Defending Stalin

[Anderson]

I have some observations on Comrade Stalin.

He was the leader of the USSR, the first state where working class turned tables on the world capitalists. Also he did come from a working class background and had a tremendous following among the working class which none of the other party members commanded. Some of the works done under his leadership "Dialectical Materialism" and History of CPSU (B) are still the best literature available to understand Marxism Leninism in easy language.

No country before USSR had given a blue print on building socialism. The Communist Party in Russia took their path basedon the internal and external contradictions on that time. it is wrong for us to denounce their efforts now. We need to learn from their successes as well as their failures to make the next wave of revolutions more successful.

Trotsky did not get to replace Lenin, but should it have mattered? he should have done a proper teamwork with Stalin and worked within the communist party.

The degeneration of the parties in the former socialist countries has explanation. As there were no organized bourgeoisie as a class in the economic life, the bourgeois elements arose out of the degeneration of the proletarian party and socialist state, revisionism serving as the ideological base for such degeneration. The CPSU(B) in Great Debate was referred to as the party of privileged stratum of Soviet society and during Brezhnev’s time it was referred to as the party of big bourgeoisie by Com. Mao.

I want to know from the other forum members who support and admire Stalin to put forth their strong reasons for defending Comrade Stalin and gains achieved by working class in USSR. Our admiration should not prevent us from admitting if he made any mistakes.

[Anderson]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/defending-stalin-t85835/index.html

[Grenzer]

Trotsky did not get to replace Lenin, but should it have mattered? he should have done a proper teamwork with Stalin and worked within the communist party.

I don't really think it's quite that simple.

Trotsky did try to serve the party and the workers of the Soviet Union best he could. He saw problems with the state of affairs, namely the growing lack of democracy and the crystalization of the party bureaucracy into a privileged strata utterly disconnected with the actual workers. Isn't it the duty of a communist to raise their concerns and disagreements with the party openly, as he did? If this is prevented, doesn't democratic centralism become farcical and that "democratic" institutions become purely symbolic in that their only purpose is to put a rubber stamp on the directives handed down from above?

Just sayin'.

[Blanquist]

Some people chose to 'teamwork' with Stalin, a lot ended up in gulags with their entire families murdered...

[Book O'Dead]

I have some observations on Comrade Stalin.


You have your work cut out for you.

I think you would be better served if you obtained and read a copy of Isaac Deutscher's biography of Stalin, which I think is the definitive account of Stalin's life and work.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

You forgot the part we're he defeated the nazis.

[Per Levy]

You forgot the part we're he defeated the nazis.

all by himself no less...

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

all by himself no less...

Ohhhhhhhhh, so funny. He did not defeat them all personally with his own bare hands, but he did lead the Red Army to victory and supported the people's partisans of Eastern Europe. So, yeah, he did lead the communist struggle against fascist imperialism and there is no denying that.

[Book O'Dead]

You forgot the part we're he defeated the nazis.

Or his failure to anticipate Germany's intent by underestimating Nazi aggression, or his destruction of the mid and high-level officers corps in the red Army that left the USSR militarily unprepared for an invasion, or his opportunistic and traitorous pact with Hitler that divide Poland.

Stalin's crimes of ambition and stupidity far outweigh anything good he may have done.

[Book O'Dead]

Ohhhhhhhhh, so funny. He did not defeat them all personally with his own bare hands, but he did lead the Red Army to victory and supported the people's partisans of Eastern Europe. So, yeah, he did lead the communist struggle against fascist imperialism and there is no denying that.

Then why did he betray the Spanish revolution? Why did he hold back helping the Jewish ghetto fighters in Warsaw?

[Per Levy]

Ohhhhhhhhh, so funny.

it wasnt meant to be funny.


but he did lead the Red Army to victory

nope that would've been the generals and other military personal and not stalin.

[daft punk]

The degeneration of the parties in the former socialist countries has explanation. As there were no organized bourgeoisie as a class in the economic life, the bourgeois elements arose out of the degeneration of the proletarian party and socialist state, revisionism serving as the ideological base for such degeneration. The CPSU(B) in Great Debate was referred to as the party of privileged stratum of Soviet society and during Brezhnev’s time it was referred to as the party of big bourgeoisie by Com. Mao.


So the revolution degenerated, not in the 1920s and 30s, but after Stalin died. Where did these bourgeois elements come from and how exactly? Does this mean socialism will always lead back to capitalism?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Some of the works done under his leadership "Dialectical Materialism" and History of CPSU (B) are still the best literature available to understand Marxism Leninism in easy language.


There is a lot in the OP I disagree with, but this statement puzzles me more than any of the others, apart from the one Enver Broxha already tackled. Those works are not the best available literature to understand anything, no matter what perspective you are coming from. In fact they have no value other than historical.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Or his failure to anticipate Germany's intent by underestimating Nazi aggression, or his destruction of the mid and high-level officers corps in the red Army that left the USSR militarily unprepared for an invasion, or his opportunistic and traitorous pact with Hitler that divide Poland.

Stalin's crimes of ambition and stupidity far outweigh anything good he may have done.

He did not underestimate the Nazi aggression, that's why he made the pact, To buy time so he could prepare the country for war.

[Anderson]

There is a lot in the OP I disagree with, but this statement puzzles me more than any of the others, apart from the one Enver Broxha already tackled. Those works are not the best available literature to understand anything, no matter what perspective you are coming from. In fact they have no value other than historical.

Really !!
I don't agree. Have you even read these?

[Book O'Dead]

He did not underestimate the Nazi aggression, that's why he made the pact, To buy time so he could prepare the country for war.

Really? Then please explain how it was that Hitler's invasion of Russia caught them so woefully unprepared?

[Omsk]

Why did he hold back helping the Jewish ghetto fighters in Warsaw?


The Right-Wing cliqe in London did not operate with Moscow,but tried to act on it's own,and the British aided them,in hopes of a right-wing Poland hostile to the USSR.And plus,the Red Army was not in the position to help them,although it tried.

Some basic informative notes:

That the Polish insurgents made a critical error is no longer in doubt. Taking their orders from London, they failed to coordinate their uprising with Moscow, which was probably tantamount to suicide. Moscow learned about the uprising after it had started and Stalin disassociated himself and the Soviet Command from it. On 16 August, he sent a message to Churchill: 'The Warsaw action is a reckless and fearful gamble, taking a heavy toll of the population. This would not have been the case had Soviet headquarters been informed beforehand about the Warsaw action and had the Poles in London maintained contact with them.'
Axell, Albert. Stalin's War: Through the Eyes of His Commanders. London, Arms and Armour Press. 1997, p. 103

...Air Marshal Rudenko, one of the Russian officers involved in helping the Warsaw Poles --he was chief of the 16th Air Army--maintained that it was simply not possible for the Red Army to rush effective aid to Warsaw in late August 1944. He said Russian air bases were too far away. He blamed the tragedy on the Polish Emigre government in London.
Axell, Albert. Stalin's War: Through the Eyes of His Commanders. London, Arms and Armour Press. 1997, p. 103

There is of course,a lot of writen material related to the ill-planned uprising:

Stalin can hardly be blamed for the decision to launch the Warsaw uprising. This was a tragic, if understandable, mistake by the AK commanders and the exiled government, deliberately made without consultation with any of the three major Allies. Stalin appears to have been surprised as well as irritated by it. It occurred at a time when the Russian advance in the center had run out of steam and preparations for the next phase of the campaign had not yet begun. This was not in fact launched until mid-January 1945.
Given the unexpected German rally and counterattack on the Vistula front it would have been difficult for Rokossovsky's forces to have broken through to relieve the Warsaw insurgents, even if Stalin had wanted to.
Bullock, Alan. Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives. New York: Knopf, 1992, p. 854



Really? Then please explain how it was that Hitler's invasion of Russia caught them so woefully unprepared?



I could at lenght,explain how the USSR and the Red Army indeed prepared for the onslaught of Fascism,as best as it could; but - since i explained it before i really wont insist on such details,as it was all proved some time ago.


nope that would've been the generals and other military personal and not stalin.

Stalin was one of the comanders who did a lot of work,and his decisions had a big impact on the victory,as his role was simply huge.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Really !!
I don't agree. Have you even read these?
Yes of course, otherwise I would not have written what I wrote.
Lenin always wrote in a very clear and accessible language and I would think that for m-l´s who take their politics and theory seriously, his writings were among the best available.
On Stalins writings; I would think his The Foundations of Leninism to be a much more important work, as it outlines the doctrines fundamental points in a very accessible manner. I don´t consider it very impressive but it´s better than the ones you mentioned. His Economic problems of Socialism in the USSR is also an interesting read, but nothing else.
I find Stalins "Dialectical and historical materialism" just to be a very dull work that adds nothing new to the theory and explains it in a superficial manner.
Bukharins Historical Materialism: A System of Sociology is a far better, more ambitious and interesting work on the subject. It explains historical materialism in a much more credible and enlightening manner.

[Ocean Seal]

nope that would've been the generals and other military personal and not stalin.
Pretty sure Stalin led the generals, on pretty much every move to be fair. Stalin did do a fair job in eliminating the Nazis beyond what other Soviet politicians would have done. And I really don't think that Stalin didn't see the Nazi invasion coming.
Edit: Also there seems to be a huge dichotomy between the way people see things.
Party degenerates and state capitalism enters the SU==>Stalin the one man show did it.
Nazis defeated==>Well anyone would have done that/A lot of people were involved in that.
In any case Stalin is being used synonymously with Stalinism. So yeah, don't be pricks about semantics. Its the same thing as saying Bush attacked Iraq. Obviously global capital allowed for such an assault to take place, but you say Bush, because he was their representative.

[Rooster]

He did not underestimate the Nazi aggression, that's why he made the pact, To buy time so he could prepare the country for war.

So, you're telling me that... instead of keeping troops in prepared defensive positions, moving them forward to undefended positions and allowing the nazis to move forward as well was a move of a military genius?

[Book O'Dead]

[QUOTE]The Right-Wing cliqe in London did not operate with Moscow,but tried to act on it's own,and the British aided them,in hopes of a right-wing Poland hostile to the USSR.And plus,the Red Army was not in the position to help them,although it tried.

Some basic informative notes:

That the Polish insurgents made a critical error is no longer in doubt. Taking their orders from London, they failed to coordinate their uprising with Moscow, which was probably tantamount to suicide. Moscow learned about the uprising after it had started and Stalin disassociated himself and the Soviet Command from it. On 16 August, he sent a message to Churchill: 'The Warsaw action is a reckless and fearful gamble, taking a heavy toll of the population. This would not have been the case had Soviet headquarters been informed beforehand about the Warsaw action and had the Poles in London maintained contact with them.'
Axell, Albert. Stalin's War: Through the Eyes of His Commanders. London, Arms and Armour Press. 1997, p. 103

...Air Marshal Rudenko, one of the Russian officers involved in helping the Warsaw Poles --he was chief of the 16th Air Army--maintained that it was simply not possible for the Red Army to rush effective aid to Warsaw in late August 1944. He said Russian air bases were too far away. He blamed the tragedy on the Polish Emigre government in London.
Axell, Albert. Stalin's War: Through the Eyes of His Commanders. London, Arms and Armour Press. 1997, p. 103

There is of course,a lot of writen material related to the ill-planned uprising:

Stalin can hardly be blamed for the decision to launch the Warsaw uprising. This was a tragic, if understandable, mistake by the AK commanders and the exiled government, deliberately made without consultation with any of the three major Allies. Stalin appears to have been surprised as well as irritated by it. It occurred at a time when the Russian advance in the center had run out of steam and preparations for the next phase of the campaign had not yet begun. This was not in fact launched until mid-January 1945.
Given the unexpected German rally and counterattack on the Vistula front it would have been difficult for Rokossovsky's forces to have broken through to relieve the Warsaw insurgents, even if Stalin had wanted to.
Bullock, Alan. Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives. New York: Knopf, 1992, p. 854

I'm not surprised that there are numerous revisions of WWII history that place Stalin in heroic poses. Nor am I surprised.

Nonetheless I am convinced that Stalin played a reactionary and anti-working class role throughout most of his career as dictator.


I could at lenght,explain how the USSR and the Red Army indeed prepared for the onslaught of Fascism,as best as it could; but - since i explained it before i really wont insist on such details,as it was all proved some time ago.

Provided, of course, by numerous Stalin apologists.


Stalin was one of the comanders who did a lot of work,and his decisions had a big impact on the victory,as his role was simply huge.
My reading is that only when Stalin got out of the way of Zhukov and other commanders did the USSR begin to score significant victories against Germany. His only real claim to being a strategist was from deposing, incriminating and murdering his political rivals.

[Blanquist]

If Stalin played a huge role in defeating Hitler's Germany, it doesn't really matter.

I don't have a boner for 'military genius' I'm a socialist.

Stalin was an executioner of freedom and a policeman of inequality. He was one of the dirtiest, most foul, disgusting figures in human history.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You have your work cut out for you.

I think you would be better served if you obtained and read a copy of Isaac Deutscher's biography of Stalin, which I think is the definitive account of Stalin's life and work.

Another good biography of Stalin is "Stalin: Man of History" by Ian Grey.

[Book O'Dead]

If Stalin played a huge role in defeating Hitler's Germany, it doesn't really matter.

I don't have a boner for 'military genius' I'm a socialist.

Stalin was an executioner of freedom and a policeman of inequality. He was one of the dirtiest, most foul, disgusting figures in human history.

He was responsible for 'ethnic cleansing' as well.

[ArrowLance]

Most certainly the soviets understood a Nazi invasion was comming. The question was when, and it wasn't an easy question to find an answer to. Germany benefited a lot from essentially blackmailing the soviet union for supplies and compliance and most of the world was surprised at the timing of the Nazi invasion.

Stalin most certainly had a role in the command chain, but this isn't much to boast about because no doubt the damage done to the officer corps during the Great Purge outweighs any personal contributions of Stalin during the war. However the rapid industrialization under Stalin was absolutely incredible and without it it's questionable what the outcome of the war would have been. The soviet technological advances and education systems also assuredly played their part.

The pact with Nazi Germany is also understandable considering history and the conditions between the Soviet Union and the allies. It's of course disheartening that the great Communist nation was put into a situation that it accepted a pact with the greatest fascist force.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

So the revolution degenerated, not in the 1920s and 30s, but after Stalin died. Where did these bourgeois elements come from and how exactly? Does this mean socialism will always lead back to capitalism?

That depends. We can't really know since we haven't reached a socialist state yet. State Capitalism does however always lead back to private capitalism, it's a continuous cycle that we can see not only in the USSR, but in the USA and Europe as well. The point is to reach actual socialism, i.e. workers control over production.

[Bostana]

nope that would've been the generals and other military personal and not stalin.

Well yes but most of Stalin's strategy helped the war on the Eastern Front. It was actually Stalin's idea to counter attack the Nazis of Stalingrad. That not only helped the Soviets win, but it also helped start pushing the Nazis back to Berlin.

And with Berlin mentioned. He also came up with the Battle tactics to defeat the Nazis in the Battle of Berlin.

[ArrowLance]

So, you're telling me that... instead of keeping troops in prepared defensive positions, moving them forward to undefended positions and allowing the nazis to move forward as well was a move of a military genius?

You make it sound so simple. Maintaining such defensive positions is a logistical nightmare in the long run, as well as a political one. It's wonderful to point back and laugh at the terrible folly that were the Soviet preparations but it isn't really anything at all. It's probably ridiculous to call Stalin a military genius and it's likely only an overreaction on the part of Marxist-Leninists to claim that but it is undeniable that Stalin was part of the command that defeated the Nazis, and that is commendable.

And it's not as if the Soviets were doing NOTHING on the fronts from which the Nazi's invaded. They did have some organization.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Stalin had to make a pact or the invasion would have been way earlier, and the USSR would've been crushed. Also the UK and France just gave Czech to Germany, about a year earlier, but of course it's only wrong when Stalin does it. And at least Stalin did it to have more time to prepare for war, the UK and France had no real excuse.

[WanderingCactus]

all by himself no less...

Who could forget the wondrous battle of Stalingrad, whereupon the great Stalin rushed enemy battalions armed only with a blade, tangling nazi soldiers in his mustache as he went along.

At any rate, can we drop this Stalin bullshit? These conversations are never ever going to be productive. Ever.

[Rooster]

You make it sound so simple. Maintaining such defensive positions is a logistical nightmare in the long run,

So, are you saying, that maintaining forward defensive positions a great deal of distance away, in a foreign country, is less of a logistical nightmare?


as well as a political one.

Or a political one?


It's wonderful to point back and laugh at the terrible folly that were the Soviet preparations but it isn't really anything at all.

It's not wonderful. It's painfully unfunny.


It's probably ridiculous to call Stalin a military genius and it's likely only an overreaction on the part of Marxist-Leninists to claim that but it is undeniable that Stalin was part of the command that defeated the Nazis, and that is commendable.

Plainly it is ridiculous to call Stalin a militarily genius, or even, militarily competent. Unless you think that moving troops out of defensive positions into a positions in a foreign country is less of a logistical nightmare than keeping them in your own territory in defensive positions when you're not planning on doing an offensive towards the Nazis.


And it's not as if the Soviets were doing NOTHING on the fronts from which the Nazi's invaded. They did have some organization.

Why aren't you agreeing with what I said to begin with? I would love to play you at chess.

[Pretty Flaco]

Ohhhhhhhhh, so funny. He did not defeat them all personally with his own bare hands, but he did lead the Red Army to victory and supported the people's partisans of Eastern Europe. So, yeah, he did lead the communist struggle against fascist imperialism and there is no denying that.

i didn't realize that the course of history was decided by one man. i guess that's why they call him a great leader.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Chamberlain government's refusal to agree a Grand Alliance with the Soviet Union, not the Non-Aggression Pact, doomed Poland. Only such an alliance could have kept the peace. The Non-Aggression Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany were signed after the Allied countries signed a Peace Treaty, with the London Financial Times noting early on in 1933 that Hitler "the moderate" (as the New York Times called him) would "Go East". Everyone knew the Fascist Imperialists of Germany would invade the USSR, the economy was getting ready for years to accomplish this. And Stalin was preparing the USSR to handle this threat economically, the german invaders were nearly completely unable to steal the USSR's industry.

On D-Day the US and British forces faced 30 German divisions in Normandy. The Soviet Union launched its Operation Bagration, to assist the D-Day landings, against no fewer than 165 German divisions.

Anthony Eden, a hugely experienced bourgeois negotiator, admits: "If I had to pick a team for going into a conference room, Stalin would be my first choice."

Laurence Rees, an astout anti-communist bourgeois admits in his book World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, The Nazis, and The West: "It had been Stalin's drive to industrialization via the five-year plans in the 1930s that had prepared the way for this massive expansion in [armaments and necessary] production." He acknowledges that the Warsaw Uprising was "a terrible mistake".

Some people here are worse than anti-communists.

[Book O'Dead]

Stalin had to make a pact or the invasion would have been way earlier, and the USSR would've been crushed. Also the UK and France just gave Czech to Germany, about a year earlier, but of course it's only wrong when Stalin does it. And at least Stalin did it to have more time to prepare for war, the UK and France had no real excuse.

Um, neither the UK nor France "gave" Czechoslovakia to Hitler; He took it like the thief and murderer that he was.

The German-Soviet pact was not a deterrent nor did it "postpone" Germany's invasion of Russia. Quite the contrary, it gave Germany time to arm itself and prepare its forces AFTER it had invaded Poland and left Russia foolishly open throughout its western frontiers.

Strategically it was one of the greatest blunders of the 20th Century; Stalin and Molotov to be thanked for that!

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Um, neither the UK nor France "gave" Czechoslovakia to Hitler; He took it like the thief and murderer that he was.

The German-Soviet pact was not a deterrent nor did it "postpone" Germany's invasion of Russia. Quite the contrary, it gave Germany time to arm itself and prepare its forces AFTER it had invaded Poland and left Russia foolishly open throughout its western frontiers.

Strategically it was one of the greatest blunders of the 20th Century; Stalin and Molotov to be thanked for that!

They didn't? Then why did they sign the Munich Agreement, which gave Germany, Sudetenland?

[Bostana]

Also the UK and France just gave Czech to Germany,

They also promised Poland that British and French aid will be giving if Hitler attempts to Invade Poland. After the invasion England and France didn't respond. Hitler had to invade France to get their attention. When they did finally take action, Hitler already controlled Paris and was at the doorstep of the Queen's Palace.

The treaty is a difficult issue to talk about. When Hitler sent his negotiator to Moscow, there was no doubt in Stalin's mind that Hitler was being opportunistic and trying to fool him. With war approaching, Stalin signed the treaty. This helped the Soviets gained the front against the Nazis. Before the pact between the Soviets and Germany, Stalin attempted to make a pact with England and France in 1939 in case a war did break out.

On April 19 1939, Winston Churchill gave a speech urging England and France to sign it:

Ten or twelve days have already passed since the Russian offer was made. The British people, who have now, at the sacrifice of honoured, ingrained custom, accepted the principle of compulsory military service, have a right, in conjunction with the French Republic, to call upon Poland not to place obstacles in the way of a common cause. Not only must the full co-operation of Russia be accepted, but the three Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, must also be brought into association. To these three countries of warlike peoples, possessing together armies totalling perhaps twenty divisions of virile troops, a friendly Russia supplying munitions and other aid is essential.
There is no means of maintaining an eastern front against Nazi aggression without the active aid of Russia. Russian interests are deeply concerned in preventing Herr Hitler's designs on eastern Europe. It should still be possible to range all the States and peoples from the Baltic to the Black sea in one solid front against a new outrage of invasion. Such a front, if established in good heart, and with resolute and efficient military arrangements, combined with the strength of the Western Powers, may yet confront Hitler, Goering, Himmler, Ribbentrop, Goebbels and co. with forces the German people would be reluctant to challenge.
Britain and France turned it down.

Stalin realized that war with Germany was inevitable. However, to have any chance of victory he needed time to build up his armed forces. The only way he could obtain time was to do a deal with Hitler. Stalin was convinced that Hitler would not be foolish enough to fight a war on two fronts. If he could persuade Hitler to sign a peace treaty with the Soviet Union, Germany was likely to invade Western Europe instead.

Stalin was no fool though. He knew Hitler tried to trick him.
The day after they signed the pact Stalin explained to Levrenti Beria, his commissioner of Internal affairs, why he had reached the agreement with Hitler:

Of course, it's all a game to see who can fool whom. I know what Hitler's up to. He thinks he's outsmarted me, but actually it's I who have tricked him.

[Rooster]

The Stalinist apologetics going on in here is being blowing. So, some people think that moving forward out of defensive positions was a good idea, some thing that moving them out of defensive positions and onto foreign soil (plus trying to subdue an occupied nation) is logistically less of a nightmare than staying on home soil and some think that Stalin had no choice in regards to the pact but still gained an advantage in doing this.

[Omsk]

Dear Book O'Dead,since you didn't include any kind of real arguments,or quotes from books,from various historians,or from various co-works,nor did you put any kind of effort into your post,you shown that you have no real interest in debating these points on a serious level.Goodbye.

[ArrowLance]

The Stalinist apologetics going on in here is being blowing. So, some people think that moving forward out of defensive positions was a good idea, some thing that moving them out of defensive positions and onto foreign soil (plus trying to subdue an occupied nation) is logistically less of a nightmare than staying on home soil and some think that Stalin had no choice in regards to the pact but still gained an advantage in doing this.

The rooster going on here is being blowing. Coming in saying things, do the attack things and talking of chess. And doesn't even concerned!


Who could forget the wondrous battle of Stalingrad, whereupon the great Stalin rushed enemy battalions armed only with a blade, tangling nazi soldiers in his mustache as he went along.

At any rate, can we drop this Stalin bullshit? These conversations are never ever going to be productive. Ever.

Most certainly this discussion is important. Perhaps not as much for those of us who already feel confirmed in our positions on the subject but this thread is in learning. Discussions like this very much help.


Dear Book O'Dead,since you didn't include any kind of real arguments,or quotes from books,from various historians,or from various co-works,nor did you put any kind of effort into your post,you shown that you have no real interest in debating these points on a serious level.Goodbye.

This is an internet forum and excessive use of quotes is quite detrimental to the level of debate sustainable here.

[Deicide]

You forgot the part we're he defeated the nazis.

Yeah, he just wiped out a several million strong army by himself. Hail great Comrade Stalin, saviour of the proletariat and maker of socialismzz in one country.

[Railyon]

Yeah, he just wiped out a several million strong army by himself. Hail great Comrade Stalin, saviour of the proletariat and maker of socialismzz in one country.

Don't forget the part where didn't give his soldiers steel helmets.

[ArrowLance]

Yeah, he just wiped out a several million strong army by himself. Hail great Comrade Stalin, saviour of the proletariat and maker of socialismzz in one country.
If it's fair to blame him for the entirety of the purges and famines isn't it fair to also hold him responsibilities for the successes that happened under him?

[Rooster]

They didn't? Then why did they sign the Munich Agreement, which gave Germany, Sudetenland?

Didn't the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact give half of Poland to Germany? :confused:

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Didn't the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact give half of Poland to Germany? :confused:

He had to give Hitler something to make him agree with a pact.

[Rooster]

He had to give Hitler something to make him agree with a pact.

Did he? Aren't you being hypocritical here? Stalin gave Hitler half of Poland to buy time. The Allies gave the Sudetenland to Hitler to buy time. Hmm... also, why is it that this thread is now about the second world war?

[Omsk]

While i won't focus on the rest of your 'arguments' rooster,i will just correct this little product of ignorance.



The Allies gave the Sudetenland to Hitler to buy time


They gave him Sudetenland to turn him East,to try and get the USSR and Nazi Germany at war.

[Rooster]

While i won't focus on the rest of your 'arguments' rooster,i will just correct this little product of ignorance.

So you too think that moving troops out from a defensive position on home soil onto ones hundreds of miles forward on foreign soil was a good idea?


They gave him Sudetenland to turn him East,to try and get the USSR and Nazi Germany at war.

Are you saying that because Stalin said that?

[Omsk]

So you too think that moving troops out from a defensive position on home soil onto ones hundreds of miles forward on foreign soil was a good idea?


What are you talking about?The line established in early 1940 was of great value.


Are you saying that because Stalin said that?

No,im saying that based on the books i read about the subject,and the private diplomatic letters,or parts from some texts like this one,:

British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax is on record as telling Hitler in November 1937 that :

"he and other members of the British Government were well aware that the Fuehrer had attained a great deal. . . . Having destroyed Communism in his country, he had barred the road of the latter to Western Europe and Germany was therefore entitled to be regarded as a bulwark of the West against Bolshevism. .
When the ground has been prepared for an Anglo-German rapprochement, the four great West European Powers must jointly set up the foundation of lasting peace in Europe".
('Documents on German Foreign Policy: 1918-1945', Series D, Volume 1; London; 1954; p. 55).

[Geiseric]

So you too think that moving troops out from a defensive position on home soil onto ones hundreds of miles forward on foreign soil was a good idea?



Are you saying that because Stalin said that?

Lol when you put it in that one way it totally makes sense. Seriously, they had to occupy eastern poland AND get the military ready at the new border. Great job Generalissimo Stalin!

[kashkin]

Lol, Stalin the same man who received large amounts of information regarding Barbarossa, refused to allow recon flights because it might provoke the Germans, and kept sending materials up to the day before the invasion. Also, Stalin, as supreme commander, had a great influence over the Stavka, which was well known for overestimating the Red Army's capabilities.

[Ostrinski]

I defend Stalin against conservatives for kicks.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

STALIN WAS A MONSTER, HE ATE BABIES, HE ATE POLISH PEOPLE, HE WAS A BAD GENERALISSIMO, HE WAS STUPID, HE DID NOT KNOW HOW TO LEAD AN ARMY, HE FUCKED THE SPANISH REVOLUTION ALL BY HIMSELF, HE HATED JEWS, HE ATE BABIES (AGAIN), AND HE WAS A CAPITALIST, IMPERIALIST DICTATOR DRAPED IN A RED FLAG TO ATTRACT TO STUPID TANKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yet, whenever he does something good: "ARE YOU PRAISING HIM? DO YOU FOLLOW THE 'GREAT MAN' PERCEPTION OF HISTORY? HUH?! STUPID TANKIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[crazyirish93]

So, you're telling me that... instead of keeping troops in prepared defensive positions, moving them forward to undefended positions and allowing the nazis to move forward as well was a move of a military genius?

Blitzkrieg loves fixed defensive positions which can easily be bypassed look at what happened in France and the Maginot line so keeping troops back from the lines so they cant all be encircled and destroyed seems like a good idea to me just saying.

[dodger]

Stalin's Generals, Marshals, some at time of Kruschev made their thoughts known. Makes for interesting reading. Of course battles are not just won or lost on the battlefield, as every schoolboy now knows. Though it caused tremendous disruption early movement of industry east of the Urals paid off. Tremendous efforts by women in production and war duties released manpower and secured the home front. Nazi answer , slave labour. Collaboration with allies always problematic ensured that during D-Day landings Operation Bagration was started and did not end until the Vistula, gates of Warsaw. Hitler was now fighting on 2 fronts. The early defeat of Japanese armies and signing of non aggression pacts ensured Stalin was only fighting on one.Enormous reserves of well equipped and battle hardened fighters were released for the fight. Moscow was saved. The Nazi defeated, if he could be defeated once, why not again? By this time the Nazi plan was in tatters, 2/5 of soldiers dead or captured. Tremendous amounts of equipment lost or destroyed.

Was there an architect of Hitler's defeat. Some say it was Hitler himself. ROTHSCHILDS??? ICE? Ribbentrop despised in London by every class, whilst Ambassadeur, was swinging from a rope, 6 short years after the non aggression pact. It makes no sense to talk of treachery. Apt he was called fon Brickendrop by PERCEPTIVE London cabbies, the name stuck, prophetic. A whole host of writers, generals, fellow warlords, military historians, paid compliment to Stalin, from every quarter. He was the architect of victory. As head of the army, party and government, every defeat and each victory rightly is placed at his door.

[dodger]

Lol, Stalin the same man who received large amounts of information regarding Barbarossa, refused to allow recon flights because it might provoke the Germans, and kept sending materials up to the day before the invasion. Also, Stalin, as supreme commander, had a great influence over the Stavka, which was well known for overestimating the Red Army's capabilities.

Stavka did indeed get it wrong, but more often got it right. All battle plans are torn up by 48hrs. Those that aren't were because of quick and easy victory. The historical lessons of the WWI when a domino effect created by mobilizations was to be avoided. British perfidy in trying to involve USSR in war was also a factor. Barbarossa was a failure. A monumental failure---"LOL"--so who was laughing? Learning how to defeat Hitler military doctrine did not come cheap. Not in Russia not in North Africa, not in the North Atlantic, or the skies over England. The old man formed a very jaundiced view of general staffs and headquarters, most strongly politicians of every hue. He tasted defeat 'N victory in Malaya and Burma. His view was that until the people got into uniform the job was too much for the 'professionals'.

[marl]

I defend Stalin against conservatives for kicks.

I do this as well, and I'm a Trot. :laugh:

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2422549#post2422549)
"So the revolution degenerated, not in the 1920s and 30s, but after Stalin died. Where did these bourgeois elements come from and how exactly? Does this mean socialism will always lead back to capitalism? "

That depends. We can't really know since we haven't reached a socialist state yet. State Capitalism does however always lead back to private capitalism, it's a continuous cycle that we can see not only in the USSR, but in the USA and Europe as well. The point is to reach actual socialism, i.e. workers control over production.

So how come Anderson hasnt answered these questions?

WoCOP, no we have not had socialism, but I disagree that the USSR was state capitalism. It was a deformed planned economy. A socialised economy but dominated by a dictatorship of a bureaucracy centred around Uncle Joe. The 'bourgeois elements' were Stalin's bureaucrats. Trotsky advocated workers control of production, if that had happened it would have been socialism. To achieve it would only have required a political revolution, not a social one, and that is because there was only one actual class ruled by a bureaucratic caste who did not actually own the MOP.

[daft punk]

STALIN WAS A MONSTER, HE ATE BABIES, HE ATE POLISH PEOPLE, HE WAS A BAD GENERALISSIMO, HE WAS STUPID, HE DID NOT KNOW HOW TO LEAD AN ARMY, HE FUCKED THE SPANISH REVOLUTION ALL BY HIMSELF, HE HATED JEWS, HE ATE BABIES (AGAIN), AND HE WAS A CAPITALIST, IMPERIALIST DICTATOR DRAPED IN A RED FLAG TO ATTRACT TO STUPID TANKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This is a slight exaggeration. I dont think Stalin ate babies, he did have children murdered of course, but I'm not sure he ate them. I think there was some cannibalism in the famine, but Stalin was well fed in his many luxury holiday homes.

Again with the Polish, he just exterminated them as far as I know.

He wasn't stupid, but his cleverness was in building cliques and a power base, rather than the revolutionary theory of Trotsky and Lenin, leaders of the revolution. He was quite clever in twisting things into their opposite, so he turned a revolution into counter - revolution and the good guys into bad etc.

Please feel free to jump in there, screaming 'great man, materialism'.

Stalin did not create the counter-revolution, it created him, but he helped it, led it, killed it's enemies in their thousands. He was it's personification, in exactly the same way all 'great men' personify the objective conditions of their time.

I dunno if he hated Jews, but he certainly sent his friend's wife to the gulag for meeting people from Israel. Trotsky was a Jew so Stalin's anti-semitism was a weapon against Trotskyism (ie socialism).

He wasnt a capitalist, he crushed the capitalist revolution between 1928 and 1938. He crushed the socialist revolution from 1924 onwards. He was on the capitalist side from 1924-8.
After 1934 he exterminated capitalists in Russia, but outside Russia he kissed their arses and ordered all CPs to snuggle up to the bourgeoisie and get into bed with them, and this they did. They tried to establish capitalism and crush socialism in all countries outside the USSR. However this mostly failed for reasons Trotsky discussed in 1906 when he correctly outlined the Russian revolution at a time when the Bolsheviks still believed in stagism.

Yes he did wear a red flag to attract tankies. It was like Hitler calling his party 'socialist', a total piss take.

[Paul Cockshott]

Why did he hold back helping the Jewish ghetto fighters in Warsaw?
I think there were two events confused here, the Gheto uprising and that by the Polish Resistance army.

[Prinskaj]

They also promised Poland that British and French aid will be giving if Hitler attempts to Invade Poland. After the invasion England and France didn't respond. Hitler had to invade France to get their attention. When they did finally take action, Hitler already controlled Paris and was at the doorstep of the Queen's Palace.
The fuck..
Germany declared war upon Poland on September 1. 1939. The allied forces, here under Britain and France, in response to the invasion declared war upon Germany on September 3. 1939..
How in the world didn't they respond?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The fuck..
Germany declared war upon Poland on September 1. 1939. The allied forces, here under Britain and France, in response to the invasion declared war upon Germany on September 3. 1939..
How in the world didn't they respond?

They responded to late, almost the whol German army was used to invade poland, and was really weakened. If Germany and France had responded they probably could've defeated the Nazis.

[Prinskaj]

They responded to late, almost the whole German army was used to invade poland, and was really weakened. If Britain and France had responded they probably could've defeated the Nazis.
A) Germany's campaign in Poland lasted for over a month. Two days, which were most likely used for finalizing the preparations for attacking, would have done very little difference.
B) France was in very bad shape even before the invasion, and the German army was both bigger and better then the French, British and Polish combined.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

He did not underestimate the Nazi aggression, that's why he made the pact, To buy time so he could prepare the country for war.
That's kind of true -- but the details matter here. Stalin was not totally naive about the Nazis. And it is not unforgivable for the USSR to make a pact with Hitler if it serves their needs -- the Bolsheviks under Lenin made pacts with the Germans that were fucked up, but necessary.

However, Stalin had a brilliant spy network. They told him with certainty when the Germans were going to invade. Stalin ignored this because he did not want it to happen. It almost cost the USSR the war, and it probably cost them ten million extra deaths. He was a shitty commander -- he slaughtered most of the upper echelons of his officer corps. leading up to the coming war. That the power of the Soviet Workers State eventually rallied to defeat the Nazis was in spite of Comrade Stalin.

You Stalinists see Stalin as some kind of action figure hero. He was not only human, but an extremely flawed one. I would venture a diagnostic guess that he was a sociopath. Of course, he was able to wield the power that he did because of his enormous political skills, and because of the circumstances in which he was operating -- he did represent the conservatizing pressures on the USSR in many ways -- I mean the peasantry wasn't down with world revolution -- and neither was Stalin.

[Bostana]

The fuck..
Germany declared war upon Poland on September 1. 1939. The allied forces, here under Britain and France, in response to the invasion declared war upon Germany on September 3. 1939..
How in the world didn't they respond?

Declaring War was different from invading. For example in the American 'Revolution' the Dutch declared war on Britain to cause pressure for the surrender never actually helped.

Also, if when they did declare war, why didn't they launch an attack on Nazi Germany? Why did they wait for Hitler to invade France? Why was Hitler already bombing London when British troops actually got involved?

Declaring War and taking actions are two different things.

And when they did declare war why didn't they send troops to Poland to help fight the Nazis off? Why didn't they help Poland launch a counter attack in Semptember 1939 instead of waiting for the Red Army to liberate it in July 1944? The objective really was to help Poland.

I like how this thread was about defending Stalin to how the British and French helped in World War II
:lol:

[Omsk]

he slaughtered most of the upper echelons of his officer corps

I thought we had this discussion before.The purge in the army sector was not of a huge scale,and the number of the purged commanders was indeed small.It had little to do with the effective combat power of the Red Army,which was a force and structure on it's own.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Declaring War was different from invading. For example in the American 'Revolution' the Dutch declared war on Britain to cause pressure for the surrender never actually helped.

Also, if when they did declare war, why didn't they launch an attack on Nazi Germany? Why did they wait for Hitler to invade France? Why was Hitler already bombing London when British troops actually got involved?

Declaring War and taking actions are two different things.

And when they did declare war why didn't they send troops to Poland to help fight the Nazis off? Why didn't they help Poland launch a counter attack in August 1939 instead of waiting for the Red Army to liberate it in July 1944? The objective really was to help Poland.

um...

4th september:

In the first British offensive action of the War, the Royal Air Force launch a raid on the German fleet in the Heligoland Bight. They target the German pocket-battleship Admiral Scheer anchored off Wilhelmshaven at the western end of the Kiel Canal. Several aircraft are lost in the attack and, although the German vessel is hit three times, all of the bombs fail to explode.

7th september:

France begins a token offensive, moving into German territory near Saarbrücken.

20th september:

German submarine U-27 is sunk with depth charges from the British destroyers HMS Fortune and HMS Forester.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_World_War_II_(1939)

[Bostana]

um...

These are all in defense of Britain. Not in Poland, where did they send troops to Poland to help fight off the attack? Why did Hitler already own Paris? Why was Hitler already at the doorsteps of controlling England?

[Omsk]

he slaughtered most of the upper echelons of his officer corps


Too go into more detail with this one: (This is a relevant note - many historians note that the top number of the officer affected by the 'purge' was some 5-9.7% ,and not the 20% or even 50% which was suggested by some "historians" .

This is an informative section:

All told, 34,301 army, air force, and Political Administration of the Red Army (PUR) leaders were discharged from the army either through arrest or expulsion from the party during the Ezhovshchina. Of these, 11,596 were reinstated by May 1940....
The numbers also show a more limited impact on the military than previously thought. Before the publication of the figures in Table 9.1, it had been variously estimated that between 25% and 50% of the Red Army officer corps were repressed in the Ezhovshchina. Conveniently, Shchadenko's office gave the percentage of the leadership permanently discharged in the purge, which allows a calculation of the total strength of the nachal'sostav (the military leadership) in the purge years. In 1937, [the military leadership] numbered 144,300, of whom 11,034 discharged for political reasons remained discharged as of May 1940, equaling 7.7% of the [military leadership]. In 1938 there were 179,000 leaders, of whom 6742 political dischargees were still discharged in May 1940, which equaled 3.7% of the [military leadership]; and in 1939 the Army had 282,300 leaders, 205 or .08% of whom were discharged for political reasons and remained discharged in May 1940. Because the Army stepped up officer procurement during the Ezhovshchina, and at a rate that outpaced discharges, it is extremely difficult to invent a statistic to describe the cumulative impact of the purge on the military, and Shchadenko's annual figures are probably the most definitive we will ever have. We face the same situation with the Red Air Force, which in 1937 had approximately 13,000 officers, lost 4724 in the purge, but had about 60,000 officers in 1940.
Getty and Manning. Stalinist Terror. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 199

And it is also important to note that the most number of the officers who were arrested,did confess.

[Khalid]

You Stalinists see Stalin as some kind of action figure hero.

It's you who think Stalin was more than he actually was. Blaming him for everything and calling everything negative as "Stalinism". If he was the Dr. Evil as you see him... then he was probably an "action figure hero" too.

[Prinskaj]

These are all in defense of Britain. Not in Poland, where did they send troops to Poland to help fight off the attack? Why did Hitler already own Paris? Why was Hitler already at the doorsteps of controlling England?
First of all, are you blaming France and Britain for using a defensive strategy? Would you have wanted them to take all of their troops and throw them against the German army in a suicidal frontal attack? That doesn't seem like military genius to me..
Secondly, Paris fell in 25 June 1940, almost a year after Poland surrendered.
Thirdly, transporting troops over enemy water, in the beginning stages of a war, into another country is close to impossible, and when the countries supposed to send these troops are already outnumbered and outgunned, then what would it help?

[Bostana]

First of all, are you blaming France and Britain for using a defensive strategy?
Yes that is completely what I am doing.


Would you have wanted them to take all of their troops and throw them against the German army in a suicidal frontal attack?

I never said that. I said they should've helped Poland when help was needed, not wait 5 years for another country to do it. Same with France where was the support for France? Where were the supplying of troops? Where was the building of the front line?


Secondly, Paris fell in 25 June 1940, almost a year after Poland surrendered.

My point exactly. There was no ground action attack against Germany until 1940. Almost a year after Poland surrendered. And that is when Germany attacked France, again no British aid. I said it before they only time British ground forces were involved was when Hitler was bombing London.




Thirdly, transporting troops over enemy water, in the beginning stages of a war, into another country is close to impossible, and when the countries supposed to send these troops are already outnumbered and outgunned, then what would it help?

I ain't no master at geography but am sure England and France were not that far apart for Britain to give aid in the war. This can also have been prevented if they would have signed the three-military treaty that Stalin introduced before the war. If Britain and France would have signed the treaty, The Blitz wouldn't of happened and 42,000 British Civilians would have lived a life.

This treaty would have been a life saver. Even Winston Churchill adviced the two countries to signed:

Undoubtedly, the proposals put forward by the Russian Government contemplate a triple alliance against aggression between England, France and Russia, which alliance may extend its benefits to other countries of and when those benefits are desired. The alliance is solely for the purpose of resisting further acts of aggression and of protecting the victims of aggression. I cannot see what is wrong with that. What is wrong with this simple proposal? It is said: "Can you trust the Russian Soviet Government?" I suppose in Moscow they say: "Can we trust Chamberlain?" I hope we may say that the answer to both questions is in the affirmative. I earnestly hope so.
Clearly Russia is not going to enter into agreements unless she is treated as an equal, and not only is treated as an equal, but has confidence that the methods employed by the Allies - by the peace front - are such as would be likely to lead to success. No one wants to associate themselves with indeterminate leadership and uncertain policies. The Government must realise that none of these States in Eastern Europe can maintain themselves for, say, a year's war unless they have behind them the massive, solid backing of a friendly Russia, joined to the combination of the Western Powers. In the main, I agree with Mr. Lloyd George that if there is to be an effective eastern front - an eastern peace front, or a war front as it might become - it can be set up only with the effective support of a friendly Soviet Russia lying behind all those countries

Yet England and France still turned it down.

The two countries showed no intent on preparing for war.

[Tim Cornelis]

If it's fair to blame him for the entirety of the purges and famines isn't it fair to also hold him responsibilities for the successes that happened under him?

The Red Army would've won WW2 without Stalin. Stalin's policies included shooting those who 'retreated' (walking back), which is beyond stupid. As a result, many young Red Army soldiers were killed by their own officers. Without such stupid policies, the Red Army would've won, perhaps more easily.

In other words, the Red Army won despite Stalin's stupid actions. While the famine happened because of Stalin's stupid actions.

Therefore, it is correct to blame Stalin for the famine, but not hold him responsible for the successes in world war 2.

[ArrowLance]

The Red Army would've won WW2 without Stalin. Stalin's policies included shooting those who 'retreated' (walking back), which is beyond stupid. As a result, many young Red Army soldiers were killed by their own officers. Without such stupid policies, the Red Army would've won, perhaps more easily.

In other words, the Red Army won despite Stalin's stupid actions. While the famine happened because of Stalin's stupid actions.

Therefore, it is correct to blame Stalin for the famine, but not hold him responsible for the successes in world war 2.

I am perfectly aware that the Red Army would have won without Stalin. I am also perfectly aware that the famine would have happened without him.

[Omsk]

The Red Army would've won WW2 without Stalin. Stalin's policies included shooting those who 'retreated' (walking back)

Where are you getting these things from?Your head?

Those who were punished were punished either for the brake of discipline (Officers.) or for routing,(Soldiers) ,retreating,spreading panick,and fleeing from their operational combat posts. Or those who were open traitors.


which is beyond stupid

1.) That was not the decision of Joseph Stalin himself.

But,it seems that you,nobody,has more expirience and knowledge than the Soviet Command and the leadership of the CCCP.


As a result, many young Red Army soldiers were killed by their own officers.

Soldiers were shot if they retreated from their posts during a battle.Things like this happened in WWI also. What should have the officers done? Let the men fall back? Let the Germans reach and take Moscow? Abandon Belarus? Abandon Leningrad?


Without such stupid policies, the Red Army would've won, perhaps more easily.


Yes,you spent many hours of reading and came up with this fantastic conclusion. Or are you just talking out of your head?


In other words, the Red Army won despite Stalin's stupid actions.

Than why did his later 'rival' speak of him as a fantastic commander?

(In all, the State Committee for Defense adopted some 10,000 resolutions on military and economic matters during the war. Those resolutions were carried out accurately and with enthusiasm....
Stalin himself was strong-willed and no coward. It was only once I saw him somewhat depressed. That was at the dawn of June 22, 1941, when his belief that the war could be avoided, was shattered.
After June 22, 1941, and throughout the war Stalin firmly governed the country, led the armed struggle and international affairs together with the Central Committee and the Soviet Government.
Zhukov, Georgii. Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape, 1971, p. 268 )


While the famine happened because of Stalin's stupid actions.


No famine happened because of his policies.

What did inspire you to write this horrible heap of...nothing?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

"He was the leader of the USSR" - first sentence, first mistake OP.

Socialism knows no leaders and no led. C'mon.

[Prinskaj]

Yes that is completely what I am doing
Well to be fair, France did try an offensive once, in the Saar Offensive, which didn't end very well.


I never said that. I said they should've helped Poland when help was needed, not wait 5 years for another country to do it. Same with France where was the support for France? Where were the supplying of troops? Where was the building of the front line?
Britain didn't help? The British send a total of 897,000 men in 1939, which became 1,650,000 by June 1940. How is that not support? And not only that, the British also blockaded much of Germany's coastal regions.


My point exactly. There was no ground action attack against Germany until 1940. Almost a year after Poland surrendered. And that is when Germany attacked France, again no British aid. I said it before they only time British ground forces were involved was when Hitler was bombing London.
And again, the Saar Offensive showed that the French did not have the capacities to gain any ground. So a building up a strong defense was the best course of action.


I ain't no master at geography but am sure England and France were not that far apart for Britain to give aid in the war. This can also have been prevented if they would have signed the three-military treaty that Stalin introduced before the war. If Britain and France would have signed the treaty, The Blitz wouldn't of happened and 42,000 British Civilians would have lived a life.
I was referring to Poland, which, as you may know, is pretty hard to sail to, especially when Germany will be shooting at you along the way..

[NorwegianCommunist]

A lot of other great things increased under Stalin.
Before 1917, schools costs money and 180,000 got educated each year. And only 15% of the Russian empire population could read & write.
In 1940 Stalin announced that illiteracy was eliminated and in 1959 (6 years after Stalins death, but still) 2,150,000 got educated each year for free! Jobs after their education were provided by the state.

Students also got a reasonable amount of money from the state.
This is something I find important =)


Source: http://unilorin.edu.ng/journals/education/ije/feb1981/EDUCATION%20IN%20THE%20USSR.pdf

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Too go into more detail with this one: (This is a relevant note - many historians note that the top number of the officer affected by the 'purge' was some 5-9.7% ,and not the 20% or even 50% which was suggested by some "historians" .

This is an informative section:

All told, 34,301 army, air force, and Political Administration of the Red Army (PUR) leaders were discharged from the army either through arrest or expulsion from the party during the Ezhovshchina. Of these, 11,596 were reinstated by May 1940....
The numbers also show a more limited impact on the military than previously thought. Before the publication of the figures in Table 9.1, it had been variously estimated that between 25% and 50% of the Red Army officer corps were repressed in the Ezhovshchina. Conveniently, Shchadenko's office gave the percentage of the leadership permanently discharged in the purge, which allows a calculation of the total strength of the nachal'sostav (the military leadership) in the purge years. In 1937, [the military leadership] numbered 144,300, of whom 11,034 discharged for political reasons remained discharged as of May 1940, equaling 7.7% of the [military leadership]. In 1938 there were 179,000 leaders, of whom 6742 political dischargees were still discharged in May 1940, which equaled 3.7% of the [military leadership]; and in 1939 the Army had 282,300 leaders, 205 or .08% of whom were discharged for political reasons and remained discharged in May 1940. Because the Army stepped up officer procurement during the Ezhovshchina, and at a rate that outpaced discharges, it is extremely difficult to invent a statistic to describe the cumulative impact of the purge on the military, and Shchadenko's annual figures are probably the most definitive we will ever have. We face the same situation with the Red Air Force, which in 1937 had approximately 13,000 officers, lost 4724 in the purge, but had about 60,000 officers in 1940.
Getty and Manning. Stalinist Terror. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 199

And it is also important to note that the most number of the officers who were arrested,did confess.
Oh yeah, those confessing while being threatened and tortured -- we know how reliable those are under capitalism -- does that change after the revolution? Excuse me, comrade Omsk, does coercion bring about reliable confessions when "Marxist-Leniniststs" are doing the coercing?

As for the Military purges, they were, of course, top heavy:

"The purge of the army removed three of five Marshals (then equivalent to six-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to four- and five-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts), 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army Commisars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars." This is quoted from Wikipedia, but the source is Coquest, who is definitely a right-wing shit, but his numbers, where they could be verified in 1968, were reasonably accurate. His overall numbers on the purges were about 2.5x too high -- clarified when the NKVD archives were opened up in the 1990s.

So Stalin purged the best, most experienced commanders. Always a good move on the eve of a major war. We've danced this dance before, Omsk. Stalin survived because he had at his disposal the might of the Soviet Workers State -- he almost blew it -- the war was almost lost -- because of Stalin's lack of preparation for the invasion that his intelligence told him was coming.

Can one man lose a war? When he is head of state? Yes. Humans make history comrades, but not under the conditions of their own choosing.

[Grenzer]

Didn't the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact give half of Poland to Germany? :confused:

That is a common misconception. The terms of the agreement stated that if Germany were to invade, they would only occupy a certain part of the country. When the Germans invaded, it was unsurprising that they actually attempted to go beyond the agreed upon point. The Polish government had actually fled at the point of the German invasion and the country was in chaos more or less with isolated units attempting to resist the Germans. It was under these conditions that the Red Army entered Poland, where in many places they were actually welcomed. Furthermore, the remaining Polish troops for the most part simply let them in, as opposed to resisting as they did with the Germans. Given the circumstances, it is hard to say that it was an act of imperialism.

In addition, the Soviet Union was praised by the West for this action, in fact the Soviets movement into Poland was not historically revised as an act of war and aggression until much later.

Another element that seems strangely ignored in the Molotov-Ribbentrop debate is the issue of Poland's own policy. They had been engaged in a nonaggression pact with both Germany and the Soviet Union, but no one has ever claimed that they were allies. In addition, under the non-aggression pact with Germany, Poland invaded and annexed part of Czechoslovakia, so clearly it's not like Poland is just a victim either.

There is plenty of shit you can pin on Stalin and the Soviets, but surprisingly, this doesn't seem to be one of them.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A lot of other great things increased under Stalin.
Before 1917, schools costs money and 180,000 got educated each year. And only 15% of the Russian empire population could read & write.
In 1940 Stalin announced that illiteracy was eliminated and in 1959 (6 years after Stalins death, but still) 2,150,000 got educated each year for free! Jobs after their education were provided by the state.

Students also got a reasonable amount of money from the state.
This is something I find important =)


Source: http://unilorin.edu.ng/journals/education/ije/feb1981/EDUCATION%20IN%20THE%20USSR.pdf

So you like Social Democracy, then?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It's you who think Stalin was more than he actually was. Blaming him for everything and calling everything negative as "Stalinism". If he was the Dr. Evil as you see him... then he was probably an "action figure hero" too.
Naaaaaahhh. Stalin was not responsible for the Bubonic Plague among lots of other negative things. As I said in my earlier post -- he was able to do what he did because of the conditions of the time and place he found himself. That being said he was one evil motherfucker. He represented the conservatizing tendencies of the bureaucracy -- that was ruling a peasant country with proletarian property forms -- this included nationalism -- maybe his biggest crime. He could not have done it alone and he could not have done it under any conditions. He was a three dimensional, real live piece of shit.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Stalin is one of the most controversial subjects on this forum, and that's precisely why I fray away from these sort of topics.

[Omsk]

Oh yeah, those confessing while being threatened and tortured -- we know how reliable those are under capitalism -- does that change after the revolution? Excuse me, comrade Omsk, does coercion bring about reliable confessions when "Marxist-Leniniststs" are doing the coercing?




No tortue was being used in the questioning.

But,i doubt you would simply take my word for it,here is a relevant part from a work with a cite: (Harold Denny, in the New York Times, January 15, 1939, wrote: "In almost five years residence, trying to learn the facts, I have found no evidence which I consider trustworthy that physical torture is applied to prisoners. I am convinced that there does not occur, unless in isolated and exceptional instances, the sadistic cruelties reported from German prison camps or even the beating with rubber hoses bestowed, as every American police reporter knows, in the back rooms of many American police stations.")
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 134

The commanders were strong men,trained to resist pain and to fight their 'enemy' to the end,so the use of torture was probably useless.
Some two weeks passed from the arrest of the main commanders and the trial itself,and two weeks is hardly the period of time needed to 'brake' the minds of these people. And another point - the people involved with the trials were for the better part the former comrades of those arrested,not just faceless bureaucrats,but people who the accused generals had at least a gram of trust.



This is quoted from Wikipedia, but the source is Coquest, who is definitely a right-wing shit, but his numbers, where they could be verified in 1968, were reasonably accurate. His overall numbers on the purges were about 2.5x too high


Not quite,his number were horrible - he suggested that some 50% of the main officers were arrested,which is absurd.But that is not the point - the point is that the military purge had little to do with the combat effectiveness of the Red Army.


Always a good move on the eve of a major war

The main process was under-way and even over long before WWII.

[Bostana]

Britain didn't help? The British send a total of 897,000 men in 1939, which became 1,650,000 by June 1940. How is that not support? And not only that, the British also blockaded much of Germany's coastal regions.

They didn't do a good job.
Because Hitler controlled France and was on his way to England, and they could of saved a lot of lives and time if they weren't stubborn enough to sign that treaty. England, France and the USSR combined could of easily taken down the German Juggernaut.



So a building up a strong defense was the best course of action.
Obviously not, because again Hitler owned 1/3 of Europe already and killed 42,00 British civilians during the Bombing of London. So yeah, looks like that the defense plan didn't work so well huh? The only defense that would've worked is if they signed that tri-military alliance with the Soviet Union



I was referring to Poland, which, as you may know, is pretty hard to sail to, especially when Germany will be shooting at you along the way..

Again I am referring to the Triple-Military Treaty that Stalin offered in case of war. As said earlier, those three militarys combined could have easily and quickly taken down the Nazis. The treaty was actually based on defense too. If Germany was to attack Poland, France, England, or the USSR the the countries would have launched a counter attack to end the war.

I am bringing up the treaty a lot because it would have helped Europe........A LOT

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No tortue was being used in the questioning.

But,i doubt you would simply take my word for it,here is a relevant part from a work with a cite: (Harold Denny, in the New York Times, January 15, 1939, wrote: "In almost five years residence, trying to learn the facts, I have found no evidence which I consider trustworthy that physical torture is applied to prisoners. I am convinced that there does not occur, unless in isolated and exceptional instances, the sadistic cruelties reported from German prison camps or even the beating with rubber hoses bestowed, as every American police reporter knows, in the back rooms of many American police stations.")
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 134

The commanders were strong men,trained to resist pain and to fight their 'enemy' to the end,so the use of torture was probably useless.
Some two weeks passed from the arrest of the main commanders and the trial itself,and two weeks is hardly the period of time needed to 'brake' the minds of these people. And another point - the people involved with the trials were for the better part the former comrades of those arrested,not just faceless bureaucrats,but people who the accused generals had at least a gram of trust.



Not quite,his number were horrible - he suggested that some 50% of the main officers were arrested,which is absurd.But that is not the point - the point is that the military purge had little to do with the combat effectiveness of the Red Army.



The main process was under-way and even over long before WWII.
Sorry Omsk, I don't take Anna L. Strong's word for it either. What special info did she have? It was her impression. Well, I have no first-hand information that blacks in the US ghettos are terrorized, so maybe they aren't. I don't know what happens in Syrian prisons, so I guess they must treat their prisoners well. In order to get hundreds of thousands of spurious confessions, comrade, coercion is necessary. Since you take the Stalinist fairy tale of hundreds of thousands of saboteurs seriously, it doesn't sound ridiculous to you. To me it is beyond absurd.

Yes the overall numbers Conquest gave for the purges were way too high. However there was not good documentation. As for the purging of the Soviet High Command, it was well documented. Do you dispute the numbers I put up in my last post, taken from Wikipedia? If not, then it raises many questions. I don't know how you can say it had no effect on Soviet combat readiness or performance -- how the hell would you know that? It seems to me that when you throw away almost all of your top commanders right before a war, that's not exactly good. Especially when it is for bullshit political reasons.

Maybe because I am so old, I don't think of two to three years as "long before" -- the world knew war was coming soon.

[Prinskaj]

They didn't do a good job.
Because Hitler controlled France and was on his way to England, and they could of saved a lot of lives and time if they weren't stubborn enough to sign that treaty. England, France and the USSR combined could of easily taken down the German Juggernaut.
So them not doing, what you perceive to be, "a good job" makes the support that you said wasn't given nonexistent?
I can find much information on the topic of this treaty that you mention, could you please provide some sources for it, I would like to know more about it.


Obviously not, because again Hitler owned 1/3 of Europe already and killed 42,00 British civilians during the Bombing of London. So yeah, looks like that the defense plan didn't work so well huh? The only defense that would've worked is if they signed that tri-military alliance with the Soviet Union
Thank captain hindsight for your brilliant strategic planning..
But in all seriousness, the scale was tipped heavily in Germany's favor doing the invasion, since France had a huge lack of manpower in relation to it's total population, it was so bad that it was only half of Germany's. So simply saying that they "didn't do a good job" is ignoring the material conditions at the time.


Again I am referring to the Triple-Military Treaty that Stalin offered in case of war. As said earlier, those three militarys combined could have easily and quickly taken down the Nazis. The treaty was actually based on defense too. If Germany was to attack Poland, France, England, or the USSR the the countries would have launched a counter attack to end the war.
And again, I am not very familiar with the treaty.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

With regard to giving credit where it is due I'll say this: Stalin wasn't able to lose the war with Germany -- almost, but not quite. His ham-fisted, reactive, desperate disorganized policies regarding industrialization worked well enough. But it really was the heroic Soviet Proletariat that won this war, not Stalin.

The reason the Soviets won the battle of Stalingrad, ultimately hinged on their espionage -- the Germans were ready to fight their way out of being surrounded -- The Soviet Commander met with the German commander and demonstrated that he had more detailed information on the German forces and their movements than did his German counterpart. On the spot, the German commander surrendered.

[daft punk]

I thought we had this discussion before.The purge in the army sector was not of a huge scale,and the number of the purged commanders was indeed small.It had little to do with the effective combat power of the Red Army,which was a force and structure on it's own.



The purge of the army removed three of five marshals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_of_the_Soviet_Union) (then equivalent to six-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to four- and five-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts),[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#cite_note-FOOTNOTEConquest2008211-29) 50 of 57 army corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps) commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissar), and 25 of 28 army corps commissars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Purge_of_the_army

Small in overall numbers but high among the tops.

However his biggest mistake early on was ignoring the spies eg Trepper etc who told him the Germans were about to invade.

[Bostana]

So them not doing, what you perceive to be, "a good job" makes the support that you said wasn't given nonexistent?
The French and British Military could of easily taken out the Nazi Juggernaut in a matter of time. Them holding back only gave Germany time to rebuild their army and strengthen it.


I can find much information on the topic of this treaty that you mention, could you please provide some sources for it, I would like to know more about it.
Here is a good Link that gives good examples from a non-bias view of both the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and the Pact Stalin introduced to England and France.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSnazipact.htm




Thank captain hindsight for your brilliant strategic planning..
Thank You I do try my best
:D
But I want you to think about the pact Stalin introduced. With Britain and France's refusal to sign the treaty then it shows that they were not willing to be prepared for a war if it does come along.

[Prinskaj]

The French and British Military could of easily taken out the Nazi Juggernaut in a matter of time. Them holding back only gave Germany time to rebuild their army and strengthen it.
As I have pointed out, the Saar Offensive was launched on the 7. September 1939, which was crushed by the Germans, so clearly this couldn't be done "easily".


Here is a good Link that gives good examples from a non-bias view of both the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and the Pact Stalin introduced to England and France.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSnazipact.htm
Thank you, I will check this out a bit later.


But I want you to think about the pact Stalin introduced. With Britain and France's refusal to sign the treaty then it shows that they were not willing to be prepared for a war if it does come along. From just quickly looking though the text you linked, it seemed to portray the reasons for declining the treaty as being that of not trusting the USSR, which could be a slightly justifiable position for the people at the time, since the Russians properly still didn't exactly love the allied forces after their intervention in the Russian Civil War.

[João Jerónimo]

Some people chose to 'teamwork' with Stalin, a lot ended up in gulags with their entire families murdered...
And some were admired by Stalin because of their willing to defend their opinions until the end. Amond them, some were later expelled from the Central Comittee by bootlicker krutchov.

JJ.

[Geiseric]

i think this could all of been avoided if the KPD didn't take such god awful political positions in a time where Germany was becoming Revolutionary. The KPD should have played the same role towards the Nazis as the Black Panthers would towards the KKK. More or less, the KPD was incapible because of purges, assassinations, and other things that could have been avoided on part of Cominten. To think that no mistakes were made in regards to international communist politics would be rediculous, and I'm sure that the Stalinists can admit to that.

[dodger]

From just quickly looking though the text you linked, it seemed to portray the reasons for declining the treaty as being that of not trusting the USSR, which could be a slightly justifiable position for the people at the time, since the Russians properly still didn't exactly love the allied forces after their intervention in the Russian Civil War.

I think we can agree that Churchill, for reasons of protecting Empire, pushed hard for alliance. He never wavered from the view that war was avoidable. I cannot think that Stalin or Churchill would have allowed the War of Intervention to cloud more immediate tasks. That is Grand Alliance. Hitler did not need a pact with the USSR to go to war, he merely needed there be NO pact against him. That's the difference. Some 80% of British people polled 1939, wished for a Grand Alliance to preserve peace. This puts the motives of Chamberlain and France in a dim light at the very least.

[Omsk]

Lev,there are a number of questions worth focusing on:

1.) Where the pugred commander really the best? - No. The "Deep" combat plans were good on paper,but in reality,the Soviet tanks and planes were not that ready.Especially when fighting a war on a huge front.

2.) How did the small number of officers who got removed (Some of them were later on brought back.) really affect the gigantic machine of the Red Army?

3.) Is it speculation when we suggest that the purged commanders would have made a difference in a war in which many millions fought?

4.) What would have happened if the Marxist-Leninist party got removed?

5.) Why was the Red Army still one of the best armed and led armies? (Not to mention the huge number of good high-ranking commanders.)

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Lev,there are a number of questions worth focusing on:

1.) Where the pugred commander really the best? - No. The "Deep" combat plans were good on paper,but in reality,the Soviet tanks and planes were not that ready.Especially when fighting a war on a huge front.

2.) How did the small number of officers who got removed (Some of them were later on brought back.) really affect the gigantic machine of the Red Army?

3.) Is it speculation when we suggest that the purged commanders would have made a difference in a war in which many millions fought?

4.) What would have happened if the Marxist-Leninist party got removed?

5.) Why was the Red Army still one of the best armed and led armies? (Not to mention the huge number of good high-ranking commanders.)
It does not seem far fetched that if you remove almost the entire top command of the combined soviet armed forces it would tend to weaken rather than strengthen them. But neither you nor I can, with absolute certainty, answer that one. I'm with you on not wanting counter-revolution. In that case revolutionaries stop caring who wins. But the idea that 90 percent of the top commanders were saboteurs is again, a lame fairy tale. It does not make any sense and never did. You swallow that Stalinist kool aid, most of us do not. Since you do the rest follows - if they are saboteurs, they must be removed. Also if they are gremlins or hobgoblins:rolleyes:. So a revolutionary leadership in the war not only would have defeated the Germans, but would have ushered in a period of world revolution, rather than working hard to help stabilize post-war Europe -- Stalin's legacy.

[Geiseric]

Lev,there are a number of questions worth focusing on:

1.) Where the pugred commander really the best? - No. The "Deep" combat plans were good on paper,but in reality,the Soviet tanks and planes were not that ready.Especially when fighting a war on a huge front.

2.) How did the small number of officers who got removed (Some of them were later on brought back.) really affect the gigantic machine of the Red Army?

3.) Is it speculation when we suggest that the purged commanders would have made a difference in a war in which many millions fought?

4.) What would have happened if the Marxist-Leninist party got removed?

5.) Why was the Red Army still one of the best armed and led armies? (Not to mention the huge number of good high-ranking commanders.)

Zhukov who invaded Berlin was in a Gulag, you toad. He's the one who won Stalingrad and invaded Germany, not Stalin.

Yes of course it does, look at the fucking winter war in Finland! The red army was a mess without its Russian Civil War veterans. Tutchakeveky was a fucking genious, but he was killed.

It isn't speculation, it's how military affairs work! You need experianced people to lead and organize a war. Stalin killed the experianced people. Thus the red army was at irst incapible untill many of the disgraced officers were asked to come back. Like Zhukov.

The 4th point is useless, i'm not going to reply to that.

Of course it was, however that has more to do with Trotsky who organized the Red Army than it does with Stalin. Trotsky started and organized the Red Army and led it to win the Civil War. Stalin purged and collapsed the Red Army, then told it to Occupy Poland in a year before he thought the Nazis were going to invade. Stalin was a military twat, he ruined the Polish campaign as well.

[Bostana]

As I have pointed out, the Saar Offensive was launched on the 7. September 1939, which was crushed by the Germans, so clearly this couldn't be done "easily".

Again, if England and France would have signed the treaty that Stalin introduced it would have been over in a matter of Month. The Saar Offensive was easily crushed because it was done by the French alone there was no other real support from any country. I know I am annoying you with this treaty thing but despite the treaty itself them not signing it shows the two nations were unwilling to go to war if such a thing would happen. With them denying the treaty it showed that they were not only unwilling but 'foolish' as well. Considering the fact that they new that Nazi Germany was a threat to the two coutnries and all of Europe as that and yet refused to prepare for it.


From just quickly looking though the text you linked, it seemed to portray the reasons for declining the treaty as being that of not trusting the USSR

As I said non-bias. It also shows it was at the same time stupid for the British and French to decline the treaty. It gives us a quote from Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister at the time, that urged the two nations to accept the offer. It was still declined:

Ten or twelve days have already passed since the Russian offer was made. The British people, who have now, at the sacrifice of honoured, ingrained custom, accepted the principle of compulsory military service, have a right, in conjunction with the French Republic, to call upon Poland not to place obstacles in the way of a common cause. Not only must the full co-operation of Russia be accepted, but the three Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, must also be brought into association. To these three countries of warlike peoples, possessing together armies totalling perhaps twenty divisions of virile troops, a friendly Russia supplying munitions and other aid is essential.
There is no means of maintaining an eastern front against Nazi aggression without the active aid of Russia. Russian interests are deeply concerned in preventing Herr Hitler's designs on eastern Europe. It should still be possible to range all the States and peoples from the Baltic to the Black sea in one solid front against a new outrage of invasion. Such a front, if established in good heart, and with resolute and efficient military arrangements, combined with the strength of the Western Powers, may yet confront Hitler, Goering, Himmler, Ribbentrop, Goebbels and co. with forces the German people would be reluctant to challenge.

[Geiseric]

Why did Stalin need the Allies support when the Nazis were going to partition Poland? He should have been pre-emptive towards the Nazis and not waited untill they inevitably invaded. Times like that are too crucial to ignore your top military advisors, like Zhukov.

None of this explains how there were Panzer factories in the U.S.S.R. either.

[Omsk]

Zhukov who invaded Berlin was in a Gulag, you toad. He's the one who won Stalingrad and invaded Germany, not Stalin.


He was a commander,and a traitor who deserved his fate.


Yes of course it does, look at the fucking winter war in Finland! The red army was a mess without its Russian Civil War veterans. Tutchakeveky was a fucking genious, but he was killed.


Ugh,as i could have guessed,you have no clue what you are talking about,as usual.

The winter war had nothing to do with the purges,but the actual conditions,and the good defense the Fascist regime set up.

- "Unlike the Maginot Line, the Mannerheim positions are not a string of great fortresses, the loss of any one of which would rob its defenders of enormous strength.
They are rather a series of trench and machine-gun positions ranged behind waves of anti-tank barriers made of granite blocks. Only a small part is formed of concrete gun positions and pill- boxes. The waves of defences stretch right back across the twenty miles from Summa to Viipuri".
(‘Daily Express', 21 February 1940; p. 6).

"These fortifications consisted of an advanced zone, three to eight miles deep, along the Soviet border, containing pillboxes and blockhouses, equipped with machine guns, anti-tank guns and field artillery, and guarded by tank traps, barbed wire and land mines. A second zone -- the main one -- ran in a wide arc from its western anchor', Koivisto fortress. .
This zone was narrower along the eastern . . . sector (about two miles) and much wider (six or seven miles) in the centre and on the gulf sector. It consisted mainly of ferro-concrete fortifications armed with heavier artillery, each fort capable of independent defensive action. The larger forts measured some 30 by 50 feet with walls five feet thick, often protected with armour plate and embedded in the ground to depths reaching 25 feet. All were protected by traps, mines, wire and trenches.
The important railroad junction of Viipuri, with its five railroad lines, was protected by a special fortified zone (the third zone) some 25 miles in circumference. Further west were two separate fortified zones -- Helsinki and Turku".
(W. P. & Z. K. Coates: 'The Soviet Finnish Campaign: Military and Political: 1939-1940'; London; 1940; op. 17-18).

Not to mention the huge number of western military experts,who commented on the strategic power of the line:

"It is quite probable that the Red Army will never breach the Mannerheim Line in the Karelian Isthmus".
('Times', 19 December 1939; p. 8).

"As an old campaigner in Finland, I can state that it will be almost impossible for the Russians to break through the Mannerheim defences by a frontal attack".
('Daily Telegraph', 27 January 1940; p. 1)

"Even in the unlikely case that the Russians were able to get a hold on some of the advanced positions in the Mannerheim Line, they would still have an almost impregnable chain of strong points to overrun before they were through"
('Times', 13 February 1940; p. 6).

Than,the horrible winter,which had nothing to do with a handfull of officers who were executed a lot of time before the war.
"Just now the operations in the far north around Petsamo are for the most part being conducted in darkness; while in the centre, opposite the head of the Gulf of Bothnia, daylight is only a matter of a couple of hours of twilight at midday".
('Times', 22 December 1939; p. 7).

"The roads were so slippery that our car skidded into the ditch three times, which delayed us considerably but gave us a small idea of what the mechanised Russian units were up against".
('Sunday Times', 4 February 1940; p. 11).

"Blizzards driving across the Karelian Isthmus and Lake Ladoga have come again to the aid of the Finns in their bitter and gruelling fight to maintain their positions in the Mannerheim Line. . . . Riding and skiing are reduced to the minimum, and almost every sort of transport is at a standstill".
('Times', 23 February 1940; p. 8).

Not only that,but the imperialist governments of the West also gave a lot of support to the Finnish armies,and,as Chamberlaine himself said:

"No appeal that was made to us by the Finnish Government remained unanswered". (Parliamentary Debates, 5th Series, Volume 358; op. cit.; col. 1,835).


It isn't speculation, it's how military affairs work! You need experianced people to lead and organize a war. Stalin killed the experianced people. Thus the red army was at irst incapible untill many of the disgraced officers were asked to come back. Like Zhukov.


So you are saying that less than 7% were experianced ? So you are saying that the Red Army officer core was full of people who had no skill?This is beyond ridiculous.



Of course it was, however that has more to do with Trotsky who organized the Red Army than it does with Stalin. Trotsky started and organized the Red Army and led it to win the Civil War. Stalin purged and collapsed the Red Army, then told it to Occupy Poland in a year before he thought the Nazis were going to invade. Stalin was a military twat, he ruined the Polish campaign as well.


So much wrong in just a couple of lines.

Next time,either come up with a response,or stay silent.



It does not seem far fetched that if you remove almost the entire top command of the combined soviet armed forces it would tend to weaken rather than strengthen them. But neither you nor I can, with absolute certainty, answer that one. I'm with you on not wanting counter-revolution. In that case revolutionaries stop caring who wins. But the idea that 90 percent of the top commanders were saboteurs is again, a lame fairy tale. It does not make any sense and never did. You swallow that Stalinist kool aid, most of us do not. Since you do the rest follows - if they are saboteurs, they must be removed. Also if they are gremlins or hobgoblinshttp://www.revleft.com/vb/defending-stalin-t170572/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif. So a revolutionary leadership in the war not only would have defeated the Germans, but would have ushered in a period of world revolution, rather than working hard to help stabilize post-war Europe -- Stalin's legacy.


This argument boils down to - 'Your a Marxist-Leninist,i will just ignore everything.'

[Anderson]

Comrade Stalin will always be remembered for Leading the first working class state to massive progress from a under developed state to a super power, building planned economy and showing what working class can achieve unitedly as a class.:)
Capitalists feared him, fascists lost the war to the Red Army under his leadership.

Marxism is a science. We keep learning and improving our weapons against capitalists using it.

Understanding degeneration of the party members of CPSU, infiltration of bourgeois in the party and taking eventually capitalist, imperialist path by USSR if done without contribution of MAO is never going to lead us anywhere.

Searching for right path of USSR between Stalin and Trotsty is not the right approach as none of them or Lenin conceptualised the origin of forces and victory of capitalists after socialist victory. As pointed out by Mao the capitalists take back power through the communist party under a false cloak of being communists. Stalin fought these elements but failed as he underestimated the danger from within the party, and likely his efforts should have much more fierce as by Mao who also later failed in China.:(

[Prinskaj]

Again, if England and France would have signed the treaty that Stalin introduced it would have been over in a matter of Month. The Saar Offensive was easily crushed because it was done by the French alone there was no other real support from any country.
As I have previously noted, the British did send quite a bit of support to France, and if they with that force couldn't even hold their ground, then their hopes of victory by invasion would be short lived. On the other hand, if the Soviet Union had come to the allied forces rescue, then victory would have been certain from the get go.


I know I am annoying you with this treaty thing but despite the treaty itself them not signing it shows the two nations were unwilling to go to war if such a thing would happen. With them denying the treaty it showed that they were not only unwilling but 'foolish' as well. Considering the fact that they new that Nazi Germany was a threat to the two countries and all of Europe as that and yet refused to prepare for it.
I understand your frustration with the allied forces not signing the treaty, and I agree that things would have ended up a lot better if it had been signed. (At least with my current knowledge of the treaty.)
But I would like to know what you think would have been the best course of action given that the treaty wasn't signed?


That's the difference. Some 80% of British people polled 1939, wished for a Grand Alliance to preserve peace.
Could you please provide a source for this figure, I am very interested in this.

[Geiseric]

He was a commander,and a traitor who deserved his fate.



Ugh,as i could have guessed,you have no clue what you are talking about,as usual.

The winter war had nothing to do with the purges,but the actual conditions,and the good defense the Fascist regime set up.

- "Unlike the Maginot Line, the Mannerheim positions are not a string of great fortresses, the loss of any one of which would rob its defenders of enormous strength.
They are rather a series of trench and machine-gun positions ranged behind waves of anti-tank barriers made of granite blocks. Only a small part is formed of concrete gun positions and pill- boxes. The waves of defences stretch right back across the twenty miles from Summa to Viipuri".
(‘Daily Express', 21 February 1940; p. 6).

"These fortifications consisted of an advanced zone, three to eight miles deep, along the Soviet border, containing pillboxes and blockhouses, equipped with machine guns, anti-tank guns and field artillery, and guarded by tank traps, barbed wire and land mines. A second zone -- the main one -- ran in a wide arc from its western anchor', Koivisto fortress. .
This zone was narrower along the eastern . . . sector (about two miles) and much wider (six or seven miles) in the centre and on the gulf sector. It consisted mainly of ferro-concrete fortifications armed with heavier artillery, each fort capable of independent defensive action. The larger forts measured some 30 by 50 feet with walls five feet thick, often protected with armour plate and embedded in the ground to depths reaching 25 feet. All were protected by traps, mines, wire and trenches.
The important railroad junction of Viipuri, with its five railroad lines, was protected by a special fortified zone (the third zone) some 25 miles in circumference. Further west were two separate fortified zones -- Helsinki and Turku".
(W. P. & Z. K. Coates: 'The Soviet Finnish Campaign: Military and Political: 1939-1940'; London; 1940; op. 17-18).

Not to mention the huge number of western military experts,who commented on the strategic power of the line:

"It is quite probable that the Red Army will never breach the Mannerheim Line in the Karelian Isthmus".
('Times', 19 December 1939; p. 8).

"As an old campaigner in Finland, I can state that it will be almost impossible for the Russians to break through the Mannerheim defences by a frontal attack".
('Daily Telegraph', 27 January 1940; p. 1)

"Even in the unlikely case that the Russians were able to get a hold on some of the advanced positions in the Mannerheim Line, they would still have an almost impregnable chain of strong points to overrun before they were through"
('Times', 13 February 1940; p. 6).

Than,the horrible winter,which had nothing to do with a handfull of officers who were executed a lot of time before the war.
"Just now the operations in the far north around Petsamo are for the most part being conducted in darkness; while in the centre, opposite the head of the Gulf of Bothnia, daylight is only a matter of a couple of hours of twilight at midday".
('Times', 22 December 1939; p. 7).

"The roads were so slippery that our car skidded into the ditch three times, which delayed us considerably but gave us a small idea of what the mechanised Russian units were up against".
('Sunday Times', 4 February 1940; p. 11).

"Blizzards driving across the Karelian Isthmus and Lake Ladoga have come again to the aid of the Finns in their bitter and gruelling fight to maintain their positions in the Mannerheim Line. . . . Riding and skiing are reduced to the minimum, and almost every sort of transport is at a standstill".
('Times', 23 February 1940; p. 8).

Not only that,but the imperialist governments of the West also gave a lot of support to the Finnish armies,and,as Chamberlaine himself said:

"No appeal that was made to us by the Finnish Government remained unanswered". (Parliamentary Debates, 5th Series, Volume 358; op. cit.; col. 1,835).



So you are saying that less than 7% were experianced ? So you are saying that the Red Army officer core was full of people who had no skill?This is beyond ridiculous.



So much wrong in just a couple of lines.

Next time,either come up with a response,or stay silent.



This argument boils down to - 'Your a Marxist-Leninist,i will just ignore everything.'

The Soviet forces had more than three times as many soldiers as the Finns, thirty times as many aircraft, and a hundred times as many tanks. The Red Army, however, had been crippled by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's Great Purge of 1937, reducing the army's morale and efficiency shortly before the outbreak of the fighting.[27] With more than 30,000 of its army officers executed or imprisoned, including most of those of the highest ranks, the Red Army in 1939 had many inexperienced senior officers.[28][29] Because of these factors, and high commitment and morale in the Finnish forces, Finland was able to resist the Soviet invasion for far longer than the Soviets expected.[30] <-- You've quoted wikipedia before so there you go.

I'm not surprised that the times and the other sources were skeptical of the Soviets, they're from western countries thus have a sense of Cheuvanism that supported the U.S's superiority complex.

Anyways take a gander at this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullervo_Manner

[dodger]

Could you please provide a source for this figure, I am very interested in this.

https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.co.uk%2Freview%2FR1ZP3 61OSXWSK1&ei=58qUT4vnF8SbiQKW4sUs&usg=AFQjCNECvRIPV-KwgCh3h4ocCa7-WseaDg

This fine book is, sadly, Alistair Parker's last work, as he died earlier this year. His other books are Chamberlain and appeasement, published in1993, and The Second World War: a short history, revised edition, 1997. They make an excellent contribution to understanding the causes, and course, of the Second World War. Parker concludes that Churchill's proposed Grand Alliance 'might have stopped Hitler' and 'could have prevented the Second World War'. A Triple Alliance would have faced Hitler with a united front, and the immediate risk of war on two fronts. Churchill always said that the Second World War was an unnecessary war. We can agree with this, adding only that the First World War and all other international wars were too! Before the Second World War, the British 'National' government sacrificed China to Japan, Ethiopia to Mussolini, Spain to Franco, Austria and Czechoslovakia to Hitler, and then Albania to Mussolini. It turned the League of Nations into a universal Non-Intervention Committee, encouraging the Axis powers to pick off their victims one by one. To halt this serial killing of nations, the Soviet government continually proposed a Triple Alliance of Britain, France and the Soviet Union.

A Gallup poll in April 1939 showed that 87% of the British people also wanted this.

In response, the British government repeatedly suggested to the Soviet Union that it make unilateral independent declarations of support for the victims of Axis aggression. This was designed to isolate the Soviet Union and provoke Hitler. Parker claims that Chamberlain did not accept 'the free hand in the East for Hitler' that had been the basis of British government policy since 1933. But the evidence shows that in 1939 Chamberlain used the Ukraine as bait to entice Hitler to attack the Soviet Union, just as he had used the Sudetenland to entice him to seize Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain, whom the French nicknamed Monsieur J'aime Berlin, and his Foreign Secretary Halifax, known as the holy fox, thought a Triple Alliance would make both war, and Britain's participation, inevitable. But in fact, their alternative policy, of colluding with Hitler, produced the war.

Other sources quote 92% Prinskaj, provided the lower figure. Common currency. Not at home so cannot source original. thanks

[Geiseric]

We as communists shouldn't take sides in Bourgeois wars. Fascist germany was out of control from the begining and should have been invaded by the U.S.S.R.

A war was going to happen, just look at Spain. It's not too long at that point untill it goes elsewhere. The brits and french government used the Nazis to kill the Communists, thus we should try to side with the british and french against the nazis?

Makes total sense. The industrialised U.S.S.R. should have invaded before Hitler had time to build up in Poland. They should have refused the pact entirely and uatdone a pre-emptive strike against the international enemy of the working class. It was a do or die scenario and the centrist Stalinist leadership blew it.

This next bit is interesting, Instead they sent the Raw Materials to Germany and recieved military, industrial, and civilian technology to the U.S.S.R. in the same way that Trotsky planned to do with a Post Revolutionary Germany! Only this one was Fascist and was probably going to invade.

By coincidence, the CP in Germany was partially responsible for Hitler's rise to power, because of policies that Stalinist Comintern forced on them, at a time when the U.S.S.R. was trying to improve relations with the Allies, who also helped the Nazis rise to power! Sounds like a conspiracy...

[Omsk]

The Soviet forces had more than three times as many soldiers as the Finns, thirty times as many aircraft, and a hundred times as many tanks. The Red Army, however, had been crippled by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's Great Purge of 1937, reducing the army's morale and efficiency shortly before the outbreak of the fighting.[27] With more than 30,000 of its army officers executed or imprisoned, including most of those of the highest ranks, the Red Army in 1939 had many inexperienced senior officers.[28][29] Because of these factors, and high commitment and morale in the Finnish forces, Finland was able to resist the Soviet invasion for far longer than the Soviets expected.[30] <-- You've quoted wikipedia before so there you go.

This is a big heap of nothing,as i have explained,the purge had little effect on the combat results of the Red Army,there were some more serious reasons for the tough period of the Winter war. I rarely quote wikipedia,because it's a horrible source.


We as communists shouldn't take sides in Bourgeois wars

You Trotskyites might hate the CCCP so much,but for communists,it's the absolute imperative to support the socialist-building workers state,against the right-wing capitalist dictatorship.


Fascist germany was out of control from the begining and should have been invaded by the U.S.S.R.


So you are saying that while Stalin completely destroyed the Red Army (He and the others made it what it was in the 1940 though,but a blind follower like you would not notice such things.) he should have invaded (Impossible.) Nazi Germany?


thus we should try to side with the british and french against the nazis?


In reality,Stalin outplayed both the Nazis and "Western democracies" - showing how much startegic and diplomatic skill he had.



The industrialised U.S.S.R. should have invaded before Hitler had time to build up in Poland. They should have refused the pact entirely and uatdone a pre-emptive strike against the international enemy of the working class. It was a do or die scenario and the centrist Stalinist leadership blew it.





And the "Western democracies" would have probably stood with Hitler.But the entire idea you are trying to present is more suited to the world of Sci-Fi.




By coincidence, the CP in Germany was partially responsible for Hitler's rise to power, because of policies that Stalinist Comintern forced on them, at a time when the U.S.S.R. was trying to improve relations with the Allies, who also helped the Nazis rise to power! Sounds like a conspiracy...


Nothing was forced on the KPD,as you could have learned if you read my post on the theory of social-fascism.

Not to mention you also have absolutely no proof that the KPD and the SPD would have won,and defeated the Nazis. All you can do is speculate.

[dodger]

We as communists shouldn't take sides in Bourgeois wars. Fascist germany was out of control from the begining and should have been invaded by the U.S.S.R.

Makes total sense. The industrialised U.S.S.R. should have invaded before Hitler had time to build up in Poland. They should have refused the pact entirely and uatdone a pre-emptive strike against the international enemy of the working class. It was a do or die scenario and the centrist Stalinist leadership blew it.



Syd have you ever heard the British answer to Blitzkrieg? "Sitzkrieg ! Stalin got his hands dirty, well they were a filthy old deck of cards. Your view that the Soviets should invade Germany would have entailed an invasion of Poland. This would have brought Britain and France into the war on the side of Hitler!!!!!!!!!!!
The Soviets would now be fighting "SYDSKRIEG". Oh! Crumbs! Not even Dodger has an answer to that. One would at least have to have the intelligence to put up a seaside deckchair. Rumania, Hungary, Turkey, Japan...even the good ol' boys(US) would make their move. Plenty of meat on the carcass.

The more I try to come to grips the sounder Stalin, Molotov and let's not forget Litvinov, look to me.

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

Or his failure to anticipate Germany's intent by underestimating Nazi aggression, or his destruction of the mid and high-level officers corps in the red Army that left the USSR militarily unprepared for an invasion, or his opportunistic and traitorous pact with Hitler that divide Poland.

Stalin's crimes of ambition and stupidity far outweigh anything good he may have done.

How dare he not be able to look into the future! The audacity!

[Psy]

A major problem was Stalin purging engineers that was developing secret weapons like the Bereznyak-Isayev-1 a rocket powered interceptor far ahead of anything the Nazis had yet with Russia's top rocket engineers in gulags development stalled, thus Stalin's purges held back USSR's technological advancements. Also Stalin scrapped development of the world's first super sonic rocket fighter simply because he though the war would be over before it was ready, ignoring the cold war to follow.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

This is a big heap of nothing,as i have explained,the purge had little effect on the combat results of the Red Army,there were some more serious reasons for the tough period of the Winter war. I rarely quote wikipedia,because it's a horrible source.



You Trotskyites might hate the CCCP so much,but for communists,it's the absolute imperative to support the socialist-building workers state,against the right-wing capitalist dictatorship.



So you are saying that while Stalin completely destroyed the Red Army (He and the others made it what it was in the 1940 though,but a blind follower like you would not notice such things.) he should have invaded (Impossible.) Nazi Germany?



In reality,Stalin outplayed both the Nazis and "Western democracies" - showing how much startegic and diplomatic skill he had.



And the "Western democracies" would have probably stood with Hitler.But the entire idea you are trying to present is more suited to the world of Sci-Fi.




Nothing was forced on the KPD,as you could have learned if you read my post on the theory of social-fascism.

Not to mention you also have absolutely no proof that the KPD and the SPD would have won,and defeated the Nazis. All you can do is speculate.
Omsk, I like that even though you are a Stalinist, you make some good points. But you've got it wrong --Trotskyites (sic) defended the USSR during WWII (Please! Read In Defense of Marxism by LDT -- you will not regret it). For example, unlike CPUSA members, members of the then Trotskyist SWPUSA, defended the USSR, but gave no support to the US, the British, the French, etc. The leadership of the Party went to jail for this.

Oh, and by the late 20s, no section of the Comintern had much latitude. You either toed the line from Moscow, or were purged. This most certainly was true in the KPD. Which, btw, had some serious ongoing factional battles in the early 20s, when that kind of thing was allowed.

[daft punk]

He was a commander,and a traitor who deserved his fate.


In what way was he a traitor?

From what I can gather his only crime was to be hugely popular, the most decorated general in Russian history. Of course that was not something Stalin would take too kindly to. After Stalin kicked the bucket he was made Deputy Defence Minister. The creep (Lavrently Beria)
who framed him for plundering German valuables was later executed by Khrushchev. While awaiting execution a general got so pissed off with all his wailing he stuffed a rag into his moth and shot him in the forehead. Nice one.

[daft punk]

Comrade Stalin will always be remembered for Leading the first working class state to massive progress from a under developed state to a super power, building planned economy and showing what working class can achieve unitedly as a class.:)

This is slightly incorrect. There was no class unity, the top bureaucrats lived like millionaires, dissenters were shot. When other countries had revolutions, eg Spain, Stalin crushed them. Or tried to. He wanted to establish capitalism in China and Eastern Europe etc, not socialism. He was a counter-revolutionary scumbag who's wife topped herself in disgust at his acts of anti-socialism.





Capitalists feared him,

No, they did deals with him, as he was trying to make sure Eastern Europe and China etc went capitalist.




fascists lost the war to the Red Army under his leadership.

It was thanks to Stalin that the fascists got into power and started the war.




Marxism is a science. We keep learning and improving our weapons against capitalists using it.

You have learned fuck all, sorry to say. If you think Stalin was in any way good you are completely deluded.



Understanding degeneration of the party members of CPSU, infiltration of bourgeois in the party and taking eventually capitalist, imperialist path by USSR if done without contribution of MAO is never going to lead us anywhere.


What is this shit? Where did these bourgeois spring from? I asked you that at the start of the thread and you ignored me.




Searching for right path of USSR between Stalin and Trotsty is not the right approach as none of them or Lenin conceptualised the origin of forces and victory of capitalists after socialist victory. As pointed out by Mao the capitalists take back power through the communist party under a false cloak of being communists. Stalin fought these elements but failed as he underestimated the danger from within the party, and likely his efforts should have much more fierce as by Mao who also later failed in China.:(

This is rubbish. It is like a simplistic twisted version of the reality Lenin and Trotsky were warning of in the 1920s. Yes, back then, when bourgeois elements existed, they crept into the party and threatened the revolution.

What did Stalin do when he took power in 1924 by suppressing Lenin's will? Did he fight them? He hopped into bed with them, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. He fought Trotsky, the revolutionary, by representing these bourgeois elements, who naturally hated Trotsky.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Zhukov who invaded Berlin was in a Gulag, you toad. He's the one who won Stalingrad and invaded Germany, not Stalin.


He was a commander,and a traitor who deserved his fate.

Funny thing is that Georgy Zhukov was never in the Gulag. This is hilarious!

Amazing how fucked up children can get.

[kashkin]

But Rokossovski was, he was released in 1940.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

But Rokossovski was, he was released in 1940.

That's better. But this is a different person.

And he was in prison near Leningrad, not the Gulag:
The case against him collapsed; Rokossovsky was lucky enough to be sent to prison near Leningrad, rather than being shot or imprisoned in the Gulag."

(Helen Rappaport (1999). Joseph Stalin: A Biographical Companion. Santa Barbara, CA: ABL-CLIO. p. 229.)

Since Western sources generally don't bother to differentiate, we get the myth that he was in a Gulag camp.

Now, there was unprecedented repression under Stalin that a normal person cannot justify.

But something has to be said about the piling up of muck and bullshit on this forum - as it goes on here every day, in every thread.

[Omsk]

Omsk, I like that even though you are a Stalinist, you make some good points. But you've got it wrong --Trotskyites (sic) defended the USSR during WWII (Please! Read In Defense of Marxism by LDT -- you will not regret it). For example, unlike CPUSA members, members of the then Trotskyist SWPUSA, defended the USSR, but gave no support to the US, the British, the French, etc. The leadership of the Party went to jail for this.


Well,i was not about talking about the pre WW2 Trotskyists,but the current ones,some of which who are posting in this thread.

And do note that i was originally talking about the Winter War,between Finland and the CCCP.And the Trotskyite simply changed the subject to Nazi Germany,because he couldn't argue about Finland anymore.


Oh, and by the late 20s, no section of the Comintern had much latitude. You either toed the line from Moscow, or were purged. This most certainly was true in the KPD. Which, btw, had some serious ongoing factional battles in the early 20s, when that kind of thing was allowed.

Ernst Thalmann of the KPD was actually on his own line,and this included the focus on the theory of social-fascism,and the hostility toward the SPD. (Not to mention the SPD did not deserve to be regarded as a 'friendly' party. The KPD in general,passed trough a number of phases,the 'Luxemburg' one,the 'Leninist' one,and the quasi-ML one. It was a strong party,but it had serious ideological problems.



From what I can gather his only crime was to be hugely popular, the most decorated general in Russian history. Of course that was not something Stalin would take too kindly to. After Stalin kicked the bucket he was made Deputy Defence Minister.


He was one of the biggest supporters of Khrushchov and one of the men later purged by the new leadership.In that way he is a traitor. Some also claimed he had some Napoleonic tendencies,which is likely.He deserved his end,he was betrayed and was betrayed.Although it was a common pratice for the revisionist leadership of the CCCP under Khrushchov.



Funny thing is that Georgy Zhukov was never in the Gulag. This is hilarious!

Amazing how fucked up children can get.


What is this?

He was a traitor and he deserved his end,being removed from his posts,likely by the people who he helped destroy the CCCP.

[Anderson]

I noticed some forum member seems quite agitated at this thread.

:)Stalin is and will remain an important historical figure and he too had a huge role in the Russian revolution as well. A mature communist looks at things from a dialectical approach and evaluates both positives and negatives, only those who are weak in Marxist understanding can label Stalin as irrelevant and his contribution to be nil.

Obviously those ignorant of Mao's contribution look for all answers in Lenin and Trotsky.:thumbup:

If somebody writes something, there is a way to debate and a way to give counter arguments.
I don't think I care for comments by any 'intellectual' who uses fuck and shit in place of arguments, these words don't give any legitimacy to your arguments. Infact if any forum member or comrade is talking sense but uses such language I would love to ignore and ignore such person. :D

[daft punk]

Anderson, I have asked you the same question twice. It relates directly to your claim in the OP. If you dont try to answer it aft this 3rd attempt I will assume that you just read it somewhere and havent even thought about what it means.

[Grenzer]

:)Stalin is and will remain an important historical figure and he too had a huge role in the Russian revolution as well. A mature communist looks at things from a dialectical approach and evaluates both positives and negatives, only those who are weak in Marxist understanding can label Stalin as irrelevant and his contribution to be nil.

Obviously those ignorant of Mao's contribution look for all answers in Lenin and Trotsky.:thumbup:

This is complete rubbish.

First of all, dialectics is not a critical component of communism, or even Marxism. Your post is an excellent example of why dialectics is typically used as a form of myticism to obfuscate a rational and material analysis. Don't like Stalin? Then you must not be looking at his contributions "dialectically" enough!

While it is undeniable that Stalin is a significant historical figure, his theoretical contributions to Marxism or even Leninism are non-existant. Can you even name one theortical contribution Stalin made? Socialism in One Country doesn't count, as it's not even a theory. It's a statement of propaganda to hide the reality of how fucked the Soviet Union was after the failure of revolution to spread.

Mao made contributions all right, but probably not the kind you are thinking of. He was a petit-bourgeois chauvinist who completed the task of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in China. The Maoists never even made the pretense of genuine Marxism, going as far as to allow bourgeois into the CPC and refused to abolish de jure private property(At least Stalin had the sense to do this). Mao is notable only in a historical context and for his ideas on guerilla warfare; regarding communism, he is worse than useless. Deng's policy was merely the logical continuation of what Mao himself had begun.

There is no way Maoism can be considered a proletarian ideology in any sense. The doctrine of new democracy is used to justify bourgeois dictatorship and class collaboration. The only use in Maoism is in its ability to complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in countries with remnants of Feudalism. As such, it's unsurprising that Maoism is more or less entirely irrelevant within the communist movement today, and becomes less so with each passing day. Nepal's "revolution" is a fine example of this, where the Maoists simply swept aside the remnants of Feudalism and implemented a new bourgeois order with the so called "Prachanda Path" which follows in the footsteps of their predecessors, Mao and Deng Xiaoping.

You might as well be looking to Pol Pot for inspiration. Trotsky's intellect and theoretical contributions dwarf both Stalin and Mao, so of course it is eminently more logical to look to him for inspiration.

One of Stalin's most notable roles in the October Revolution was being against it in the beginning.. very important indeed.

[Omsk]

Hello Grenzer,let me just add up something here,and correct a few lines. (I hope you don't mind me using your old name,Enver Broxa is a bit silly.)



his theoretical contributions to Marxism or even Leninism are non-existant


Stalin never tried to present himself as the 'new Lenin' - he wrote little during the revolution,because during the period of the uprisings,he had a lot of work,work of different type,and he was also held in various Tzarist prisons. (Where he organized prison debate groups and where he taught the men the basics of Marxism and "Bolshevism" .) He saw himself as a figure which tried to stick,and did stick to the original theories of Vladimir Lenin,and to continue his work regarding the building of socialism in the CCCP.

After the revolution,however,he wrote a lot,only to be interupted by the huge conflicts that marked the 20th century,and which required all of his precious time.

Hes theoretical works are usually regarding the questions of Leninism,(I will not mention them,as i believe you heard of them.) than,there is "Marxism and Problems of Linquistics" , "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" . He wrote a lot about the national question also. He carried a heavy burden,and that inevitably caused a lot of harm to him. (And sometimes,prevented him from writing as much as Lenin.)

[Psy]

Hello Grenzer,let me just add up something here,and correct a few lines. (I hope you don't mind me using your old name,Enver Broxa is a bit silly.)



Stalin never tried to present himself as the 'new Lenin' - he wrote little during the revolution,because during the period of the uprisings,he had a lot of work,work of different type,and he was also held in various Tzarist prisons. (Where he organized prison debate groups and where he taught the men the basics of Marxism and "Bolshevism" .) He saw himself as a figure which tried to stick,and did stick to the original theories of Vladimir Lenin,and to continue his work regarding the building of socialism in the CCCP.

After the revolution,however,he wrote a lot,only to be interupted by the huge conflicts that marked the 20th century,and which required all of his precious time.

Hes theoretical works are usually regarding the questions of Leninism,(I will not mention them,as i believe you heard of them.) than,there is "Marxism and Problems of Linquistics" , "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" . He wrote a lot about the national question also. He carried a heavy burden,and that inevitably caused a lot of harm to him. (And sometimes,prevented him from writing as much as Lenin.)

The problem is Stalin's analysts were proved wrong, the capitalist powers didn't want to unite with the USSR against Hitler as long as Hitler was moving east, also the capitalist powers had no intention of honoring any agreement they made with the USSR thus Stalin throwing Italy and Greece to the CIA to honor Yalta agreement did nothing but weaken the USSR as NATO encircled the Warsaw Pact. If the USSR pursued a foreign policy of permanent revolution then and revolutions sprang up they would have been defended by the USSR, thus shortly after WWII Italy, Greece and Japan would have went communist.

[Omsk]

The problem is Stalin's analysts were proved wrong, the capitalist powers didn't want to unite with the USSR against Hitler as long as Hitler was moving east


Stalin knew that?That's what had such a big impact on Soviet foreign policy. (Pre-WWII.)


If the USSR pursued a foreign policy of permanent revolution then and revolutions sprang up they would have been defended by the USSR, thus shortly after WWII Italy, Greece and Japan would have went communist.

The "permanent revolution" can hardly be called a foreign policy,and this is all just hypothetical chatter,if you have any questions about his actual theoretical works,(Because diplomatic out-smarting is not theoretical work.) ask away.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

*yaaaaawn* Hero worship of paranoid megalomaniac

[Omsk]

If you haven't got anything worthwhile to share with us,don't post in this topic at all.

[Psy]

Stalin knew that?That's what had such a big impact on Soviet foreign policy. (Pre-WWII.)

Then why did Stalin care about what the "allies" were doing, why pressure them to open a second front when logically they only did so when the USSR broke through Nazi lines in the East which is when the "allies" scrambled to open a western front to gain territory from the Nazis from the USSR before it steam rolled through the Nazis. Why bother having the Yalta conference when the "allies" never honored it and just limited the USSR's ability to support revolution in Western Europe and Japan.



The "permanent revolution" can hardly be called a foreign policy,and this is all just hypothetical chatter,if you have any questions about his actual theoretical works,(Because diplomatic out-smarting is not theoretical work.) ask away.
Yes it is a foreign policy from Marx:

While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers.

Thus as a foreign policy is means the USSR after WWII would not accept Yalta as an outcome and push for a world revolution where workers rise up that after WWII was most of the world.

[JAM]

The problem is Stalin's analysts were proved wrong, the capitalist powers didn't want to unite with the USSR against Hitler as long as Hitler was moving east, also the capitalist powers had no intention of honoring any agreement they made with the USSR thus Stalin throwing Italy and Greece to the CIA to honor Yalta agreement did nothing but weaken the USSR as NATO encircled the Warsaw Pact. If the USSR pursued a foreign policy of permanent revolution then and revolutions sprang up they would have been defended by the USSR, thus shortly after WWII Italy, Greece and Japan would have went communist.

I understand your point about Greece but why Italy and Japan? The communist parties of this two countries preferred to follow a parliamentary/constitutional path instead of revolutionary struggle and in the case of Japan against Stalin's will.

It's also important to remember that those three countries were inside the American sphere of influence and Stalin couldn't afford a new war against the USA and put everything accomplished in SU at stake. He was an internationalist, no doubt about it, and supported revolutions outside USSR after the war as far as he could do it without compromising USSR achievements.

[Geiseric]

Stalin knew that?That's what had such a big impact on Soviet foreign policy. (Pre-WWII.)



The "permanent revolution" can hardly be called a foreign policy,and this is all just hypothetical chatter,if you have any questions about his actual theoretical works,(Because diplomatic out-smarting is not theoretical work.) ask away.

It's funny how you don't realize that the Russian Revolution proves Perminant Revolution to be correct, and that Lenin believed in it. It was simple opportunism and cozying up to the Imperialists that allowed for the USSR to be at a disadvantage of the inevitable Imperialist war.

Why would you trust capitalists for a second anyways? The entire Civil War AGAINST France and England in some way makes an alliance with them necessary? Why was the fSU in the League of Nations as well? Why did they support the "Disarmament," measures against the proletarian masses in Germany and eastern europe?

If Nazi Germany was invaded, the Allies would of been in no position to attack Europe. It took the U.S. and England untill about 1944 before they could prepare D-Day!

What major theoretical works did Stalin write during 1917 that may of showed what his politics were? Maybe newspapers that he edited at the time, I'd love to see some of those.

I'm under the impression that he took a position contrary to Lenin's as of March, a stance that could be described at the time as "Social Patriot," and as not antagonistic at all towards the Provisional Government. In fact it was saying that the Bolsheviks should meerly play as the "Left Opposition," to the PG, a position that would of been disasterous if carried on any longer than it was.

[Omsk]

I won't even waste my time on your hypothetical questions and pointless baseless speculations.

I will just correct some of your mistakes that come from being a blind Trotskyist.



What major theoretical works did Stalin write during 1917 that may of showed what his politics were?


During 1917 he wrote some 81 larger pieces of work,on various subjects,while the "major" (It's absurd to question wether something is a 'major' or 'minor' theoretical work,because everything has it's weight.) came either before,or after 1917.(The time of the revolution.) His ideology were Leninism and he was a marxist,plain and simple. (Both,he became early in his youth.)
What he wrote in the period during and before the revolution is such a absurd question in the first place,but i could expect something like that from the likes of you.
This quote can explain a lot,and maybe help you understand something related to the question you asked,because it seems you don't have a clue. :

Some people have asked, "Where are the theoretical works of Stalin in this period?" as if he had been deported to the Reading Rooms of the British Museum instead of a peasant's hut in the Arctic.
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 78

Stalin's most creative year was 1924,that's when he wrote and published his main works,along with a huge number of other works and writings.
The very idea of presenting him as a weak writer,weak 'intellectual' or even as someone without knowledge,is absurd.He was one of the best-read and knowledgeable original revolutionaries.

[Psy]

I understand your point about Greece but why Italy and Japan? The communist parties of this two countries preferred to follow a parliamentary/constitutional path instead of revolutionary struggle and in the case of Japan against Stalin's will.

Because the KGB let the USA setup PSYOPS in Italy and Japan without setting up their own PSYOPS in Japan and Italy to counter US operations.



It's also important to remember that those three countries were inside the American sphere of influence and Stalin couldn't afford a new war against the USA and put everything accomplished in SU at stake. He was an internationalist, no doubt about it, and supported revolutions outside USSR after the war as far as he could do it without compromising USSR achievements.
The USSR developed the first rocket interceptor (then stupidly sent their best rocket engineer Sergei Korolev to the gulags only to release him once Stalin released how much of stupid move that was yet that didn't help with moral), USSR engineers were working with super sonic fighters back in the early 40's but Stalin scrapped the project as he though research was taking too long even though USSR engineers were leap frogging everyone. Thus if Stalin wasn't such a dumb ass USSR air superiority could have easily countered US nuclear weapons in 1945. Remember at the time nuclear weapons required to be dropped by large slow moving bombers.

[Geiseric]

I won't even waste my time on your hypothetical questions and pointless baseless speculations.

I will just correct some of your mistakes that come from being a blind Trotskyist.



During 1917 he wrote some 81 larger pieces of work,on various subjects,while the "major" (It's absurd to question wether something is a 'major' or 'minor' theoretical work,because everything has it's weight.) came either before,or after 1917.(The time of the revolution.) His ideology were Leninism and he was a marxist,plain and simple. (Both,he became early in his youth.)
What he wrote in the period during and before the revolution is such a absurd question in the first place,but i could expect something like that from the likes of you.
This quote can explain a lot,and maybe help you understand something related to the question you asked,because it seems you don't have a clue. :

Some people have asked, "Where are the theoretical works of Stalin in this period?" as if he had been deported to the Reading Rooms of the British Museum instead of a peasant's hut in the Arctic.
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 78

Stalin's most creative year was 1924,that's when he wrote and published his main works,along with a huge number of other works and writings.
The very idea of presenting him as a weak writer,weak 'intellectual' or even as someone without knowledge,is absurd.He was one of the best-read and knowledgeable original revolutionaries.

Great job not answering my question. I never said he was a "weak intellectual," or anything, I'm just unclear if Stalin was part of the Kamanev-Zinoviev bloc pre-October or if he was in the Lenin-Trotsky bloc.

[Omsk]

What major theoretical works did Stalin write during 1917 that may of showed what his politics were? Maybe newspapers that he edited at the time, I'd love to see some of those.


I responded to this line.(Don't evade what i wrote,in turn,read it,in the end,you may learn something.)

He was a firm follower of Lenin who even saved Lenin in the Summer of 1917.

[Psy]

I responded to this line.(Don't evade what i wrote,in turn,read it,in the end,you may learn something.)

He was a firm follower of Lenin who even saved Lenin in the Summer of 1917.

Yet Lenin followed permanent revolution yes Lenin had disagreements with Trotsky's interpretation of permanent revolution but still followed Marx on permanent revolution which is why Lenin saw the savior of Russia in the uprisings in Germany. No where did Lenin believe Russia could stand alone thus Trotsky's criticisms of socialism in one country pretty much applied to Lenin.

[Omsk]

No where did Lenin believe Russia could stand alone


Neither did Stalin.

[Psy]

Neither did Stalin.
That kind of is the point of socialism in on country, that Russia will alone build socialism.

[Omsk]

And now you say what i knew you would.

You made two errors,huge errors to be precise - you said "No where did Lenin believe Russia could stand alone " (As in - this was not his final word.)

This was not Stalin's final word either.He made the difference between the victory of socialism in an international,global scale,and the victory of socialism in one country.

And as i presume,you didn't read Stalins works regarding the problem - here is the segment which explains this problematic in detail -



But the pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism contains a second formulation, which says:

“But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. The principal task of socialism—the organisation of socialist production—has still to be fulfilled. Can this task be fulfilled, can the final victory of socialism be achieved in one country, without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several advanced countries? No, it cannot. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient; this is proved by the history of our revolution. For the final victory of socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of a peasant country like Russia, are insufficient; for that, the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are required” (see The Foundations of Leninism, first edition18 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/01/25.htm#49)).

This second formulation was directed against the assertions of the critics of Leninism, against the Trotskyists, who declared that the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, in the absence of victory in other countries, could not “hold out in the face of a conservative Europe.”

To that extent—but only to that extent—this formulation was then (May 1924) adequate, and undoubtedly it was of some service.

Subsequently, however, when the criticism of Leninism in this sphere had already been overcome in the Party, when a new question had come to the fore—the question of the possibility of building a complete socialist society by the efforts of our country, without help from abroad—the second formulation became obviously inadequate, and therefore incorrect.

What is the defect in this formulation?

Its defect is that it joins two different questions into one: it joins the question of the possibility of building socialism by the efforts of one country—which must be answered in the affirmative—with the question whether a country in which the dictatorship of the proletariat exists can consider itself fully guaranteed against intervention, and consequently against the restoration of the old order, without a victorious revolution in a number of other countries—which must be answered in the negative. This is apart from the fact that this formulation may give occasion for thinking that the organisation of a socialist society by the efforts of one country is impossible—which, of course, is incorrect.



Stalin did not believe that Russia was immune to the negative influence and the danger manifested by the capitalist countries of the world.

[Geiseric]

That kind of is the point of socialism in on country, that Russia will alone build socialism.

Not without the permission of the Entente, who the USSR joined in the League of Nations! why did the U.S.S.R. sign any pacts with the allies before Germany was able to invade? Those were to the benefit of the Capitalists, who Stalin gave up the revolutions to in order for trade agreements and "mutual defense pacts." Stalin even sent oil to Mussolini's fleet when it invaded and destroyed Abyssinia!

[Psy]

Not without the permission of the Entente, who the USSR joined in the League of Nations! why did the U.S.S.R. sign any pacts with the allies before Germany was able to invade? Those were to the benefit of the Capitalists, who Stalin gave up the revolutions to in order for trade agreements and "mutual defense pacts." Stalin even sent oil to Mussolini's fleet when it invaded and destroyed Abyssinia!
Not only that but Nazi Germany wasn't much of a military power. Hitler made huge advances because of the military incompetence of his enemies which included Stalin that let the Wehrmacht forces overrun the much larger Red Army and only later had rolling defenses to suck the Wehremacht in to encirclements.

Stop and think about the German Blitzkrieg doctrine, it focuses keeping the enemy off balance as once the enemy regains understanding of the battlefield the Blitzkreig leaves German troops to vast encirclements.



And now you say what i knew you would.

You made two errors,huge errors to be precise - you said "No where did Lenin believe Russia could stand alone " (As in - this was not his final word.)

This was not Stalin's final word either.He made the difference between the victory of socialism in an international,global scale,and the victory of socialism in one country.

In which Stalin still misses Marx's point of permanent revolution.

While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers.

You can't have an island of socialism this is why Marx said all leading countries of the world not just because they pose a threat to a workers state but because the workers need access to those productive forces.

[Omsk]

We were talking about Lenin,keep it on Lenin.(I don't like how you run away everythime you are presented with an argument you can argue against.)

[JAM]

Because the KGB let the USA setup PSYOPS in Italy and Japan without setting up their own PSYOPS in Japan and Italy to counter US operations.


Probably because those countries were inside the USA-UK sphere of influence and as I said and you confirmed USSR couldn't afford a new war against the Americans. Remember that World War II was much more devastating for the USSR than to USA in all aspects (casualties, infrastructure damaging, etc).

[Psy]

We were talking about Lenin,keep it on Lenin.(I don't like how you run away everythime you are presented with an argument you can argue against.)
Lenin's theory is based on Marx, that the problem is productive forces. The Bolshivks drove the imperial powers out of Russia during the civil-war yet the Bolshivks still had to deal with the very limited productive forces of Russia and Stalin doesn't address this issue. Stalin says Russia can develop on its own yet event by the 1980's the USSR still wasn't able to close the production gap with the major capitalist powers.

[Omsk]

This was your original line:



No where did Lenin believe Russia could stand alone

Now,you yet again change the subject.Please stop.



Stalin says Russia can develop on its own


Lenin also suggested that.


yet event by the 1980's the USSR still wasn't able to close the production gap with the major capitalist powers.

Because,obviously the process which was started under Lenin and carried out by Stalin,stopped.

[Psy]

This was your original line:


Now,you yet again change the subject.Please stop.

Standing alone economically is still standing alone.



Lenin also suggested that.

Nope

It is not open to the slightest doubt that the final victory of our revolution if it were to remain alone, if there were no revolutionary movements in other countries, would be hopeless…Our salvation from all these difficulties, I repeat, is an all-European revolution" -Lenin in reply of Zinoviev



Because,obviously the process which was started under Lenin and carried out by Stalin,stopped.
The process of Lenin was spreading revolution throughout Europe.

[Omsk]

Standing alone economically is still standing alone.


The USSR was not 'standing alone' since 1945. (Even earlier.)


Nope

The problem with your little quote is -



It is not open to the slightest doubt that the final victory of our revolution if it were to remain alone, if there were no revolutionary movements in other countries, would be hopeless…Our salvation from all these difficulties, I repeat, is an all-European revolution" -Lenin in reply of Zinoviev


The problem was that the initial revolutions after the Bolshevik one failed for a number of reasons,and after that,the capitalist and right-wing countries made their borders secure,their armies huge and their policies sharp.It was much harder than in 1917-1919. Although,the quote which you provided means little,because,for the better part of the CCCP under Stalin,there were genuine Marxist-Leninist revolutionary organizations and groups,in every other European country.



The process of Lenin was spreading revolution throughout Europe.


You are escaping from the argument yet again. The production gap and the lack of industrial and economic progress was not something which could be linked to Stalin.On the countrary.

Not to mention that the 'process' of Stalin was also the spreading of socialism.
I think you are having double standards here too.

[Psy]

The problem was that the initial revolutions after the Bolshevik one failed for a number of reasons,and after that,the capitalist and right-wing countries made their borders secure,their armies huge and their policies sharp.It was much harder than in 1917-1919. Although,the quote which you provided means little,because,for the better part of the CCCP under Stalin,there were genuine Marxist-Leninist revolutionary organizations and groups,in every other European country.

The initial revolutions came too soon for the Bolsheviks to do anything the Russian civil-war prevented the Bolsheviks from helping the Germans yet the revolutionary situation never went away which is why we saw the rise of fascism as the capitalists took the rise of worker militancy very seriously.

Yet this is where the Comintern failed miserably, the Comintern failed in Germany, France, China and Japan to pour fuel on the unrest. Instead the Comintern confused the workers with Stalin's flip flopping on the USSR's relation to Nazi Germany and the major capitalist powers.



You are escaping from the argument yet again. The production gap and the lack of industrial and economic progress was not something which could be linked to Stalin.On the countrary.

Stalin gave up Greece and Italy to honor Yalta that the West never honored. That is productive forces Stalin just threw away. Also even in 1949 the USSR suffered major unequal development with sections of the economy still primitive.



Not to mention that the 'process' of Stalin was also the spreading of socialism.
I think you are having double standards here too.
How, the first uprisings in Eastern Europe after WWII was over scarcity, the wall was erected because the USSR could not bring living standard up fast enough to stabilize East Germany's population. Stalin couldn't export socialism because the gap in productive forces still existed.

[JAM]

It's funny how you don't realize that the Russian Revolution proves Perminant Revolution to be correct, and that Lenin believed in it. It was simple opportunism and cozying up to the Imperialists that allowed for the USSR to be at a disadvantage of the inevitable Imperialist war.


Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't NEP the confirmation of the failure of The Permanent Revolution? They tried to skip stages after the revolution and they failed since the soviet economy almost collapsed. Lenin still had to follow the capitalist stage through NEP in order to save the soviet economy. Again, I might be viewing something wrong here but the conclusion that I reach here is that you cannot skip stages. Without NEP the accomplishments of the five-year plans would be impossible to achieve. That is why Stalin first supported NEP while Trotsky expressed his disapproval for it. Later, Stalin and the majority of the Bolshevik Party seeing that the industrialization process wasn't being initiated and promoted by NEP moved from the capitalist stage to the socialist one, producing the very well-known extraordinary results. Stalin was right when he supported NEP (it saved the soviet economy) and was right when he dropped it (NEP was not the answer for the soviet industrialization).

[Anderson]

Anderson, I have asked you the same question twice. It relates directly to your claim in the OP. If you dont try to answer it aft this 3rd attempt I will assume that you just read it somewhere and havent even thought about what it means.

What is it exactly you want me to answer?

[Anderson]

There is too much more to learn from Mao and Chinese revolution.

No point claiming he is of no use and rubbishing him in any way. :)

[Anderson]

This is complete rubbish.

First of all, dialectics is not a critical component of communism, or even Marxism. Your post is an excellent example of why dialectics is typically used as a form of myticism to obfuscate a rational and material analysis. Don't like Stalin? Then you must not be looking at his contributions "dialectically" enough!

While it is undeniable that Stalin is a significant historical figure, his theoretical contributions to Marxism or even Leninism are non-existant. Can you even name one theortical contribution Stalin made? Socialism in One Country doesn't count, as it's not even a theory. It's a statement of propaganda to hide the reality of how fucked the Soviet Union was after the failure of revolution to spread.

Mao made contributions all right, but probably not the kind you are thinking of. He was a petit-bourgeois chauvinist who completed the task of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in China. The Maoists never even made the pretense of genuine Marxism, going as far as to allow bourgeois into the CPC and refused to abolish de jure private property(At least Stalin had the sense to do this). Mao is notable only in a historical context and for his ideas on guerilla warfare; regarding communism, he is worse than useless. Deng's policy was merely the logical continuation of what Mao himself had begun.

There is no way Maoism can be considered a proletarian ideology in any sense. The doctrine of new democracy is used to justify bourgeois dictatorship and class collaboration. The only use in Maoism is in its ability to complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in countries with remnants of Feudalism. As such, it's unsurprising that Maoism is more or less entirely irrelevant within the communist movement today, and becomes less so with each passing day. Nepal's "revolution" is a fine example of this, where the Maoists simply swept aside the remnants of Feudalism and implemented a new bourgeois order with the so called "Prachanda Path" which follows in the footsteps of their predecessors, Mao and Deng Xiaoping.

You might as well be looking to Pol Pot for inspiration. Trotsky's intellect and theoretical contributions dwarf both Stalin and Mao, so of course it is eminently more logical to look to him for inspiration.

One of Stalin's most notable roles in the October Revolution was being against it in the beginning.. very important indeed.


Dialectics is a very important component of the proletarian world outlook and ideology of Marxism-Leninism.:) I don't think this issue can be debated !!

Mao's contribution cannot be denied and with the world revolution center still in third world countries, the Chinese revolution study is important. One can read in the "Great Debate" to see how the CPC understood and applied Marxism Leninism.

Nepal revolution has limitations of being successful in view of no support of dominant neighbors (India and China). A successful movement in India was needed for a meaningful success in Nepal. Also the movemnet in Nepal is still taking shape and its too early to describe the Prachanda Path's final achievement.