What was his endgame?

"Wherever I go, I must unite the Slavic peoples under one flag. But first, I must murder that faggot Tito".

>>1637009
He wanted a one world communist government.

/thread

>>1637015
Wasn't that Trotsky who wanted the one world government?

File: everything.png (178KB, 564x333px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 564x333px

>>1637009
More power.
>>1637013
>ussr
>pan-slavism
Communism isn't related to pan-nationalism.
It's in theory, about the intentional unity of the proletariat .
>But first, I must murder that faggot Tito
Funny story. Grandpa told me that back in elementary school the teacher once took them to the streets to chant TITO! STALIN! TITO! STALIN! (etc.)
A few mount later they were told to chant DOWN WITH STALIN!

Stalin was more obsessed with the his own individual power than spreading international communism. Hence his falling out with Tito and regular purges of top Communist leaders everywhere in the Soviet bloc.

>>1637009
To carry out Marxism-Leninism. To spread it through military force, if necessary.

>>1638437
Nice meme.

>>1637009

First priority, perpetual security for the USSR and himself personally.

Second priority, to expand the geo-strategic influence for the USSR and himself personally.

That's honestly pretty much it. He was mostly a political opportunist rather than someone who set to a broad plan and kept chiseling at it.

>>1638475
>He was mostly a political opportunist

How so?

>>1638545

I mean look at his expansionism. He General secretary all the way back in 1922, and for most of his reign, he's not actually expansionist or even that interested in the military, except safeguarding it against potential internal enemies.

He only starts attacking people come 1939, when he has a secret agreement with the other major power in their backyard, and actually sticks to the MR pact, to the actual surprise of Hitler, who in Stalin's shoes would have invaded Romania, seized the oil, and crippled Germany come 1940 instead of just grabbing a border zone.

He expands again with the Warsaw pact, but again, only in collaboration with other major powers, along lines delineated beforehand.

Not saying he was a nice guy or anything, but he was very cautious, and only liked to fight short easy wars against tiny countries. He wasn't looking for fights with powers strong enough to give him trouble, even if he could prevail in the end. He was going to grab anything he could, as long as he wouldn't get in hot water for it on the radars of countries who could do something about it. But if it's too much trouble, he was going to leave it be. There was no "end game", just a series of moves that worked at the moment.

>>1637020
nah, Stalin wanted Socialism in One Country, which said that since Russia had the only successful communist revolution it should focus on improving itself. Trotsky wanted permanent revolution, which in his mind had the USSR helping communist revolutions to succeed throughout the world. Sort of like the US "exporting" democracy, except with communism.

He killed 60 million people to impose Bolshevik tyranny.

>>1638426
>Communism isn't related to pan-nationalism.
USSR kinda was though

>>1638571
>tfw you realise that USSR failed because Stalin was a coward that only cared for remaining in power and never took any risks
>he could literally have aggressively infiltrate Chinese revolution and Eurasia would have fallen

>>1640264

The problem is that he's not operating in a vacuum. Part of the reason that Hitler got dogpiled by half the world and Stalin didn't is that he was cautious, he would (more or less) keep his word, and he wasn't constatnly stirring up so much shit that international opinion became that the cost and blood of getting rid of him was worth it.

Obviously, we can't know where the exact line would have been, but it's certainly plausible that had Stalin been more aggressive, we really would have gotten an Unthinkable like war after the dust settled in WW2.

File: 865.jpg (47KB, 597x450px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 597x450px

>>1637009

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1q0xBrlzP52

Stalin's endgame was to create buffer states so a war would never have to be fought on Russian soil again. If there's one thing I don't blame on Stalin is that. After losing so much to defeat Germany it was the only logical thing to do for his country.

>>1638475
>>1638571
I think you nailed it. I think another good example is that he gave up funding the communist movement in Spain because it was placing him in a conflicted position; that said, supporting the left initially seemed like a viable opportunity to establish another communist state

>>1637013
More like
>"Wherever I go, I must develop frozen tundra for glorious Communism"

>>1640275
If this was you, then you need better execution. Should have had a pause between "gulag" and "with no survivors". That's just me being autistic about it though.

The complete destruction of the human race. The man had such a deep hatred for humanity that I have no doubt that he would've started a nuclear war if he had lived for longer.