, something thought to be impossible.

    2. Agreed. Having a bust of Stalin makes about as much sense has having a bust of Hitler there. I mean, keeping those Panzers off the beaches was pretty important to D-Day, too, wasn’t it? I’d call that an important distraction.

      1. I think that blunder is a bit overrated. The problem was that when the troops are on the beaches, they have navel gun support. Indeed, we got off the beach at Omaha primarily because destroyers got close in and took their five inch guns to the German defenses. Our air power and navel guns would have whacked the Panzers. They were more effective used later in the hedge row country.

        But Hitler did lots of crazy things. Why didn’t he stop in the fall of 1941 and dig in until the spring instead of pushing on to Moscow in winter? Why did he waste resources on terror weapons like the V1 and V2 that were of no practical use in winning the war? For all the resources he spent on that program, he could have built hundreds if not thousands of ground attack fighters that could have made a real difference. Why didn’t he invade Malta to secure his supply lines to Africa? Why didn’t he let Paulus retreat from Stalingrad before he was surrounded? Why did he fire Manstein by far his best general? The list goes on and on.

        1. Why was he against the development of the Stg44? Why did he insist that the Me 262 be used as a bomber? Why did he honor his treaty with Japan and declare war on the US?

          It really is a good thing that he wasn’t a little less crazy.

          1. Why was he against the development of the Stg44? Why did he insist that the Me 262 be used as a bomber? Why did he honor his treaty with Japan and declare war on the US?

            Because he was Hitler.

            For him to not do such things, he would have had to been someone other than Hitler.

  17. I think this is the right idea – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle)

  18. Why does Stalin get representation while Canada gets short shrift? Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King may not have massacred as many people as Stalin, but he did lead Canada from colony to nation state, practice Spiritualism, and take war advice from his dogs.

    1. Fine. In recognition of Canada’s sacrifices, we shall erect a statue of a bowl of poutine.

  19. I think the controversy goes away without adding a dime to the deficit if we pursue “Statue Reform” the centerpiece of which would be a law requiring that all statues be in the likeness of the Uppity One.

  20. Just want to say that the Peter Frampton episode of Baa Baa Black Sheep is the finest piece of military drama ever.

    1. He was on Baa, Baa, Blacksheep? That is so awesome!

      1. Okay, I looked it up. I remember that episode.

        Takei was on once, too.

  21. Stalin
    Roosevelt
    Truman
    Churchill
    Jefferson Davis

    Only one of the above was not an imperialistic, state worshipping mass murderer.

    1. Given the CSA’s aims in Mexico and South America, I don’t think Jeff Davis gets much of a pass on imperialism. And given the institution that was the sole reason for the establishment of Confederacy, he doesn’t get much of one on the state worship or mass murder fronts either.

      Or am I wrong in assuming this is standard neo-confederate apologia?

      1. Agreed. Mike, I think you’re missing the correct answer within your choices.

      2. Yes, you are wrong. Criticism of mass murderers like Roosevelt, Truman, Chruchill and Stalin does not mean acceptance and support of american ante-bellum slavery.

        1. Bringing Jeff Davis to this discussion is simply irrelevant, then.

    2. Fought a war to ensure the state enforced slavery of 1/3 of his population. Nothing mass murdering or state worshiping about that.

      1. John, he didn’t. All those American Southern casualties could not have been the result of Southern people’s desire to continue slavery.

        1. Jefferson Davis did not prseide over, nor give the orders to, “total war” for which Adolph Hitler so admired Lincoln. The vagabond from Vienna openly praised Lincoln’s decision to take the war to civilians in such an unprecedented manner.

          1. Lincoln’s sins do not absolve Davis of his.

            1. Agreed, they do not.

              1. “Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.”
                –William Tecumseh Sherman

                1. I hope that you cite that sub human piece of filth for humorous purposes.

        2. John, he didn’t. All those American Southern casualties could not have been the result of Southern people’s desire to continue slavery.

          No, it was the leadership , just like it was for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea ninety years later.

  22. Russia definitely contributed and unfortunately Stalin is the face of Russia at that time.

    It’s an interesting position to be in.

    1. How about they put up a bust of this guy instead:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhukov

      He had a heck of a lot more to do with Russia’s victory than Stalin did.

  23. “All kinds of art have dimensions and complexity. If it leads to thoughtful reflection and provokes discussion, then it may have a purpose.”

    What postmodern claptrap. Public statues throughout history have been meant to honor someone, not smash convention and “provoke discussion”.

  24. Perhaps the artist would applaud the installation of Stalin’s bust in a public urinal, then.

    That would certainly lead to thoughtful reflection (the act of pissing certainly lends itself to reflection), and just imagine the discussions it would provoke.

  25. FDR kidnapped innocent Americans, stole their property, and put them in prison camps. Truman OK’d the use of atomic bombs to incinerate 150,000 civilians. Churchill burned Dresden.

    But strangely enough, I don’t see anyone objecting to their inclusion. Perhaps it’s just a matter of scale? Minor mass murderers are OK, but not really superstar ones. Keep that in mind, world leaders, if you want a bust of yourself on US government property.

    1. The US was at war with Japan. The alternative to using the atomic bombs would have been an invasion of Japan; an invasion would also have resulted in a large number of Japanese civilian deaths (and in the deaths of a large number of US soldiers). Dropping the bombs was a justified action.

      Stalin’s murder of millions of his own subjects is not even comparable to the wartime bombing of Japan.

      1. Ah yes, calling something a “war” completely changes the morality of the act. Posters on this board regularly complain about Congressional incompetence (and with good reason), but then assign those selfsame politicans the magic power to transform murder (bad!) into collateral damage (ok!).

        The alternative to using the atomic bombs would have been an invasion of Japan; an invasion would also have resulted in a large number of Japanese civilian deaths

        If everything’s going to boil down to utilitarianism, then we should just dispense with this “liberty” thing entirely, because it’s really gonna get in the way.

        Stalin’s murder of millions of his own subjects is not even comparable to the wartime bombing of Japan.

        Obviously not: he forgot to declare war on them first.

        1. As long as we’re being sarcastic, I’ll have a go at it:

          Ah yes, labeling two completely different acts with the same term (murder) allows you to ignore the moral distinctions between an act of war against an aggressive enemy nation and the killing of millions of one’s own subjects.

          Putting sarcasm aside for a moment, what, in your opinion, would have been a good way to end the war with Japan with no loss of life?

      2. I think you are missing the point where FDR put innocent Americans in concentration camps. While I certainly do not dislike FDR, you cannot deny the truth of this statement.

  26. The U.S. and Britain were allies of the mass-murderer Stalin.

    They knew he was a mass-murderer.

    You can like it or not, justify it or not, but to deny it is to falsify history.

  27. If everything’s going to boil down to utilitarianism, then we should just dispense with this “liberty” thing entirely, because it’s really gonna get in the way.

  28. I think you are missing the point where FDR put innocent Americans in concentration camps. While I certainly do not dislike FDR, you cannot deny the truth of this statement.
    reply to this

  29. Ah yes, labeling two completely different acts with the same term (murder) allows you to ignore the moral distinctions between an act of war against an aggressive enemy nation and the killing of millions of one’s own subjects.

  30. If everything’s going to boil down to utilitarianism, then we should just dispense with this “liberty” thing entirely, because it’s really gonna get in the way.

  31. I think you are missing the point where FDR put innocent Americans in concentration camps. While I certainly do not dislike FDR, you cannot deny the truth of this statement.
    reply to this

  32. If everything’s going to boil down to utilitarianism, then we should just dispense with this “liberty” thing entirely, because it’s really gonna get in the way.

  33. The small town of Bedford, Va., is home to 21 men who sacrificed their lives on D-Day, June 6, 1944. It is now also the home of one of the world’s few public memorial busts of communist dictator Josef Stalin.

  34. Va., is home to 21 men who sacrificed their lives on D-Day, June 6, 1944. It is now also the home of one of the world’s few public memorial busts of communist dictator Josef Stalin.

  35. Ah yes, labeling two completely different acts with the same term (murder) allows you to ignore the moral distinctions between an act of war against an aggressive enemy nation and the killing of millions of one’s own subjects.

  36. If everything’s going to boil down to utilitarianism, then we should just dispense with this “liberty” thing entirely, because it’s really gonna get in the way.

  37. If everything’s going to boil down to utilitarianism, then we should just dispense with this “liberty” thing entirely, because it’s really gonna get in the way.

  38. If everything’s going to boil down to utilitarianism, then we should just dispense with this “liberty” thing entirely, because it’s really gonna get in the way.

  39. I think you are missing the point where FDR put innocent Americans in concentration camps. While I certainly do not dislike FDR, you cannot deny the truth of this statement.

  40. Hi, Neat post. There is a problem with your site in internet explorer, would test this? IE still is the market leader and a large portion of people will miss your magnificent writing due to this problem.

  41. Thanks for the best blog.it was very useful for me.keep sharing such ideas in the future as well.this was actually what i was looking for,and i am glad to came here!Christian Louboutin Pumps Discount sale;thanks forsharing the such information with us.subsequently,after spending many hours on the internet at last we are uncovered an individual that definitely does know what they are dicussing many thanks a great deal wonderful post.The Christian Louboutin pumps Black shoes;Thanks.

  42. It looks great, I really like the one.

  43. Write very good! Back Up.

  44. It really pushes the brand, well done!

  45. Hello! I am new to the community.

  46. Christian Louboutin was born, and set forward in Paris, France, from the French vogue the stage, he released his high-end shoes in 1991 1st heard. His enthusiasm for fashion, develop his three sisters. This can be, however, in the Paris museum began in 1976 and shoes, his curiosity inside the event. When he went to go to the museum DES Africains avenue Daumesnil Oceaniens artwork,Christian Louboutin Pumps, he seen a pictograph symbols, barring women from sporting higher heels in to the exhibit. Stated, exhibit is positioned within a Mosaic and spelling a flower from the ground with the construction along with the ban is usually to prevent damage towards the floor. His picture is embedded in his brain, he later on to his design of symbols employed extremely interested.

  47. If customized can you please facilitate me the website of the company who designed it for you?

  48. Football is a very good, very exciting sport. But to protect the body also is necessary, good equipment can let you exercise injury chance to reduce

  49. we supply cheap NFL jerseys with high quality,we also supply custom jerseys,with you name,which number you like,you choose?we do it for you?if you like it,don’t forget contact us:
    http://www.custompersonalityjerseys.com

  50. This is very exciting article, read it with deep feeling

  51. I think if we walk to other blog we most comment to give appreciate for owner.

  52. I am very impressed, so it has been found that you haveso well with so much class, subject and more. A top-notch, buddy! Really great thingshere.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.