Stalin Speech(1927) about Foreign Policy in Asia and Europe

[seventeethdecember2016]

Moscow
June 5, 1927


On several former occasions I have called attention to our insane methods in China whereby we expected to bring about the doom of the British empire in Asia. Repeatedly did I warn comrades, like Zinovieff, Trotzky, and Radek, that the Borodin-Chen camarilla at Hankow meant eventual bankruptcy and catastrophe for our prestige in Asia. And today we are face to face with that bitter lesson, and unless we are prepared to dig a grave in China for our insane extremists and bury them root and branch, the whole of Soviet Russia is itself doomed to a more tragic grave.
We must first seriously admit the fallacy of our Asiaic delusion cherished so long-that we would eventually bring about the doom of the British empire in China and in India. Before us for over a century the czarists followed this delusion. "Wars and more war." So away with our doctrinary jargon of a world revolution! A world revolution spells wars and more wars. Soviet Russia must have peace. It must have the good will and confidence of America and England.
Five years ago a slight revision of our program would have made friends of these two countries and they would have been followed immediately by Germany and France. Today we will have to make a still more radical revision of our economic program to hold our only friends-Germany and France.
From the beginning I have been apprehensive of our Chinese policy. I myself am an Asiatic, and my soul cries out for the wrongs they have suffered for centuries.
But I would not be a friend of the Chinese masses if I approved the methods of Comrade Borodin, and such as he, who expects to bring about a communist revolution in a vast country like China, whose centuries of civilization can neither comprehend nor digest the doctrines and theories, on the basis of which we have built our system after half a century of bitter schooling and travail.
In all China with its over four hundred million population there were hardly four hundred real communists-one communist to a million population!
China, which never was a nation unified with a single aim, has been a prey to the caprice of all the western nations. For scores of years these nations have established themselves, illegitimately I admit, on Chinese soil.
But for a small element of Chinese communists to attempt to overthrow their own capitalistic classes, the middle classes, the war lords, and, in spite of a predominant element of illiterate coolies and riff-raff, to dream of a united China in the face of the natural antagonism of the whole western world, including America, is the suicidal act of a madman.
And who did this small element of Chinese communists select as a counselor and adviser? Borodin! A man whose chin we would tie up, whose corpse we would cremate, and whose ashes we would bury should he make his appearance in Soviet Russia.
I would regard Borodin's activities in China as a farcical comedy were it not for the tragic consequences of his identity with the cause of Soviet Russia. That identity has already proved a tragedy to our policies east and west and everywhere.
The time has come when we must either combat the insane adherents of the world revolution in our ranks either by conversion, or by stamping them out by force, or prepare to sacrifice the security of the revolution for a mere set of empty slogans before the over-growing enmity of the whole world.

A News Paper called The Milwaukee Sentinel is where I got this from. Click this (http://www.anonym.to/?http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19270605&id=qWBQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NA8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4081,690259) to read it.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Any takes on this?

[Zealot]

You've left a speech with no comments or analysis. Don't spam.

E: The only place I can find this speech is this (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19270605&id=qWBQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NA8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4081,690259) western newspaper and your Revleft post....

E2: You forgot to include the "Copyright 1927" that's written at the end of the so-called speech.

[Leo]

E: The only place I can find this speech is this (http://www.anonym.to/?http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19270605&id=qWBQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NA8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4081,690259) western newspaper and your Revleft post....Are you claiming that the Milwaukee Sentinel actually faked it? If so, perhaps you should openly come out and say so. The period (April to August 1927) was when the discussion over the fate of the Chinese Revolution was intensely debated in the plenums of the Central Committee of the CPSU as well as of the ECCI. Stalin's positions in the said article in regards to China are entirely in line with his positions published in the Pravda at the time of other parts of his speeches during the mentioned meetings. Different such speeches published at different times by different organs of the Soviet press can be easily found online.

The fact that Stalin argued for the slogan of socialism in one country and against that of the world revolution can also be frequently observed in the mentioned sources. Besides, more importantly, there is the fact that publishing a letter like this in 1927, the newspaper in question would clearly make Stalin appear favorably to the American public, not the other way around; as a sober politician battling insane extremists; a pacifist against warmongers such as Trotsky, Zinoviev, Borodin and so on.

And of course then there is the question of how this relatively obscure Milwaukee newspaper managed to forge a text so accurate that it got Stalin's positions in regards to China right in the middle of the discussion going on in China in 1927. Of course this could be the result of an international plot of the American government to provide ammunition to provide political ammunition for the relatively tiny communist opponents of Stalin for decades later when the US would turn against Stalin, in which case congratulations, you have finally exposed the conspiracy.

Or it could be just that Stalin thought it would be a good idea to telegram a part of his speeches during one of these meetings to an American newspaper to improve his image in America. Because of course, it's not as if he never did anything as such, like the interview with Roy Howard, the President of Scripps-Howard Newspapers (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm) when a dialogue such as this occurred:


Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?
Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.
Howard : You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.
Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.
Howard : A tragic misunderstanding?
Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.

[seventeethdecember2016]

You've left a speech with no comments or analysis. Don't spam.

E: The only place I can find this speech is this western newspaper and your Revleft post....

E2: You forgot to include the "Copyright 1927" that's written at the end of the so-called speech.
I'm sorry for the spam, and I didn't copy-paste the speech rather I copied the entire thing myself. I'll add a copyright after I get a chance.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Are you claiming that the Milwaukee Sentinel actually faked it? If so, perhaps you should openly come out and say so. :
Thanks for your take on this.

[Zealot]

Are you claiming that the Milwaukee Sentinel actually faked it? If so, perhaps you should openly come out and say so.

I was simply asking for a source outside of Revleft and an imperialist newspaper. Is it really that hard to believe? I don't think so. In fact, in this piece (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/12/16.htm) Stalin criticizes the New York American who were forging interviews and articles about him. "Coincidentally", the Milwaukee Sentinel and the New York American were both owned by the Hearst Corporation, headed by William Hearst, who is well known to have distributed fake articles. The very term "Yellow Journalism" was derived from Hearst's battle with other papers to increase sales and circulation.


Or it could be just that Stalin thought it would be a good idea to telegram a part of his speeches during one of these meetings to an American newspaper to improve his image in America. Because of course, it's not as if he never did anything as such, like the interview with Roy Howard, the President of Scripps-Howard Newspapers (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm) when a dialogue such as this occurred:

How about you quote the whole context.


Howard : May there not be an element of danger in the genuine fear existent in what you term capitalistic countries of an intent on the part of the Soviet Union to force its political theories on other nations?

Stalin : There is no justification whatever for such fears. If you think that Soviet people want to change the face of surrounding states, and by forcible means at that, you are entirely mistaken. Of course, Soviet people would like to see the face of surrounding states changed, but that is the business of the surrounding states. I fail to see what danger the surrounding states can perceive in the ideas of the Soviet people if these states are really sitting firmly in the saddle.

Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.

Howard : You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.

Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.

Howard : A tragic misunderstanding?

Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.

You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.

But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.

[Leo]

I was simply asking for a source outside of Revleft and an imperialist newspaper. Is it really that hard to believe?

In which case perhaps you should not make remarks such as "the so-called speech". It really makes you seem as far from being objective as possible.


In fact, in this piece (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/12/16.htm) Stalin criticizes the New York American who were forging interviews and articles about him. "Coincidentally", the Milwaukee Sentinel and the New York American were both owned by the Hearst Corporation, headed by William Hearst, who is well known to have distributed fake articles.

The plot thickens!


How about you quote the whole context.

The whole context doesn't make it any better.

[Philosopher Jay]

This speech does make Stalin sound like an absolute imbecile. He is talking about he impossibility of a communist revolution in China, 22 years before the revolution is successful. The conclusion that he draws that those who advocate world revolution imperil the Soviet Socialist Revolution seems designed to show himself as a sober and level-headed practical leader, while the others he mentions are wide-eyed, idealistic communist bomb-throwers.
This is an excellent article which helps us to see Stalin's world view more clearly.
It seems unlikely to be a hoax. It is hard to see how publishing something like this in a small Milwaukee newspaper could have affected views or events in the Soviet Union. It would be nice to have other sources where Stalin expressed similar views.

[Zealot]

The plot thickens!

Indeed, Hearst Corporation also wrote articles portraying fascism and Germany in a glowing light and at one point had Mussolini on their payroll to write about fascism (they had tried to get Hitler as well).


In which case perhaps you should not make remarks such as "the so-called speech". It really makes you seem as far from being objective as possible.

Sorry but given that the only sources are a Revleft post and an article from Nazi sympathizers well-known for outright phony reports I think I'm being as objective as is humanly possible here.


The whole context doesn't make it any better.

Try reading it.

[seventeethdecember2016]

This speech does make Stalin sound like an absolute imbecile. He is talking about he impossibility of a communist revolution in China, 22 years before the revolution is successful.
I don't think Stalin was an idiot. It was completely pointless to send millions of Soviet soldiers into China which had an army of an equal size. The idea of having such an action isn't strategic, and thus a dangerous idea. As Stalin said in the Howard speech, "Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution."

Socialism in one State is more realistic than Trotskyist ideas.



I was simply asking for a source outside of Revleft and an imperialist newspaper. Is it really that hard to believe? I don't think so. In fact, in this piece (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/12/16.htm) Stalin criticizes the New York American who were forging interviews and articles about him. "Coincidentally", the Milwaukee Sentinel and the New York American were both owned by the Hearst Corporation, headed by William Hearst, who is well known to have distributed fake articles. The very term "Yellow Journalism" was derived from Hearst's battle with other papers to increase sales and circulation.


Thanks for this information. I will deluge deeper into whether or not this is real or not.

[Geiseric]

In all China with its over four hundred million population there were hardly four hundred real communists-one communist to a million population

What he said right there at one point was more or less the menshevik answer to Lenin's call for an end to the provisional government. Dangerous waters to be treading in. Along with that it's untrue, there were tens of thousands of chinese workers who were going on massive railroad and general strikes up till that point, and it's evident if anybody researches chinese history, class consciousness was at its height in the northern cities that were industrialising by the 20's due to foreign investments. Anyways Stalin is a moron and he didn't want a revolution in china, spain, italy, germany, or anywhere else because it would have threatened relations between the USSR and the capitalist countries, he basically admitted it in that quote that Expropism made, and that in itself shows how far he deviated from the popular current that got the bolsheviks in power in the first place.

[Omsk]

Anyways Stalin is a moron

A great way to precisely describe one of the most complicated historical figures in the history of man kind.


he didn't want a revolution in china, spain, italy, germany, or anywhere else

And yet only the USSR seriously supported the war effort of Republican Spain?



I was ordered to send the planes to Alicante. But that port was blockaded by Franco's vessels. The master of the ship made for Alicante, but had to turn back to save the ship and cargo. He attempted to head for Barcelona, but was prevented by my agent on board. My shipload of aircraft plied back and forth in the Mediterranean. Franco kept it from Alicante. Stalin kept it from Barcelona.
...The Norwegian ship finally slipped through Franco's blockade and discharged its planes at Alicante. At the same time, other war supplies, including tanks and artillery, arrived from the Soviet Union. All loyalist Spain saw that tangible aid was actually coming from Russia. The Republicans, Socialists, anarchists, [and Trotskyists], and syndicalists had only theories and ideals to offer. The Communists were producing guns and planes to use against Franco. Soviet prestige soared.
Krivitsky, Walter G. I was Stalin's Agent, London: H. Hamilton, 1939, p. 103


While this International Brigade - the army of the Comintern - was taking shape in the foreground, purely Russian units of the Red Army were quietly arriving and taking up their posts behind the Spanish front. This Soviet military personnel in Spain never reached more than 2,000 men, and only pilots and tank officers saw active duty. Most of the Russians were technicians--general staff men, military instructors, engineers, specialists in setting up war industries, experts in chemical warfare, aviation mechanics, radio operators, and gunnery experts. These Red Army men were segregated from the Spanish civilians as much as possible, housed apart, and never permitted to associate in any way with Spanish political groups or figures. They were ceaselessly watched by the 0GPU, both to keep their presence in Spain a secret and to prevent any political heresy from corrupting the Red Army.
This special expeditionary force was under the direct control of General Berzin, one of the two leading Soviet figures assigned by Stalin to captain his intervention in Spain. The other was Arthur Stashevsky, officially the Soviet trade envoy stationed in Barcelona.
Krivitsky, Walter G. I was Stalin's Agent, London: H. Hamilton, 1939, p. 107


Berzin was selected by Stalin to organize and direct the Loyalist Army.
Stalin's chief political commissar in Spain was Arthur Stashevsky.
Krivitsky, Walter G. I was Stalin's Agent, London: H. Hamilton, 1939, p. 108


Dr. Negrin, of course, saw the only salvation of his country in close co-operation with the Soviet Union. It had become obvious that active support could come only from that source.
Krivitsky, Walter G. I was Stalin's Agent, London: H. Hamilton, 1939, p. 112


The splendid feats of the International Brigade, and the material help received from the Soviet Union, so prompted the growth of the Communist Party of Spain that by January 1937 its membership was more than 200,000. The saving of Madrid enormously enhanced Soviet prestige.
Krivitsky, Walter G. I was Stalin's Agent, London: H. Hamilton, 1939, p. 114


The successful defense of Madrid with Soviet arms gave the 0GPU new opportunities to extend its powers.
Krivitsky, Walter G. I was Stalin's Agent, London: H. Hamilton, 1939, p. 115

By February 15th, however, they [the Fascists] were forced to retreat by the newly-reorganized republican army... and the support of 40 Soviet warplanes--moscas and chatos--that had just arrived in Spain: not as many in number as the German warplanes, but technically superior.
Brar, Harpal. Trotskyism or Leninism. 1993, p. 327

Airplanes provided by the Soviet government, 500 pieces of artillery, and 10,000 machine guns were held up in France.
Brar, Harpal. Trotskyism or Leninism. 1993, p. 336

The people of Spain had a loyal friend in the Soviet Union, which could be relied upon to do everything in its power to promote their cause and to frustrate the designs of every imperialist power.
Brar, Harpal. Trotskyism or Leninism. 1993, p. 338


And henceforth the Soviet government did all it could to supply the Republicans with everything they needed, from men (through the international brigades who sent some 35,000 men to Spain), to military advisers from its own army, to armaments and food.
Brar, Harpal. Trotskyism or Leninism. 1993, p. 440

It is common knowledge that soon after the fascist rebellion and the beginning of the civil war in Spain the Soviet Union began to aid and support the Spanish Republic....
By the end of 1936 the Soviet Union had supplied Spain with 106 tanks, 60 armored cars, 136 airplanes, more than 60,000 rifles, 174 field guns, 3,727 machine guns, and an unspecified amount of ammunition.
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 724

VYSHINSKY: In his message to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Spain addressed to Comrade Jose Diaz, Comrade Stalin said: "The toilers of the Soviet Union are merely fulfilling their duty in giving all the assistance they can to the revolutionary masses of Spain. They fully realize that the liberation of Spain from the yoke of the fascist reactionaries is not the private affair of the Spaniards, but the common cause of the whole of advanced and progressive humanity."
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R, p. 506

The experience of the Civil War in Spain--where no country except the Soviet Union provided assistance to the legal government of the Republic,...
Berezhkov, Valentin. At Stalin's Side. Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Pub. Group, c1994, p. 10

In the summer [of 1936] the Spanish Civil War started. Stalin became involved to the extent of sending supplies including 648 aircraft and 407 tanks. Three thousand Soviet military 'volunteers' served in Spain, and the Comintern organized the 42,000 volunteers of the International Brigade commanded by the supposed Canadian 'Kleber ', in fact Red Army Corps Commander, Shtern.
Conquest, Robert. Stalin: Breaker of Nations. New York, New York: Viking, 1991, p. 219

...Stalin, while professing Soviet adherence to non-intervention [in the Spanish Civil War], secretly approved the immediate dispatch of trained Soviet pilots to fly fighter aircraft supplied by the French.
Costello, John and Oleg Tsarev. Deadly illusions. New York: Crown, c1993, p. 254

Sixteen Soviet freighters put to see from the Black Sea port of Odessa, heading for the Mediterranean. By early November they had safely reached the Republican-held port of Cartagena, where they unloaded more than 800 tanks and aircraft along with thousands of gallons of badly needed fuel. Although military aid on a far more massive scale was needed to defeat Franco, Stalin's first grudging commitment of Soviet support proved an important morale booster for the Spanish Republicans. Soviet supplies meant that the Loyalists were no longer battling alone against a Nationalist army being supplied with an increasing flood of arms from Germany and Italy.
" Madrid will not now fall," declared Prime Minister Caballero, "now the war will begin, because we now have the necessary materials." His defiant words were reinforced later that month with the arrival of hundreds of Soviet military personnel and more arms. Orlov and his comrades in the Red Air Force and Army units in Spain resented Stalin's order that military personnel were to "keep out of range of artillery fire". Their T-10 tanks and Mosca and Chato fighter aircraft proved more than a match for the German and Italian opposition. Even in the hands of hastily trained Republican pilots and crews the firepower and maneuverability of the Soviet weapons proved superior to Nationalist tanks and aircraft during the December battles for Madrid.
Costello, John and Oleg Tsarev. Deadly illusions. New York: Crown, c1993, p. 256

Stalin was as good as his word. Twenty years later, when Orlov testified in 1957 before the Senate Internal Security Sub-Committee and recounted how he had organized the looting of the Spanish treasury, Radio Moscow announced that the $420 million worth of Spanish gold smuggled to Russia in 1937 had been sent legitimately to "finance the Republican cause". Franco's government was pressing the Soviets to send back the bullion after Negrin's heirs had returned to Madrid the official receipt for "510 million grams of gold" which the bank of Moscow had given to the cashiers of the Bank of Spain in 1938.
Khrushchev, the Soviet president in 1957 certainly was not going to return a single peseta of Republican money to the Fascist regime of Franco. This was made clear in a broadcast by Radio Moscow in which the USSR reminded the world that the value of Soviet aid delivered to the Spanish Government during the Civil War amounted to much more than the value of 510 metric tons of gold. According to the statement the Spanish account with the USSR was still overdrawn because of the Republicans' failure to repay $50 million of an additional $85 million in supplies which they had allegedly been loaned officially.
Costello, John and Oleg Tsarev. Deadly illusions. New York: Crown, c1993, p. 263

After all, we had to intervene in Spain because of the fear of agitation on the part of Trotskyites. The Instantsia [Politburo] fears accusations of liquidation--accusations that we have let down the Spanish Left. This is absurd; questions of policy must be decided according to the demands of the State, and not from the point of view of [dissidents, critics, and traitors]....
Litvinov, Maksim Maksimovich. Notes for a Journal. New York: Morrow, 1955, p. 268

Stalin's role in the Spanish Civil War likewise comes under fire from the "left." Again taking their cue from Trotsky and such professional anti-Communist ideologues as George Orwell, many "Socialists" claim that Stalin sold out the Loyalists. A similar criticism is made about Stalin's policies in relation to the Greek partisans in the late 1940s, which we will discuss later. According to these "left" criticisms, Stalin didn't "care" about either of the struggles, because of his preoccupation with internal development and "Great Russian power." The simple fact of the matter is that in both cases Stalin was the only national leader any place in the world to support the popular forces, and he did this in the face of stubborn opposition within his own camp and the dangers of military attack from the leading aggressive powers in the world (Germany and Italy in the late 1930s, the U.S. 10 years later).
Because the USSR, following Stalin's policies, had become a modern industrial nation by the mid 1930s, it was able to ship to the Spanish Loyalists Soviet tanks and planes that were every bit as advanced as the Nazi models. Because the USSR was the leader of the world revolutionary forces, Communists from many nations were able to organize the International Brigades, which went to resist Mussolini's fascist divisions and the crack Nazi forces, such as the Condor Legion, that were invading the Spanish Republic. The capitalist powers, alarmed by this international support for the Loyalists, planned joint action to stop it. In March 1937, warships of Germany, Italy, France, and Great Britain began jointly policing the Spanish coast. Acting on a British initiative, these same countries formed a bloc in late 1937 to isolate the Soviet Union by implementing a policy they called "non-intervention," which Lloyd George, as leader of the British Opposition, labeled a clear policy of support for the fascists. Mussolini supported the British plan and called for a campaign "to drive Bolshevism from Europe." Stalin's own foreign ministry, which was still dominated by aristocrats masquerading as proletarian revolutionaries, sided with the capitalist powers. The New York Times of October 29, 1937, describes how the "unyielding" Stalin, representing "Russians stubbornness," refused to go along: "A struggle has been going on all this week between Josef Stalin and Foreign Commissar Litvinov," who wished to accept the British plan. Stalin stuck to his guns, in the Soviet Union refused to grant Franco international status as a combatant, insisting that it had every right in the world to continue aiding the duly elected government of Spain, which it did until the bitter end.
Franklin, Bruce, Ed. The Essential Stalin; Major Theoretical Writings. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1972, p. 22

(Sinclair’s comments)
Whenever you may think about them you can hardly dispute the fact that Russia is for all practical purposes at war today. Russian technicians are helping the democratic people of Spain to defend their existence. Russian technicians are helping the people China to the same end. Russia is fighting not merely Franco, but Hitler and Mussolini in Spain.
Sinclair and Lyons. Terror in Russia?: Two Views. New York: Rand School Press, 1938, p. 22

Those of us who are over 50 today remember well that the Soviet Union, fulfilling its internationalist duty, helped the legitimate Government and the people of Spain with everything it could--arms, provisions, and medicines. Imbued with revolutionary enthusiasm and the spirit of romanticism Soviet tankmen, pilots, artillerymen, rank-and-file soldiers and prominent military leaders volunteered to fight in Spain.
Zhukov, Georgi. Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape, 1971, p. 141

In the winter of 1936-37 most Russian planes in Spain were flown by Russian pilots, and the attack to drive the Nationalists back from Madrid was opened on Oct. 29 by Russian tanks, driven by Russians, led by the tank specialist General Pavlov and supported by Russian planes.
...Nonetheless, Soviet support was decisive in the autumn of 1936, preventing the Nationalists from winning the war in a few months. Russian advisers and the International Brigades brought order and discipline into the Republican army,...
Bullock, Alan. Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives. New York: Knopf, 1992, p. 540

[In December 1936] Stalin had sent a letter to the Spanish Prime Minister, Caballero, signed by Molotov & Voroshilov as well as himself, in which he urged the Republican government to avoid social radicalism, enlist the support of the middle class, and broaden the basis of his government "in order to prevent the enemies of Spain from presenting it as a communist republic."
The fact that the Soviet Union through the Comintern was the only reliable source of arms and supplies gave Stalin the power to intervene in Spanish politics as well as in the war.
Bullock, Alan. Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives. New York: Knopf, 1992, p. 541


"... the Soviet Union sent to the Spanish Government 806 military aircraft, mainly fighters, 362 tanks, 120 armored cars, 1,555 artillery pieces, about 500,000 rifles, 340 grenade launchers, 15,113 machine-guns, more than 110,000 aerial bombs, about 3.4 million rounds of ammunition, 500,000 grenades, 862 million cartridges, 1,500 tons of gunpowder, torpedo boats, air defense searchlight installations, motor vehicles, radio stations, torpedoes and fuel".
('International Solidarity'; op. cit; p.329-30).

and under the new Soviet policy,
"... a little more than 2,000 Soviet volunteers fought and worked in Spain on the side of the Republic throughout the whole war, including 772 airmen, 351 tank men, 222 army advisers and instructors, 77 naval specialists, 100 artillery specialists, 52 other specialists, 130 aircraft factory workers and engineers, 156 radio operators and other signals men, and 204 interpreters".
('International Solidarity': op. cit. p.328).

In Berlin on 30 may 1937 Hitler stated: After Red airplanes bombed British, German, and Italian ships lying in the harbor of Majorca a few days ago and killed six officers on an Italian ship, German ships were forbidden to remain in the harbor any longer. On Saturday, May 29, 1937, the pocket battleship Deutschland was lying in the roadstead of Ibiza. The ship belongs to the forces assigned to the international sea patrol. In spite of this, the pocket battleship was suddenly bombed between 6 and 7 p.m. by two planes of the Red Valencia Government in a gliding attack.... The result of this criminal attack is that 20 were killed and 73 wounded.
Domarus, Max , Ed. Hitler’s Speeches and Proclamations, 1932-1945. Vol. 2. Wauconda, Illinois: Bolchazy-Carducci, c1990, p. 899

As it became clear that Italy, Germany, and Portugal would not abide by the nonintervention formula and that the insurgent forces were winning, Stalin decided to intervene.
Tucker, Robert. Stalin in Power: 1929-1941. New York: Norton, 1990, p. 351

[In a letter to Kaganovich and Chubar on 18 August 1936 Stalin stated] I consider it necessary to sell oil to the Spaniards immediately on the most favorable terms for them, at a discounted price, if need be. If the Spaniards need grain and foodstuffs in general, we should sell all that to them on favorable terms. Let me know how much oil we have already delivered to the Spaniards. Make it incumbent on the People's Commissariat of Foreign Trade to act quickly and decisively.
Shabad, Steven, trans. The Stalin-Kaganovich Correspondence, 1931-1936. New Haven: Yale University Press, c2003, p. 327

[in a letter to Stalin on 18 August 1936 Kaganovich, Ordzhonikidze, and Chubar stated] We heard Comrade Sudin's progress report on the sale of oil to the Spaniards. It was determined that 6000 tons of fuel oil have been sold as of 18 August, and another tanker has been ordered to fill up with oil.
In accordance with your [Stalin] telegram, the People's Commissariat of Foreign Trade has been instructed to sell oil to the Spaniards immediately at a reduced price in the necessary amount on the most favorable terms.
Shabad, Steven, trans. The Stalin-Kaganovich Correspondence, 1931-1936. New Haven: Yale University Press, c2003, p. 327

[In a letter to Kaganovich on 6 September 1936 Stalin stated] It would be good to sell Mexico 50 high-speed bombers, so that Mexico can immediately resell them to Spain. We could also pick about 20 of our good pilots to perform combat functions in Spain and at the same time give flight training on the high-speed bombers to Spanish pilots. Think this matter over as quickly as possible. It would be good to sell by the same means 20,000 rifles, 1000 machine guns, and about 20 million rounds of ammunition. We just need to know the calibers.
Shabad, Steven, trans. The Stalin-Kaganovich Correspondence, 1931-1936. New Haven: Yale University Press, c2003, p. 351

[Footnote to a letter by Kaganovich on 11 October 1936 to Stalin]. On 29 September the Politburo had decided to begin arms deliveries. By 22 October 5 ships had been dispatched to Spain containing 50 tanks, plus fuel and ammunition, 30 hi-speed bombers, and artillery. Further Soviet arms shipments to Spain were made in larger quantities.
Shabad, Steven, trans. The Stalin-Kaganovich Correspondence, 1931-1936. New Haven: Yale University Press, c2003, p. 368

In the cruel Spanish Civil War which followed, anti-fascists all over the world helped the Republican army. Stalin's reaction was instantaneous and, once again, enlightened: Soviet advisers, tanks, and planes were rushed to the aid of democracy in Spain--together with a large number of NKVD agents.
Radzinsky, Edvard. Stalin. New York: Doubleday, c1996, p. 337

... Stalin's Russia was the only country to provide real help to Republican Spain.
Ulam, Adam. Stalin; The Man and his Era. New York: Viking Press, 1973, p. 426

The fact remained that Russia was doing something to try to stop the march of fascism, that communism appeared to extend a helping hand to an embattled democracy, while the French and British statesmen prattled on about nonintervention in Spain, where German planes and pilots and fascism legions were openly assisting Franco.
Ulam, Adam. Stalin; The Man and his Era. New York: Viking Press, 1973, p. 427

While Russian military, air, and naval personnel helped the Republican side and the USSR furnished it with supplies, Soviet participation in the Spanish Civil War was veiled in much more mystification than that of the fascist powers.
Ulam, Adam. Stalin; The Man and his Era. New York: Viking Press, 1973, p. 468

My father also wondered why the British had not supported the Spanish Republicans, since they had every interest in preventing the expansion of Italy and Germany into Spain. Germany and Italy had sent many troops. France and Britain acted as though neutral and blocked the approaches, and the Soviet Union alone sent arms via the Black Sea. I know this from Admiral Kuznetsov, whom my father met at this time. He commanded a cruiser which escorted the convoys.
Beria, Sergo. Beria, My Father: Inside Stalin's Kremlin. London: Duckworth, 2001, p. 31

On 15 Oct 1936 Soviet tanks, planes and "advisors" started arriving in Spain to support the Republican government against General Francisco Franco, backed by Hitler and Mussolini.
Montefiore, Sebag. Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. New York: Knopf, 2004, p. 200

...more than 2000 Soviet volunteers fought and worked in Spain on the side of the Republic throughout the whole war, including 772 airmen, 351 tank men, 222 army advisors and instructors, 77 naval specialists, 100 artillery specialists, 52 other specialists, 130 aircraft factory workers and engineers, 156 radio operators and other signals men, and 204 interpreters....
The total extent of Soviet military supplies may be seen from the following figures: the Soviet Union sent to the Spanish Government 806 military aircraft, mainly fighters, 363 tanks, 120 armored cars, 1,555 artillery pieces, about 500,000 rifles, 340 grenade launchers, 15,113 machine guns, more than 110,000 aerial bombs, about 3.4 million rounds of ammunition, 500,000 grenades, 862 million cartridges, 1500 tons of gunpowder, torpedo boats, air defense searchlight installations, motor vehicles, radio stations, torpedoes and fuel".
International Solidarity With the Spanish Republic, 1936-39. Moscow: Progress Publishers, c1974, p. 328-330

Among the more salient denunciations [of the Soviet Union's assistance to Spain during the Spanish Civil War] are the following: That military aid to Spain came too late and too little; that a large part of the arms were obsolete; that they were given only to communist-led units; that the arms were fed, piece-meal, as it were, to the Governments of Caballero and Negrin in direct proportion to reciprocal controls and influence purportedly granted the Soviets; that the Soviets limited their aid to appease Britain and France; that Russian officers controlled and directed the Madrid armies; that as early as autumn, 1937, the Soviet Union "gave up" on the Spanish revolution and ceased all arms shipments....
And so on, and so on.
The tragedy of the above is that a great part of this quite malicious and self-serving, right-wing propaganda was put forth by both capitulationists and ultras alike.... The word "malicious" is apropos in this case, since each and every point can be easily proven a skillfully perpetrated lie.
Landis, Arthur H. Spain, The Unfinished Revolution, Baldwin Park, California: Camelot Pub. Co. [1972], p. 231

To all those who fault the USSR for not having sent sufficient arms to the Republic the following data should be interesting. The Franco Admiral, Bastarreche, at a conference in Zaragoza in 1960 stated that, "The Nationalist Navy sunk during the period of our war 53 merchant ships with a total of 129,000 tons; captured on the high seas were another 324 ships of some 484,000 tons. Twenty-four foreign ships were also seized, and as many as 1000 detained on the high seas for examination and later released....
Interesting, isn't it? Among the known Russian ships sunk were the Komsomol, Timiriazev and the Blagoev, all in the Autumn of 1936. A number of others were torpedoed in 1937, as were many Spanish ships of the Republican fleet.
...The evidence then is more than sufficient to conclude that despite the tremendous losses of men, ships, and material along the thousand-mile, submarine-infested run from the Black Sea to Spain, the Soviets had never faltered in their aid to Spain....
Indeed, with 53 merchant ships loaded with Russian arms for Spain torpedoed and sent to the bottom of the Mediterranean, the Soviets have a right to suggest to their unconscionable attackers of the ultra-left, and others, that they not be so hasty with their quite self-serving accusations.
Landis, Arthur H. Spain, The Unfinished Revolution, Baldwin Park, California: Camelot Pub. Co. [1972] page 242-244

The Spanish government rallied all the forces it could on the political left. Spain’s communists in particular stood by it.
The revolutionary tradition impelled Stalin to look favorably on the request from Madrid for help. So too did the awareness that if no resistance to German assertiveness were shown, Europe as a whole would be exposed to the expansionist aims of the Third Reich. Failure to act would be taken as a sign that the policy of the popular front had no substance. Finance and munitions were dispatched by boat to Spain from Leningrad. Simultaneously the Communist International sent the Italian Communist Party leader Togliatti under the alias Ercoli to direct the activities of the Spanish communists.
Service, Robert. Stalin. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2005, p. 387

But he [Stalin] and the Comintern at least did something, and it is hardly likely that the Republicans would have held out so long if he had not sanctioned the Spanish Communist Party’s participation. His Trotskyist critics accused him of excessive pragmatism in his management of the Soviet foreign policy. They ignored the limited resources available to the USSR. Economically, militarily, and ‘above all’ geographically there was no serious chance for him to do more than he achieved at the time.
Service, Robert. Stalin. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2005, p. 389




Please Syd,i beg you,stop posting like this,your posts are killing me slowly.:(

[Zealot]

he didn't want a revolution in china, spain, italy, germany, or anywhere else because it would have threatened relations between the USSR and the capitalist countries, he basically admitted it in that quote that Expropism made

He didn't admit anything. You guys are like priests who over-analyze the Bible; you're trying to find something in that interview that isn't there. Keep searching.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Anyways Stalin is a moron and he didn't want a revolution in china, spain, italy, germany, or anywhere else because it would have threatened relations between the USSR and the capitalist countries, he basically admitted it in that quote that Expropism made, and that in itself shows how far he deviated from the popular current that got the bolsheviks in power in the first place.
I'm sure that Stalin used rhetoric throughout his career. He obviously wasn't serious about the size of the Chinese revolutionaries, rather he was trying to illustrate that they weren't a large group. It is really hard for a few thousand people to conquer a country with 400 million, and pity to any leader who believes in such a thing. China also had a lot of cannon-fodder, which would have lead to millions of Soviet soldiers' deaths.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

A great way to precisely describe one of the most complicated historical figures in the history of man kind.



And yet only the USSR seriously supported the war effort of Republican Spain?





Please Syd,i beg you,stop posting like this,your posts are killing me slowly.:(
Please, you're going to use Spain as your proof? You're just proving Syd's point...

[Omsk]

No im not,withouth the help from the USSR,the republicans would lose a lot more early.

Stalin supported many revolutions and communist movements.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

No im not,withouth the help from the USSR,the republicans would lose a lot more early.

Stalin supported many revolutions and communist movements.
And with his help the Communist Party in Spain tried defeating revolutionary gains made by the people because they would make relations with Western nations bad according to them. In other words they needed to defend moderation against the radicals who were carrying out real revolutionary change in Spain to appease the Western capitalist nations, which is exactly what Syd said Stalin did.

But good job providing us all with a waste of space where every source you could provide says basically the same thing, "Stalin/the USSR under Stalin, gave weapons to the Republican government". I read only one of those quotes which even recognizes that there was a critique coming from the left on Stalin's policy in Spain and said person does not confront those allegations but just says what you say basically, that the USSR sent weapons!

That doesn't cover up what happened in Spain at all, and to pretend like it does is just historical revisionism.

[Omsk]

"Stalin/the USSR under Stalin, gave weapons to the Republican government".


If you actually read the qoutes,you wound know that it was much more than weapons.
Even if i would agree with the ridiculous idea that Stalin [USSR] only sent weapons,it would still be much more help in comparison to the support (none) of other nations and political elements.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

If you actually read the qoutes,you wound know that it was much more than weapons.
Even if i would agree with the ridiculous idea that Stalin [USSR] only sent weapons,it would still be much more help in comparison to the support (none) of other nations and political elements.
Nice job avoiding the actual criticism. Pretend like I said tanks, weapons, feet on the ground, airplanes, etc. What would you say then? Oh yes, nothing, because historically speaking what Syd and I are saying is right.

[Omsk]

What would you say then?


I would say it was helpful,and had a huge impact on the war effort of the republicans.I still think it was not enough,and that more supplies,men,ammunition and weapons should have been sent.


because historically speaking what Syd and I are saying is right.
And no,you are not right,the Spanish Civil War was not the only even Stalin and the USSR had a huge impact on.

While you concentrated on Spain,Syd said something like:Stalin didnt want revolutions,he didnt support them,he was a moron etc etc.

That is not true.

[DaringMehring]

Stalin's China policy was bad and that is old news. From ordering the CP submission to the Kuomintang leading to Shanghai massacre, to sending in Otto Braun, it was one mistake after another.

As for the "we need peace & the trust of UK/USA" -- well, it is true that the USSR was only formally recognized by the USA in 1933 after Stalin sewed up all power. I guess they found his socialism in one country acceptable enough.

All of these things stem from Stalin being the representative of the center-bureaucracy, meaning, seeking peace, stability, and "sensibility" in consolidating the country under the control of that class.

[Geiseric]

So giving weapons to a Communist party that is subordinate to demands of a liberal government is revolutionary... Riight... I guess the U.S. sending aid to the USSR in WW2 makes FDR a communist too, right?

Apart from that shitstorm that was the Spanish Civil War, Stalin also traded huge sums of materials to Nazi Germany, who used it to ironically invade the U.S.S.R. a few years after the pact. Does that mean that Stalin thought Hitler was Communist? Did he forget how many communists Hitler personally ordered to be killed during his rise to power? In fact, the only reason the Nazis gained power was because of their role in killing communists, and making germany a safe investment for capitalists! It was as though Freikorps had a new political party.
I mean Stalin supported Spain's fight against Fascism, but he did everything he did and ordered P.S.U.C. to do everything it could to keep the Liberals in power and make it so a workers party, or a UNITED FRONT of workers parties didn't take power. P.S.U.C. militia men, often ex soldiers from WW1 fought along side police against workers, and if somebody thinks that's okay, I don't see how they belong in the Left.

[seventeethdecember2016]

So giving weapons to a Communist party that is subordinate to demands of a liberal government is revolutionary... Riight... I guess the U.S. sending aid to the USSR in WW2 makes FDR a communist too, right?
The pact was for strategical advantages and to create new markets for the USSR to trade with. It is really hard to think that Nazi Germany would invade prior to the event actually happening.
If I were Stalin, I'd have created something like the Maginot line on the border.

[Omsk]

@Syd Barrett.

Have you even heard of the Yugoslav NOB?And the role of the USSR in it,Stalins help to a revolutionary movement?
Not only there but in many other countries that were passing trought hard times and a revolution could be achieved.

The USSR helped the workers,and revolutionary struggles,the fact that you know too little about it,doesent change anything.You keep on talking about Spain,and you even admitted that you were wrong in the case of the Spanish Civil War,and yet to mention it in every post.

Naturally the capitalist elements of every country, each influenced by their own special interests, accused the Bolsheviks in general and the Soviet Government in particular of responsibility for all the “disturbances” and “unrest” in the world. Stalin answered the critics: "The accusation does us too much honor! Unfortunately, we're not yet strong enough to give all the colonial countries direct aid in their struggle for liberation..."
Russian trade unions collected 1 million pounds from their members to aid locked-out British miners. This incident undoubtedly paved the way to the severing of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1927, but the severance did not divert Stalin from the policy of aiding the workers of other countries.
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 206

To be sure, Stalin never ignored the interests of the Soviet state and he was often cautious to the point of pessimism about the prospects for immediate revolution. But the letters show that he was also capable of hope and enthusiasm when revolution seemed to be on the move and ready to put his money where his mouth was.
... All in all, Stalin comes out of the letters with his revolutionary credentials in good order.
Naumov, Lih, and Khlevniuk, Eds. Stalin's Letters to Molotov, 1925-1936. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1995, p. 36

In an October 7, 1929, letter to Molotov Stalin stated, “I think that it's time to think about organizing an uprising by a revolutionary movement in Manchuria.... We need to organize two double regiment brigades, chiefly made up of Chinese, outfit them with everything necessary (artillery, machine guns, and so on), put Chinese at the head of the brigade, and send them into Manchuria with the following assignment: to stir up a rebellion among the Manchurian troops, to have reliable soldiers from these forces join them...to occupy Harbin, and after gathering force, to declare Chang Hsueh-liang overthrown, establish a revolutionary government (massacre the landowners, bring in the peasants, create soviets in the cities and towns, and so on). This is necessary. This we can and, I think, should do....
...The matter will have to be put on the agenda of the Central Committee plenum. I should think that Bukharin is going to be kicked out of the Politburo.”
Naumov, Lih, and Khlevniuk, Eds. Stalin's Letters to Molotov, 1925-1936. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1995, p. 182

[In an interview with an American labor delegation on September 7, 1927 Stalin stated] But what would happen if the Communist Party of America did appeal to the Communist Party of the USSR for assistance? I think that the Communist Party of the USSR would render it what assistance it could. Indeed, what would be the worth of the Communist Party, particularly as it is in power, if it refused to do what it could to assist the Communist Party of another country living under the yoke of capitalism? I should say that such a Communist Party would not be worth a farthing.
Let us assume that the American working-class had come into power after overthrowing its bourgeoisie; ...would the American working-class refuse such assistance? I think it would cover it self with disgrace if it hesitated to render assistance.
Stalin, Joseph. Works. Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub. House, 1952, Vol. 10, p. 136

In the case of China:

On the question of the Sino-Soviet treaty of 1945,… the Russians would withdraw their troops from Port Arthur when the Chinese wished, and also yield up control of the trans-Manchurian railways. On other practical matters, Mao requested Soviet credits of 300 million U.S. dollars, as well as help developing domestic air transport routes and developing a navy, to all of which Stalin agreed.
Spence, Jonathan D. Mao Zedong. New York: Viking, 1999, p. 111


After the war, Stalin gave a great deal of assistance to the Chinese revolution. Arms and equipment of all kinds were delivered to the People's Liberation Army, and by the second half of 1947 the winds of victory were filling its sails and Chiang was forced to flee with his remnant to Taiwan. Given persistent U.S. hostility, Mao was bound to opt for friendship with the Soviet Union, and after the Chinese revolution relations developed rapidly in numerous spheres, culminating in Mao's invitation to Moscow to join in the celebration of Stalin's 70th birthday.
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 539


On the case of the KPD.


When Hindenburg's first term as president expired, the Communists proposed to the Social Democrats to put up a nonparty anti-militarist such as the writer Heinrich Mann, warning that Hindenburg could not be relied on to keep Hitler out of power. However, the SPD, like the other parties of the Weimar coalition, preferred Hindenburg. When the Communists put up their own candidate, as they had done in 1924, they were again accused of helping reaction: in 1924 because they refused to vote for Hindenburg's opponent, and in 1932 because they refused to vote for Hindenburg. Hindenburg won the election over Hitler--and made him chancellor a few months later.
Blumenfeld, Hans. Life Begins at 65. Montreal, Canada: Harvest House, c1987, p. 146

And,why did you make the assertion that Stalin thought that Hitler was a communist? Is that a joke?

[Geiseric]

The pact was for strategical advantages and to create new markets for the USSR to trade with. It is really hard to think that Nazi Germany would invade prior to the event actually happening.
If I were Stalin, I'd have created something like the Maginot line on the border.

Lol so wait, you're telling me that aiding fascists, who killed all the revolutionary workers and communists in Germany, is okay because of fucking trade agreements? You're proving my points over and over...

By the way, that's the worst fucking strategy i've ever seen. Make it so the Germans have a couple thousand miles less to get to Russia with! Yeah, great strategy, and let's sacrifice all of the Polish people in the German occupation while we're at it.

[Omsk]

Syd why dont you answer to my posts?You cant?You dont know enough?You dont have arguments?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I would say it was helpful,and had a huge impact on the war effort of the republicans.I still think it was not enough,and that more supplies,men,ammunition and weapons should have been sent.
It was helpful for whom? For the Communist Party to ally with a bunch of liberals who were doing everything they could to crush the revolutionary change of society that was being brought out by workers and peasants?


While you concentrated on Spain,Syd said something like:Stalin didnt want revolutions,he didnt support them,he was a moron etc etc.

That is not true.
You're right, Syd made a broader statement but you just proved his point when you wanted to use Spain as an example. Stalin did not want revolution in Spain, he funded those that fought against it.

Why do you feel the need to quote passages from books constantly when they don't even help your argument? For instance you quote some book that says Stalin would help out the Communist Party in the United States. What does that prove when Stalin was saying the party needed to endorse FDR?

[Omsk]

You're right, Syd made a broader statement but you just proved his point when you wanted to use Spain as an example. Stalin did not want revolution in Spain, he funded those that fought against it.


No,Syd is simply wrong,he said that Stalin never supported revolutions,which is not true,it simply isnt.Now stop avoiding this.You are simply nitpicking,and you only mention Spain.Stalin support the war effort against the nationalists,and that is a fact.

[Geiseric]

Supporting a Liberal Government, who suppresses workers parties, does not make one revolutionary. P.S.U.C. was always on the Liberals side against the Unions. It was an arm of the foreign policy of the U.S.S.R. Giving arms or aid to somebody who acts in your economic interest, i.e. Trading with the western powers, doesn't make somebody revolutionary. It means they wanted to maintain capitalism worldwide so they could maintain their position in the U.S.S.R. as the beuracracy. This is why Stalin was so friendly in relations with the U.S, England, and France during the world revolutionary phase after the Russian Revolution. Your myth of a Stalin that advanced the proletarian cause is without any material content, if you look at the actual actions that Comintern related parties undertook, they were in direct opposition to Bolshevism, and the Leninism that won workers power in Russia.

[Omsk]

Stalin had friendly relations with the west?Stalin was at horrible relations with the west,the west constantly tried to undermine the Soviet peace efforts,it tried to turn Hitler on the SU,it didnt want Hitler,but it didnt want the SU,so it tried to make one fight the other.



Stalin that advanced the proletarian cause is without any material content

So,Yugoslavia,Albania,China,Mongolia,and other countries have nothing to do with Stalin?

[Rooster]

it tried to turn Hitler on the SU

Bull. The western powers went to war with Nazi Germany while the USSR had a non-aggression pact. In what way did the western powers try and turn Hitler onto the Soviet Union?

[Omsk]

Easy there,i understand that you may like the western powers of the time,but dont let that blind you.

The failiure of the western diplomacy and the dangereous game with Hitler,[plus their responsibility for the Molotov-Ribentrop pact,as,it is know,Stalin got rejected by the west and the west didnt cooperate.I will not debate you on this,as it is well known]


The verdict of the record is unmistakable and obvious: responsibility for the breakdown of collective security rests on the Western democracies, not on the Soviet Union.
The melancholy details of the record need no restatement, except as they bear upon the situation in which the USSR found itself by 1939. Eight times during the preceding eight years the aggressors posed to the Western democracies a test of their willingness to organize and enforce peace. Eight times the Soviet Union called for collective action against aggression. Eight times the Western power evaded their responsibilities and blessed the aggressors.
The first test was posed by the Japanese seizure of Manchuria in September 1931. The second test was posed by Hitler's repudiation of the disarmament clauses of Versailles in March 1935. The third test was posed by the fascist invasion of Ethiopia in October 1935. The fourth test was posed by Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland in March 1936. The fifth test was posed by the fascist attack of the Spanish Republic. The sixth test was posed by the resumption of the Japanese attack on China in July 1937. The seventh test was posed by the nazi seizure of Austria in March 1938. The eighth test was posed by the unleasheding, through propaganda, diplomacy, and terrorism, of the nazi campaign against Prague in the summer 1938.
Chamberlain flew three times to Germany on the principal that "if you don't concede the first time, fly, fly, again.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 275-80



Now to answer your main question:


Britain, however, under Prime Minister Chamberlain, built up Hitler, granting to him in haste everything that had for a decade been refused to the German Republic--the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Nazi-terrorized plebiscite in the Saar, German re-armament, naval expansion, the Hitler-Mussolini intervention in Spain. British finance, which had strangled German democracy by demanding impossible reparations, helped Hitler with investments and loans. Every intelligent world citizen knew that these favors were given to Hitler because British Tories saw in him their "strong-arm gangster" against the Soviets. If any doubt remained of the aims of both the British and French foreign offices, the Munich Conference removed it. That cynical sell-out of Czechoslovakia was their trump-card in inducing Hitler to march East.
Anyone who watched, as I did, the British moves of those days, saw that Chamberlain, who spoke of "appeasing" Hitler, really egged him on. He suggested giving the Czech's Sudetenland to Hitler before anyone in Germany dared demand it....
The only ally that proposed to help the Czechs resist this sellout was the USSR.
...Why were Chamberlain and Daladier willing to sacrifice 27 Czech divisions and one of the best fortification lines in Europe? What made them give Hitler one of Europe's best armament plants--the Skoda Works? Where they conscious traitors, or weak? A manager of a local industry said: "You can say it in four words--They're afraid of Bolshevism."
Strong, Anna Louise. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream, 1956, p. 74



Although the main imperialist rivals in Europe were the same as in World War I (namely, British and French versus German), the British and French in the pre-World War II years not only allowed the German ruling class to rearm but made great concessions to it. They allowed the German rulers to take Austria, Czechoslovakia, and other territories on the understanding that these new economic and military resources would be used in war against the USSR. In the first phases of the war the British and French acquiesced in the German conquest of Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and Holland; and the French ruling class in effect gave its German counterpart a lease on its economic resources for the conquest of the socialist state. The British ruling class split on whether to follow suit but finally decided, with U.S. prodding, that the price was too high. U.S. imperialism saw such concessions as a serious risk, realizing that if German imperialism controlled all of Europe, including the USSR and Britain, it would next join forces with Japan and mount a war against the United States.
On the hand, neither the American imperialists nor the British wish to see the USSR victorious. Both hoped that the USSR and Germany would mutually exhaust each other and allow British and American imperialist interests to penetrate deep into Europe. Thus they supplied the USSR with what they thought was just enough assistance to help it to resist but not conquer the Germans. They delayed opening a second front in the hope of a Soviet-German stalemate, but delayed too long--until the Soviet armies were rolling on to Berlin and seemingly threatened to overrun Europe. The reason for their miscalculation was that they did not understand the special strengths of the socialist state.
Stalin, in spite of later assertions to the contrary, was well aware of all these matters. In March 1939, more than two years before the German invasion of the USSR, he commented:
"Or take Germany, for instance. They let her have Austria, despite the undertaking to defend her independence; they let her have the Sudeten region; they abandoned Czechoslovakia to her fate, thereby violating all their obligations; and then began to lie vociferously in the press about "the weakness of the Russian army," "the demoralization of the Russian Air Force," and "riots" in the Soviet Union, egging the Germans on to march farther east, promising them easy pickings, and prompting them: "Just start war on the Bolsheviks, and everything will be all right."
Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 109


Stalin understood perfectly that France and Britain were preparing a new Munich, that they were ready to sacrifice Poland, encouraging Hitler to march on the Soviet Union. Harold Ickes, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, wrote at the time in his journal:
“( England) kept hoping against hope that she could embroil Russia and Germany with each other and thus escape scot-free herself.”
Harold L. Ickes, The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954), Vol. 2, p. 705.
Martens, Ludo. Another View of Stalin. Antwerp, Belgium: EPO, Lange Pastoorstraat 25-27 2600, p. 233 [p. 187 on the NET]


To complete the picture of our mood I must say what we felt about the Western Democracies. Tragically, they offered us no hope. Both in the eyes of the thinking opposition and of the man in the street the Munich agreement had destroyed their moral authority. By that agreement Britain and France committed moral suicide. Hard though it is to say, in that crucial period between 1938 and 1941 hardly anyone in the USSR had a warm place in his heart for the British or the French. There was no need for any central Party directive. At meeting after meeting the opinion was expressed with genuine spontaneity that the Western Powers would betray us at the slightest opportunity and that we must, therefore, keep the utmost vigilance regarding the West. We mistrusted it from the bottom of our hearts.
Tokaev, Grigori. Comrade X. London: Harvill Press,1956, p. 169


To the Russians, Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, was the archvillain. They held him in contempt, and blamed him for the collapse of the Soviet policy of collective security. They were convinced that he was encouraging Germany to march eastwards, leaving Britain and France to enjoy peace while fascism and communism destroyed each other....
It was probably about this time that Stalin decided to open the door to an alliance with Hitler. It was a calculated gamble, but he could see no alternatives.
Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, p. 304


In April 1939 diplomatic negotiations among the Soviet Union, England, and France were re-activated with the aim of establishing a system of collective security in Europe. But the most important Soviet proposals were rejected, while many of the English and French proposals were clearly unacceptable to the USSR. Moreover, the government of Chamberlain secretly continued to seek an agreement with the Germans to guarantee England's security. The French and English ruling circles had obviously not abandoned their primary hope of turning German aggression eastward, against the Soviet state. Under these conditions Soviet diplomats again began to seek contacts with Germany.
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 726


... England and France were playing an insecure and dangerous political game. They dragged out the negotiations with the Soviet Union while holding secret talks with Germany, still hoping that Germany would direct its aggression eastward.
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 727


Most Western authors recount these events in a very tendentious manner--as though the Soviet Union were responsible for supporting Hitler in his attack on Poland and thus contributing to the outbreak of World War II. But this opinion is mistaken.
I do not intend to justify Stalin's entire policy.... But the nonaggression pact should not be added to this list of Stalin's errors....
The Soviet government was compelled to sign the pact because Britain and France, with their policy of toleration and nonintervention, had been encouraging German fascism and helped Germany recreate a strong military machine in the hope that it would be used against Bolshevism. Some of the big corporations in the United States had also helped, with the same aim in mind. The Munich accord of 1938, agreed to by Germany, Italy, England, and France, was what truly unleashed Hitler. After the occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia the next step for Germany was almost certainly to try to destroy Poland. It was also clear to Hitler that England and France would "give up": if they could be certain that German aggression would be directed eastward. "The enemy cherishes the hope," Hitler declared at a military conference in Berlin on Aug. 22, 1939, "that Russia will become our enemy after the conquest of Poland." Hitler considered France and Britain the weaker opponents, however, and at first planned to make war only on his Western front. To this day every document published in the West has confirmed that the Western governments of that time were responsible for the breakdown of negotiations for collective security in Europe. Under the circumstances the Soviet Union had to look after its own interests and security. In 1939 the nonaggression pact with Germany served that purpose.
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 728


I would note in passing that, under the terms of an existing treaty, the Soviet Union and France were to assist Czechoslovakia jointly in case of an act of aggression against her. When in the fall of 1938 the threat became real, Moscow was ready to fulfill its commitment.
Mobilization orders were issued in the western part of the Soviet Union. France, on the other hand, did not live up to its part of the agreement and struck a deal in Munich without even consulting Moscow.
Berezhkov, Valentin. At Stalin's Side. Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Pub. Group, c1994, p. 22


[In 1936 Stalin said to Radek], "You know they'll do all they can to forestall us by offering Hitler the neutrality of the West, to force him in our direction. We must put a stop to that."
Alexandrov, Victor. The Tukhachevsky Affair. London: Macdonald, 1963, p. 28


With the temperature of the crisis soaring towards boiling point in September, 1938, Britain and France studiously avoided all the Soviet efforts to form a united front against Hitler.
Read, Anthony and David Fisher. The Deadly Embrace. New York: Norton, 1988, p. 27


We must make it clearly understood that we shall continue the old historical process, that our dispute with Germany will be settled on the battlefields and that if somebody else--say Roosevelt--also resolves to fight Hitler, we shall be on his side in that hour when the fate of mankind is at stake." Again he [Stalin] paused, and then added, "Please understand me! We must not act prematurely.... The danger is extremely great.... We cannot afford to receive the first blow... the most terrible blow of that war-machine--the biggest the world has ever seen.... If we did, we should be betrayed and finished.... All these Chamberlains, Halifaxes and the like wait only for that moment to let us down... to make us the prey of German imperialism.... They have less interest in us than in Togoland or the Cameroons.... They would rather give away the Ukraine than sacrifice any of their colonies.... We must be cautious...."
Litvinov, Maksim Maksimovich. Notes for a Journal. New York: Morrow, 1955, p. 253


Europe in early 1939 was, in Stalin's own words, a "poker game" with three players, in which each” hoped to persuade the other two to destroy one another and leave the third to take the winnings.
Montefiore, Sebag. Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. New York: Knopf, 2004, p. 302


The principle matter was settled: everyone, Stalin included, believed that Chamberlain was urging Hitler to embark on a crusade against the Russians, and that the Soviet government would have to take steps to divert the Germanic flood, and to direct it toward the valley of the Lower Danube, and then the Balkans and Asia minor,...
Delbars, Yves. The Real Stalin. London, Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 230


German Foreign Office documents captured by the Soviet troops after Germany's defeat reveal the true purport of Great Britain's and France's policy at that period. They show that, essentially, British and French policy was not to unite the forces of the peace-loving states for a common struggle struggle against aggression, but to isolate the USSR and direct Hitler's aggression toward the East, against the Soviet Union, using Hitler as a tool for their own ends.
Foreign Lang. Pub. House. Schuman, F. L. Intro. Falsifiers of History. Moscow, 1948, p. 16


Stalin chuckled, and said:
"The French Government headed by Daladier and the Chamberlain Government in Britain have no intention of getting seriously involved in the war with Hitler. They still hope to be able to persuade Hitler to start a war against the Soviet Union. They refused to form an anti-Hitler bloc with us in 1939, because they did not want to hamper Hitler in his aggression against the Soviet Union. But nothing will come of it. They will have to pay a high price for their short-sighted policy."
Zhukov, Georgi. Reminiscences and Reflections Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress Pub., c1985, p. 206


While wishing to preserve peace as the decisive condition for building socialism in the USSR, Stalin saw that the governments of Britain and other Western countries were doing everything possible to prod Hitler into a war with the Soviet Union, that, being in a critical military situation and striving to save themselves from catastrophe, they were strongly interested in having the Germans attack the USSR. That was why Stalin distrusted the information he was getting from Western governments that Germany was about to attack the Soviet Union.
"Don't you see?" Stalin would say. "They are trying to frighten us with the Germans and to frighten the Germans with us, setting us one against the other."
Zhukov, Georgi. Reminiscences and Reflections Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress Pub., c1985, p. 267-268


Stalin stated, "In deciding to wage war against the Soviet Union, Hitler took into account the imperialist circles in Britain and the USA, who totally shared his thinking. And not without reason: they did everything they could to direct the military actions of the Wehrmacht against the Soviet Union.
Zhukov, Georgi. Reminiscences and Reflections Vol. 2. Moscow: Progress Pub., c1985, p. 282

A lot of these quotes are from books and works written by anti-Stalin types.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

No,Syd is simply wrong,he said that Stalin never supported revolutions,which is not true,it simply isnt.Now stop avoiding this.You are simply nitpicking,and you only mention Spain.Stalin support the war effort against the nationalists,and that is a fact.
I only mention Spain because that's the country that you first brought up. He supported the war effort against the nationalists, that is a fact. That doesn't mean he supported the revolutionary currents in Spain, he funded communists and a government who allied with liberals to crush those revolutionary currents. Why? To appease Western nations in hopes that they might join in.

[Omsk]

Accusing Stalin of appeasing is laughable,as the main appeasers of the time were the western "democracies".



he funded communists

All right.Fine to me.
He supported the war effort,the communists,and internationalist fighters,for me,that is supporting the right side in the Spanish Civil War,if i said,the revolution a couple of post back,it does not matter,i have explained and made my point clear in my posts in this thread.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Accusing Stalin of appeasing is laughable,as the main appeasers of the time were the western "democracies".


All right.Fine to me.
He supported the war effort,the communists,and internationalist fighters,for me,that is supporting the right side in the Spanish Civil War,if i said,the revolution a couple of post back,it does not matter,i have explained and made my point clear in my posts in this thread.
Was not the reasoning "Let's not be too radical or else other nations won't help out"? Yeah.
He supported the Communist Party of Spain, which was treasonous to the communist movement. But that is nothing new to Communist Parties that sprang up after the Bolshevik Revolution is it?

[GallowsBird]

But that is nothing new to Communist Parties that sprang up after the Bolshevik Revolution is it?

Says a man with Marxist-Leninist Che Guevara in his avatar! :rolleyes:

So what you are saying is all Communist parties that are derived from Leninism are "treasonous to Communist movement"? :confused:

And what "tendency" do you mostly subscribe to? I can say that its adherents are "treasonous to the Communist movement" also but would that make me right?

As for Spain it is hardly one sided. It is easy to complain about the USSR without seeing the good they did as well as one of the only countries to support *ANY* of the anti-Fascist groups of the time.

[El Chuncho]

It is amsuing that so many of the people with Che Guevara images on this site would hate him for being an ML ''anti-communist''. They'd definitely ridicule him for swearing on Stalin's picture.

''Along the way, I had the opportunity to pass through the dominions of the United Fruit, convincing me once again of just how terrible these capitalist octopuses are. I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated.''

The fact that so many so-called ''leftists'' wear images of Che and revere him whilst not knowing even the simplest details of his views and life is rather amusing but also rather sad.

[Geiseric]

I'm assuming that you're a bandito since you have the picture of that guy from that Clint Eastwood movie. Attacking peoples avatars? Is that the new ML tactic? Seriously how much more ad hominem does it get. Was that a joke?

Also the molotov ribbentrop pact was very anti-fascist. Lol, one big thing you're missing out on mentioning. Did Stalin do anything when Hitler started expanding?

Anti-Fascist doesn't really mean anything unless you're anti capitalist. Stalin was for the Spanish capitalists, not the Spanish workers. Every material proof in the world exists for this, including when P.S.U.C. would withdraw their troops from the fronts in order to suppress protesters and workers activities in Catalan cities.

[Omsk]

Did Stalin do anything when Hitler started expanding?
Yes he did,he tried to create an anti-fascist front,he supported Communist Parties in Yugoslavia and helped them organize.

He was the only leader actually doing something when Hitler was expanding.Unlike the westen "alies" who were [governments of course] appeasing him.

[Rooster]

So what other revolutions did Stalin aid? :confused:

[El Chuncho]

I'm assuming that you're a bandito since you have the picture of that guy from that Clint Eastwood movie.

He is the famous actor Gian Maria Volonte, and noted Marxist. Also the picture is from 'Quien Sabe?' where he is a revolutionary bandit; which doesn't feature Clint Eastwood, though both starred together in two Sergio Leone films. That is irrelevant.


Attacking peoples avatars? Is that the new ML tactic? Seriously how much more ad hominem does it get. Was that a joke?

Why are you unable to understand any point anyone makes? Che Guevara is a MARXIST-LENINIST, a group that Revolutionary Tool dislikes and is arguing against.

In other words, RT is showing reverence to someone he disagrees with almost completely. Thus I seriously doubt that he actually knows much about Che Guevara; whereas I can probably answer trivia questions about the character El Chuncho and 'Quien Sabe?'

You'd have a point if I actually disagreed with the actor or the character ''El Chuncho''...but I don't, so you don't.


Also the molotov ribbentrop pact was very anti-fascist. Lol, one big thing you're missing out on mentioning. Did Stalin do anything when Hitler started expanding?

Anti-Fascist doesn't really mean anything unless you're anti capitalist. Stalin was for the Spanish capitalists, not the Spanish workers. Every material proof in the world exists for this, including when P.S.U.C. would withdraw their troops from the fronts in order to suppress protesters and workers activities in Catalan cities.

Yet more nonsense that is not a reply to anything I have mentioned in my post. However, a neutrality pact and an alliance are not the same thing. Stalin was not for Spanish capitalists, he was for Marxist-Leninist, specifically, and other revolutionaries and anti-Falangists, as Falangism posed a threat to world revolutions (as it still does in Latin America).

[Omsk]

So what other revolutions did Stalin aid?


Yugoslav,Chinese,i alrady said that.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Lol so wait, you're telling me that aiding fascists, who killed all the revolutionary workers and communists in Germany, is okay because of fucking trade agreements? You're proving my points over and over...

By the way, that's the worst fucking strategy i've ever seen. Make it so the Germans have a couple thousand miles less to get to Russia with! Yeah, great strategy, and let's sacrifice all of the Polish people in the German occupation while we're at it.
How many friends or trading partners did the SU have? The British Empire? Nope. The USA? Nope.
There were several countries who were sanctioning the SU, and thanks to that the SU had problems growing its population.
So here is Germany offering the SU an agreement and to forget the past. Oh, and an incentive. The SU would be given back the land Poland had taken from them in the 1920s.
Defense pacts were also common back then, and Turkey had pacts with both nations I believe.

It is also hard to know someone's intentions before they commit an event. Here was Nazi Germany opening its hands and giving a great offer to the SU.

[Geiseric]

dude you're a moron, the U.S.S.R. was the U.S.'s 2nd greatest trading partner in industrial equipment! Weimar was the U.S.S.R.'s greatest trading partner! The entire point of the NEP was to go back temporarily to capitalism. You need to fucking read a book before you go around spewing shit you don't know about. The U.S.S.R. and France even signed a treaty saying that the U.S.S.R. wouldn't interfere with their internal policies! The U.S.S.R. put trade agreements in front of the revolution! the fucking speech that was posted on the first page says it plain and simple: We don't want to influence other countries politically. We don't want to start any revolutions. in the fucking revolutionary period in the early 20's the U.S.S.R. wasn't recognised by any countries, however it was once the N.E.P. and the purges happened. Don't you get it? Read anywhere and you'll see treaties between the U.S.S.R. and Liberal governments. The only difference between liberals and the fascists is how blatantly violent fascists are.

[GallowsBird]

dude you're a moron

"Syd" you are a master of irony. ;)



You need to fucking read a book before you go around spewing shit you don't know about.

Yeah indeed people should read books on the subject and be familiar with the topic at hand before spewing out nonsense. I can't disagree there.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2338659&postcount=243

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Edit: Also "Syd" most of the matters addressed have already been countered in this thread.

[seventeethdecember2016]

dude you're a moron, the U.S.S.R. was the U.S.'s 2nd greatest trading partner in industrial equipment! Weimar was the U.S.S.R.'s greatest trading partner! The entire point of the NEP was to go back temporarily to capitalism. You need to fucking read a book before you go around spewing shit you don't know about. The U.S.S.R. and France even signed a treaty saying that the U.S.S.R. wouldn't interfere with their internal policies! The U.S.S.R. put trade agreements in front of the revolution! the fucking speech that was posted on the first page says it plain and simple: We don't want to influence other countries politically. We don't want to start any revolutions. in the fucking revolutionary period in the early 20's the U.S.S.R. wasn't recognised by any countries, however it was once the N.E.P. and the purges happened. Don't you get it? Read anywhere and you'll see treaties between the U.S.S.R. and Liberal governments. The only difference between liberals and the fascists is how blatantly violent fascists are.
Your insults hardly motivate me to stop. I also don't believe you, as the US, and several other Liberal nations, didn't recognize the USSR until the 1930s. The British Empire, US, France, China, Italy, and Japan supported Kerensky and sanctioned Soviet Russia during the civil war. It is true that the Weimar Republic was a trading partner with the SU, however Nazi Germany is a vastly different state.
Stalin did more to advance Soviet relations than Lenin.
Stop talking out of your ass!

[Geiseric]

They were recognised by the 1930s because of all the reactionary shit that stalin was doing! He was as useful to imperialists as kerensky was. Just look it up, Stalin's U.S.S.R. traded with the Capitalist countries substantially, and had great diplomatic relations with western capitalists. He gained these things by killing the revolutions and by fighting the fascists who were closer allied with mussolini's italy and Nazi Germany than the older liberal capitalists who were allied with england, france, and the old capitalist order. late 1920's-30's comintern parties were no friends of workers, they were run by beurecratic extensions of soviet foreign policy. Just look it up and do some research, the U.S.S.R. was a huge trading partner of the capitalists.

[seventeethdecember2016]

They were recognised by the 1930s because of all the reactionary shit that stalin was doing! He was as useful to imperialists as kerensky was. Just look it up, Stalin's U.S.S.R. traded with the Capitalist countries substantially, and had great diplomatic relations with western capitalists. He gained these things by killing the revolutions and by fighting the fascists who were closer allied with mussolini's italy and Nazi Germany than the older liberal capitalists who were allied with england, france, and the old capitalist order. late 1920's-30's comintern parties were no friends of workers, they were run by beurecratic extensions of soviet foreign policy. Just look it up and do some research, the U.S.S.R. was a huge trading partner of the capitalists.
I am usually turned off by arrogant preachers who try to "show the light" to those they perceive as ignorant. I find many of your claims to be subjective, and taken out of context. Yes Stalin did business with the Capitalists, Fascists, Imperialists, etc., but these were all out of strategical advantage. There was such a thing as the Soviet sphere of influence, and Stalin's ambition was to extend it. How better than to make the capitalists reliant of Soviet goods? The goal was Socialism in One State, not the world revolution that would have millions of people martyred. Stalin screwed an entire generation of revolutionaries, but sacrifices must be made.

I disagree with your claim that Stalin was an imperial tool, and I disregard any evidence suggesting as such.

[Geiseric]

So his goal was to extend soviet sphere of influence? Are you fucking serious? How does that justify anything! He wanted the soviet state to expand, not world revolution which he thought wouldn't happen, even though it started in russia. He was an imperialist himself if that's what your arguement is! You're admitting everything i've said so far, but your justifying logic is that sacrifices had to be made for the russian soviet state?

[seventeethdecember2016]

So his goal was to extend soviet sphere of influence? Are you fucking serious? How does that justify anything! He wanted the soviet state to expand, not world revolution which he thought wouldn't happen, even though it started in russia. He was an imperialist himself if that's what your arguement is! You're admitting everything i've said so far, but your justifying logic is that sacrifices had to be made for the russian soviet state?
I think most people would agree that Stalin was a rationalist compared to most Russian revolutionaries, and in the real world Russia had mouths to feed.
What the world needed was Socialism at snail speed, as Bukharin called it, and not a murderous world revolution.
Stalin was about as Imperialistic as Lenin, especially considering the grasp Lenin had on countries like Turkey.

[Ismail]

Back to the original topic: is there any evidence that an obscure paper actually had a real quote by Stalin that hasn't been picked up by any other source (except, maybe, a bunch of other obscure papers at that time) for the past 85 years?

Google Books brings up nothing. A Google search brings up nothing (except this topic.) I'm not asking for an archival source, just something on this wonderful earth of ours that provides this speech in some form besides, again, an obscure newspaper. You'd think tons of people would cite this if it were real rather than some guy on the internet noting it for the first time in history. There are plenty of weird and untrue claims from papers in the 20's and 30's (like correspondents in Riga noting the imminent downfall of the Bolsheviks during the early 20's with "news" that Trotsky had initiated a coup against Lenin or claims that the Cossacks had arisen and were en route towards Moscow), but they're ignored for a reason.

I mean we know Leo is defending the authenticity of it, but then again he defends the idea that the NKVD had agents in Albania (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2286423&postcount=68) during its national liberation war which were giving Stalin detailed information on everything going on. He's said that he doesn't need to provide a source for this (hint: there aren't any), since it's "common sense" even though actual sources on Albania note that Stalin knew little about Albanian affairs and was initially reliant on the Yugoslavs for info.

[Omsk]

Stalin knew little about Albanian affairs and was initially reliant on the Yugoslavs for info.

As i pointed out on a number of occasions.Later,he got his information from an military/intel mission in Albania which was led by a Soviet officer.The Soviets [Stalin in this case] got information from Yugoslavia,and in truth,Yugoslavia was the main link between Albania-USSR relations,as a bigger,more powerful country with a strong communist leadership and party structure,already secure from threats from the outside and inside.
Sorry for abandoning the main discussion point,but one could say that this has to do with Soviet diplomatic policy.[Foreign relations]

[Ismail]

Yes, later on after the war Stalin got more reliable reports and began asking the Yugoslavs what was going on after Nako Spiru committed suicide, etc. But Leo was asserting that, contrary to every book on Albania I've ever read, Stalin had some sort of great grasp on Albanian affairs during the war and onwards because of some secret NKVD presence that was so effective (or so "obvious") that no one in any language has ever reported on their activities.

So, in conclusion, Leo is acting like a crank who wants something to be true (in this case a 1927 speech by Stalin not published or mentioned anywhere else ever) because it'd bolster his arguments. To start with, Stalin never called adherents of "world revolution" "insane."

In Stalin's Letters to Molotov there's this in 1929 (p. 182): "By the way, I think that it's time to think about organising an uprising by a revolutionary movement in Manchuria. The isolated detachments being sent to Manchuria to perform isolated tasks of an episodic nature are a good thing, of course, but they are not enough. We have to go for bigger things now. We need to organise two double-regiment brigades, chiefly made up of Chinese, outfit them with everything necessary (artillery, machine-guns, and so on), put Chinese at the head of the brigade, and send them into Manchuria with the following assignment: to stir up a rebellion among the Manchurian troops... to occupy Harbin and, after gathering force, to declare Chang Hsueh-liang overthrown, establish a revolutionary government (massacre the landowners, bring in the peasants, create soviets in the cities and towns, and so on). This is necessary. This we can, and I think should, do. No 'international law' contradicts this task. It will be clear to everyone that we are against war with China, that our Red Army soldiers are only defending our borders and have no intention of crossing into Chinese territory, and if there is a rebellion inside Manchuria, that's something quite understandable, given the atmosphere of the regime imposed by Chaing Hseuh-liang. Think about it. It's important."

Yeah, sure sounds like an anti-revolutionary afraid of imperialist powers to me.

But of course the newspaper article is from June 1927, right? Alright, let's try July 1927 then. Stalin noted to Molotov that (p. 141): "The CCP Central Committee was unable to use the rich period of the bloc with Kuomintang in order to conduct energetic work in openly organizing the revolution, the proletariat, the peasantry, the revolutionary military units, the revolutionizing of the army, the work of setting the soldiers against the generals. The CCP Central Committee has lived off the Kuomintang for a whole year and has had the opportunity of freely working and organizing, yet it did nothing to turn the conglomerate of elements (true, quite militant), incorrectly called a party, into a real party. . . . The CCP sometimes babbles about the hegemony of the proletariat. But the most intolerable thing about this babbling is that the CCP does not have a clue (literally, not a clue) about hegemony—it kills the initiative of the working masses, undermine the 'unauthorized' actions of the peasant masses, and reduces class warfare in China to a lot of big talk about the 'feudal bourgeoisie'... That is why I now believe the question of the party is the main question of the Chinese revolution."

Either Stalin experienced a drastic personality change in the span of a month or the 1927 newspaper article is, to be blunt, bullshit.

[Geiseric]

I think most people would agree that Stalin was a rationalist compared to most Russian revolutionaries, and in the real world Russia had mouths to feed.
What the world needed was Socialism at snail speed, as Bukharin called it, and not a murderous world revolution.
Stalin was about as Imperialistic as Lenin, especially considering the grasp Lenin had on countries like Turkey.

Yeah right! That has no substance at all, especially about how "Snail" Lenin was about Russia's revolutionary capibility, which had to deal with a population of 95% peasentry! Lenin would have been directly opposed to Stalin, since Stalin had manshevik views on every third world country! Stalin and co. were the ones who told the chinese communists to support the Chinese nationalists, who had already achieved a national revolution! Russia would have been fed if the revolution in Germany wasn't misdirected at Social Democrats instead of fascists, with the doctrine of "Social Fascism"! Russia would have also been fed if the American Communists didn't fall into supporting the democrats! Or if the U.S.S.R. didn't sign a non-interference treaty with France!

if those countries had revolutions, which Stalin and comintern post-purges prevented, the people in russia could have been fed and it could have industrialised without several million people dying.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Back to the original topic: is there any evidence that an obscure paper actually had a real quote by Stalin that hasn't been picked up by any other source (except, maybe, a bunch of other obscure papers at that time) for the past 85 years?
I checked for sources earlier, and I couldn't find any. It likely is a fake.

Yeah right! That has no substance at all, especially about how "Snail" Lenin was about Russia's revolutionary capibility, which had to deal with a population of 95% peasentry! Lenin would have been directly opposed to Stalin, since Stalin had manshevik views on every third world country! Stalin and co. were the ones who told the chinese communists to support the Chinese nationalists, who had already achieved a national revolution! Russia would have been fed if the revolution in Germany wasn't misdirected at Social Democrats instead of fascists, with the doctrine of "Social Fascism"! Russia would have also been fed if the American Communists didn't fall into supporting the democrats! Or if the U.S.S.R. didn't sign a non-interference treaty with France!

if those countries had revolutions, which Stalin and comintern post-purges prevented, the people in russia could have been fed and it could have industrialised without several million people dying.
Yeah yeah. This or that could have happened, but the significant thing is it didn't happen. The American, Chinese, and German Communists didn't have the manpower to bring a revolution to their nations.
Do you really think Lenin would have wanted world revolution, which would have lead to tens of millions of deaths? If Lenin was this great defender of Communism, then why did he knowingly let Communists be killed by Kemal Ataturk? In fact, why did he donate weapons to Ataturk? Lenin let Ataturk murder Communists, take at least half of Armenia's land, and become Bourgeois only to keep his small Bolshevik minority in the Turkish Parliament.

[Geiseric]

Tens of millions of deaths? The Russian revolution up untill the civil was was more or less bloodless. And German Communists had the manpower, fuck sakes man they were even voted in with around a third of the votes in the Reichstag! The KPD marched WITH their huge manpower against "social fascist" workers who were at war in the streets against the fucking nazis, and utterly destroyed any chance for a German revolution. All of this was because the U.S.S.R. and the Weimar Republic had huge trade ties that Stalin wanted to maintain with Weimar if it survived a revolution, and maybe have an alliance with the Nazis, which ended up happening in a huge way, when it meant Panzers and German military supplies being built in the U.S.S.R. You can bring up every quote that goes against what happened in material history, and come up with every excuse that echoes of menshevism, but it doesn't change anything.

Calling Lenin, the man who spent most of his life outside of russia in exile while still organising workers whereever he want, and examining everything on a worldide scale, defying WW1 and any hint of Nationalism in the decaying 2nd international, starting the 3rd international with the intent of organising the world revolution, a nationalist is beyond absurd. It's disrespectful to his memory to deduce him to a russian nationalist.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Calling Lenin, the man who spent most of his life outside of russia in exile while still organising workers whereever he want, and examining everything on a worldide scale, defying WW1 and any hint of Nationalism in the decaying 2nd international, starting the 3rd international with the intent of organising the world revolution, a nationalist is beyond absurd. It's disrespectful to his memory to deduce him to a russian nationalist.
I personally don't want to continue with the Lenin part of this conversation, since I respect him far more than any other Revolutionary. I didn't mean to call him a Nationalist, but seeing my last comment I can see how you could get that.

[Geiseric]

He was at no point a proponent of anything other than world revolution. suggesting that the survival of the russian soviet state was more important than revolutions worldwide which would have gotten russia the raw materials and materials needed to indistrialise without making agreements with capitalists. Once stalin started negotiating with capitalists and importing things from the U.S, trading with the weimar republic, and signing treaties with France, England, and the Spanish liberal government, the future of the revolutions in those countries were doomed. Claiming they were incapible of a revolution is simply not true, and is contradicted with the gigantic mass actions in these countries.