Jump to content

Is Stannis the ASoIaF-Stalin?


Nucky Thompson

Recommended Posts

A historical parallel I could see is King Philip the Fair, nicknamed "the Iron King". He had the leaders of the Templars burned (and de Molay was his daughter's godfather, they used to be buddies) and generally didn't fuck around. He was the one who brought the popes to Avignon and installed a French pope.

Philip the Fair is actually a better fit for Tywin. Combine him with Warwick from the Wars of the Roses and you've got Tywin to a tee!

As to Stalin and Stannis, nah. They both start with S and that kind of surface stuff is the deepest similarity you'd find. Also while I do like Stannis, I don't think he will live long enough to match Stalin's numbers as far as people killed. Unless he inherited the Targ madness and he's the one who burns down KL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Left or right of political spectrum doesn't really apply to the asoiaf universe but from a moral perspective yes.



If your looking for a million dollar word I would say that they both fall prey to Millenarianism. The belief that a future major shake up in the world justifies short term sacrifices that might otherwise be called immoral. Stalin believed that the transition from a capitalist society to a communist one required an intermediate stage of authoritarian socialism. Stalin committed countless atrocities because he argued it was necessary for society to progress and not slip back into capiltalist hands. Stannis believes that sacrificing certain innocents (Edric Storm/ Gendry in the show), is justifiable to stop the next "Long Night" type of event and fulfill his status as Azor Ahai.



They are both assholes who believe that I am right about the future and you are wrong, and if you don't accept that I will either burn you alive or send you to the Gulag. I think Stannis' arc most likely ends in him going too far with his sacrifices and it backfiring on him. Or perhaps he'll see the error of his ways and stop listening to Melisandre and follow Davos' lead, but I think that's not tragic enough for GRRM lol.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you tell us what your sources are and which units of the Red Army did Stalin take command over in 1917?

Well, I'd have to get ambitious to check out sources, and tbh since I had to spend a few weeks dissecting his Dialectical and Historical Materialsm back when I tend to wince w/e I think of textual Stalin, but even before the red army was created he was already leading irregular warfare in and round Georgia, was then named to the politico-military hierarchy by Lenin, then he directly led armies in the war against the Whites...commanded at (first?) Tsaritsyn among others, then again lead armies against Poland, etc. I really didn't think this was that obscure, but I know people tend to think of him predominantly in later life.

As another Stannis parallel, in spite of rising to power in large part due to Lenin, he spent most of his life after Lenin's death criticizing and undermining Lenin's achievements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRRM has stated in interviews that Stannis is inspired by several roman politician characters in an old tv show. Stalin showed clear signs of psychopathy (lack of conscience or empathy). He killed millions of his own people to consolidate and strengthen his own power. Stalin also allowed his own son to die in a Nazi prison camp if I'm not mistaken rather than trade him for Hitler's nephew.



Stannis on the other hand has only killed those who violate his orders and/or commit some crime or treason. All of these are very rational and based on some law. Stalin executed 90% of his officers at one point just in case there might have been some traitors. Stannis is willing to sacrifice Edric Storm in the hopes of saving thousands of lives. We see Stannis struggle with the decision and show signs of guilt internally when it comes to this and other dark actions he must take. Where Stalin let his own son die, we see Stannis execute his castelleon for attempting to give Shireen to the Lannisters.



Stannis isn't heartless but he has had to make difficult decision in order to fight and stay alive in the war. He isn't an idiot like Joffrey and he isn't a dreamer like Robb. He's a man who understands the real world. Unlike many other characters he shows clear signs of his conscience weighing on him constantly. While I agree that there is a ruthless and situational similarity between Stalin and Stannis there are far more ethical differences between them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'd have to get ambitious to check out sources, and tbh since I had to spend a few weeks dissecting his Dialectical and Historical Materialsm back when I tend to wince w/e I think of textual Stalin, but even before the red army was created he was already leading irregular warfare in and round Georgia, was then named to the politico-military hierarchy by Lenin, then he directly led armies in the war against the Whites...commanded at (first?) Tsaritsyn among others, then again lead armies against Poland, etc. I really didn't think this was that obscure, but I know people tend to think of him predominantly in later life.

As another Stannis parallel, in spite of rising to power in large part due to Lenin, he spent most of his life after Lenin's death criticizing and undermining Lenin's achievements.

Stalin was never a military commander. In his youth, he led gangs that were robbing oil shipments, selling them off and cashing in. He sent some of the money to Lenin in Zurich. And that was all before the revolution. After the revolution, he was a political activist, official and later the supreme leader. He never commanded a military unit apart from these small units in the Caspian Sea region before the revolution. He was not trained for it. He had his military commanders just like all other main WW2 players did. So, no comparison with Stannis is applicable there. He never left Moscow during the war and that was his sign of defiance. It also cost millions of lives, because Moscow had to be defended at any cost. So, not really a shrewd military move, but a propaganda warfare one. He never led an army against Poland?!?!?! He did not come to power due to Lenin, but due to the fact that he managed to intimidate, neutralise and kill all his potential rivals while Lenin was dying of syphilis. Stannis fled to Dragonstone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRRM has stated in interviews that Stannis is inspired by several roman politician characters in an old tv show. Stalin showed clear signs of psychopathy (lack of conscience or empathy). He killed millions of his own people to consolidate and strengthen his own power. Stalin also allowed his own son to die in a Nazi prison camp if I'm not mistaken rather than trade him for Hitler's nephew.

Stannis on the other hand has only killed those who violate his orders and/or commit some crime or treason. All of these are very rational and based on some law. Stalin executed 90% of his officers at one point just in case there might have been some traitors. Stannis is willing to sacrifice Edric Storm in the hopes of saving thousands of lives. We see Stannis struggle with the decision and show signs of guilt internally when it comes to this and other dark actions he must take. Where Stalin let his own son die, we see Stannis execute his castelleon for attempting to give Shireen to the Lannisters.

Stannis isn't heartless but he has had to make difficult decision in order to fight and stay alive in the war. He isn't an idiot like Joffrey and he isn't a dreamer like Robb. He's a man who understands the real world. Unlike many other characters he shows clear signs of his conscience weighing on him constantly. While I agree that there is a ruthless and situational similarity between Stalin and Stannis there are far more ethical differences between them.

Indeed. Stannis resembles Tiberius more than anyone else.

ETA: Just to clarify this point on Stalin's son. Stalin ordered that all Soviet POWs should be treated as traitors since no man should surrender to the enemy alive. His son was captured and Hitler proposed that he should be traded for general Paulus, the leader of the Nazi 6th army. Stalin responded by saying he cannot trade a private for a general. That was perceived as a popular and consistent move in the Soviet Union. FYI, all Soviet POWs were automatically sent to Soviet camps after the WW2 for treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stalin was never a military commander. In his youth, he led gangs that were robbing oil shipments, selling them off and cashing in. He sent some of the money to Lenin in Zurich. And that was all before the revolution. After the revolution, he was a political activist, official and later the supreme leader. He never commanded a military unit apart from these small units in the Caspian Sea region before the revolution. He was not trained for it. He had his military commanders just like all other main WW2 players did. So, no comparison with Stannis is applicable there. He never left Moscow during the war and that was his sign of defiance. It also cost millions of lives, because Moscow had to be defended at any cost. So, not really a shrewd military move, but a propaganda warfare one. He never led an army against Poland?!?!?! He did not come to power due to Lenin, but due to the fact that he managed to intimidate, neutralise and kill all his potential rivals while Lenin was dying of syphilis. Stannis fled to Dragonstone.

I...did you not even read what I wrote?

I am not talking about WWII. I have repeated that several times. Battle of Tsaritsyn. Which was renamed Stalingrad. On account of Stalin winning the battle there. In fact he lead a determined long resistance to a siege, if you want even more parallels.

And yes, he commanded forces in the Soviet-Polish war. He notably faced charges and saw him military command suspended for refusing to commit his troops to an offensive he disagreed with, and instead sustained his attack elsewhere, but was cleared after the war and his command was returned.

I don't know what to say to your 'this didn't happen' argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I...did you not even read what I wrote?

I am not talking about WWII. I have repeated that several times. Battle of Tsaritsyn. Which was renamed Stalingrad. On account of Stalin winning the battle there. In fact he lead a determined long resistance to a siege, if you want even more parallels.

And yes, he commanded forces in the Soviet-Polish war. He notably faced charges and saw him military command suspended for refusing to commit his troops to an offensive he disagreed with, and instead sustained his attack elsewhere, but was cleared after the war and his command was returned.

I don't know what to say to your 'this didn't happen' argument.

IN both cases, Stalin was "people's commissar". I am not sure if you are familiar with what that means. That means he was a representative of the communist party who was in charge of overseeing that official political line is obeyed by the military. That was not a military position. Like in the Nazi Germany where there were constant tensions between the SS and Wermaht, the same applied to Soviet Union when it came to meddling of unqualified political commissars into military affairs that usually ended in disaster. In the case of Tsaritsyn, for example, the commanding officer was Voroshilov who was an extremely talented military commander. Stalin's role was to spy on him and send his "opinion" to the central committee. Since no one wanted to die in vain, military commanders tended to at least pretend to listen to political commissars in order to avoid imprisonment. So, Stalin was NEVER a military commander if you discount his bandit activity before the revolution.

ETA: I can only compare Stalin to Melisandra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IN both cases, Stalin was "people's commissar". I am not sure if you are familiar with what that means. That means he was a representative of the communist party who was in charge of overseeing that official political line is obeyed by the military. That was not a military position. Like in the Nazi Germany where there were constant tensions between the SS and Wermaht, the same applied to Soviet Union when it came to meddling of unqualified political commissars into military affairs that usually ended in disaster. In the case of Tsaritsyn, for example, the commanding officer was Voroshilov who was an extremely talented military commander. Stalin's role was to spy on him and send his "opinion" to the central committee. Since no one wanted to die in vain, military commanders tended to at least pretend to listen to political commissars in order to avoid imprisonment. So, Stalin was NEVER a military commander if you discount his bandit activity before the revolution.

You're just wrong. Among other things, you are equating his role as a political officer, a later deaignation which was not in place when he was fighting. Between 19-35 the Soviets did away with personal tank designations and so-called bourgeois officer corps command structure, and ther was no distinction between 'people's commissar' and 'military commissioner', BOTH of which ranks he held.

Here, I've gone to wiki to try and shortcut this.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin_in_the_Russian_Revolution,_Russian_Civil_War,_and_Polish-Soviet_War

Some quick excerpts:

in July Lenin granted his request for official control over military operations in the region to fight the Battle for Tsaritsyn.

Stalin returned to Moscow in early 1919 and married his longtime companion, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, on March 24. At the Eighth Party Congress in March, Lenin criticised Stalin for using tactics that led to excessive casualties.

Stalin returned to Moscow in August 1920, where he defended himself before the Politburo by attacking the whole campaign strategy. Although this tactic worked, he nonetheless resigned his military commission, something he had repeatedly threatened to do when he didn't get his way. At the Ninth Party Conference on September 22, Trotsky openly criticized Stalin's war record. Stalin was accused of insubordination, personal ambition, military incompetence and seeking to build his own reputation by victories on his own front at the expense of operations elsewhere.

These are questions of military command. He also refused to redeploy troops from the Lvov campaign to the attack on Warsaw, again, a command decision. You are divorcing political and military spheres in a way which is neither coherent with early Soviet command structure, nor reflective of Stannis' designation. When he defended Storm's End he was the...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just wrong. Among other things, you are equating his role as a political officer, a later deaignation which was not in place when he was fighting. Between 19-35 the Soviets did away with personal tank designations and so-called bourgeois officer corps command structure, and ther was no distinction between 'people's commissar' and 'military commissioner', BOTH of which ranks he held.

Here, I've gone to wiki to try and shortcut this.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin_in_the_Russian_Revolution,_Russian_Civil_War,_and_Polish-Soviet_War

Some quick excerpts:

in July Lenin granted his request for official control over military operations in the region to fight the Battle for Tsaritsyn.

Stalin returned to Moscow in early 1919 and married his longtime companion, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, on March 24. At the Eighth Party Congress in March, Lenin criticised Stalin for using tactics that led to excessive casualties.

Stalin returned to Moscow in August 1920, where he defended himself before the Politburo by attacking the whole campaign strategy. Although this tactic worked, he nonetheless resigned his military commission, something he had repeatedly threatened to do when he didn't get his way. At the Ninth Party Conference on September 22, Trotsky openly criticized Stalin's war record. Stalin was accused of insubordination, personal ambition, military incompetence and seeking to build his own reputation by victories on his own front at the expense of operations elsewhere.

These are questions of military command. He also refused to redeploy troops from the Lvov campaign to the attack on Warsaw, again, a command decision. You are divorcing political and military spheres in a way which is neither coherent with early Soviet command structure, nor reflective of Stannis' designation. When he defended Storm's End he was the...?

I am sorry to disappoint you, but I just find wikipedia on Stalin laughable as a source. Also, I read all Stalin's biographies in Russian and I always find western simplifications of what was going on lacking. Sorry for trying to explain something to you. You obviously know better than the Russians do. Obviously.

I'm presenting you with the text about Tsaritsyn Defence based on Soviet original documents quoted in the end.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Tsaritsyn+Defense+of+1918–19

In the Soviet-Polish war, Stalin's title was the people's commissar to the high command of the southern front. Yes, he meddled in military affairs. Yes, he later had to answer for it. To the Politbiro, not a military court, which yet again proves that his role was political instead of military. This incident only proves that he meddled in the military business he knew nothing about. So, when usurping a position of a military commander instead of acting as a political commissar that he was, he did a bad job. Therefore, no comparison to Stannis who is a brilliant military commander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry to disappoint you, but I just find wikipedia on Stalin laughable as a source. Also, I read all Stalin's biographies in Russian and I always find western simplifications of what was going on lacking. Sorry for trying to explain something to you. You obviously know better than the Russians do. Obviously.

I'm presenting you with the text about Tsaritsyn Defence based on Soviet original documents quoted in the end.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Tsaritsyn+Defense+of+1918–19

In the Soviet-Polish war, Stalin's title was the people's commissar to the high command of the southern front. Yes, he meddled in military affairs. Yes, he later had to answer for it. To the Politbiro, not a military court, which yet again proves that his role was political instead of military. This incident only proves that he meddled in the military business he knew nothing about. So, when usurping a position of a military commander instead of acting as a political commissar that he was, he did a bad job. Therefore, no comparison to Stannis who is a brilliant military commander.

I'm sorry, but Stannis is not a brilliant military commander. Remember his siege of Kings Landing?

No, just no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most commanders face a defeat or two sooner or later, it is inevitable if you fight enough battles. That Stannis lost the Battle of Blackwater Bay, when so many unforeseen thingswent against him does not really diminish his abilities as a commander.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...