Did Stalin murder Lenin

[peaccenicked]

http://antitrot.tripod.com/humor/murder.htm

Even though I believe Stalin actually did murder Lenin. I find this funny. I read somewhere he interferedwith his medication.
I ll see if I can find the source.

[cubist]

i don't know

i know stalin was a wanker and that i don't like him or his actions,


its a bit like was hitler alive? or is that the real Sadman?
or who shot JFK

[Bolshevika]

Stalin did that also? You must inform the bourgeois historians!

[Soviet power supreme]

Dont forget that Stalin created AIDS and he extincted the mammoths.

[Loknar]

I think it's more plauseable that Beria murdered Stalin. Maybe what goes around comes around?

[peaccenicked]

Even more "bourgeois history"
click here (http://books.cheap-internet-store.com/Biographies_Memoirs/Leaders_Notable_People/PID0000000a00006a377665387569397269/Stalin_The_First_In-Depth_Biography_Based_on_Explosive_New_Documents_f rom_Russias_Secret_Archives/)

[Bolshevika]

Another "Stalin killed everyone!" debate? So old.

http://www.elesoft.com/folk/thomas/thomas31.gif

[Hawker]

No Lenin died naturally of a stroke.That's how Stalin came to power is when Lenin suffered from his first stroke and was recovering at his home,Stalin took advantage of this and stole the position of Chairman from Lenin.Now Lenin new he couldn't fight back against Stalin because of his deterorating health but he made a series of articles,that was based against Stalin.After that in January 21,1924 he suffered another stroke and died.So I don't think that Stalin messed with Lenin's medication.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

This topic is fucking ridicoulous and should be deleted.Anyone who disagrees with me on this is a douche bag.peaccenicked,that book is from a damn soviet dissident.I read the first few pages and returned it.He lost all objectivity on the first page by saying he hated Stalin.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 08:23 PM
This topic is fucking ridicoulous and should be deleted.Anyone who disagrees with me on this is a douche bag.
isnt that sorta the way any topic goes if you are involved?

[Urban Rubble]

Anyone who disagrees with me on this is a douche bag.

That about says it all right ? You're an idiot and your age shows so much it's funny. I think Bolshevika is wrong almost always, but at least his posts don't just reek of 14 year old. I knew how old you were without even asking.

This topic was designed as humor, the original link is from an anti trot website. Lighten up you little *****.


He lost all objectivity on the first page by saying he hated Stalin.

Yes, the book is biased, but just because someone is anti Stalin does not make them unobjective. I suppose if he stated that he loved Stalin he would have been more objective ?

[peaccenicked]

Stalin evil.......however could that be.

http://www.evilsite.org/evil/Stalin,%20Josef/

[Comrade Ceausescu]

That about says it all right ? You're an idiot and your age shows so much it's funny. I think Bolshevika is wrong almost always, but at least his posts don't just reek of 14 year old. I knew how old you were without even asking.

This topic was designed as humor, the original link is from an anti trot website. Lighten up you little *****.

I was saying anyone who disagreed with me that this topic was stupid was a douche bag.also,this topic may have been designed as humour,but "peaccenicked"said he thought stalin killed lenin,which inspired me to make the post i made attacking this topic.


Yes, the book is biased, but just because someone is anti Stalin does not make them unobjective.

In my mind it does.It means you already have your mind set on something,and no matter what anyone says your right.


I suppose if he stated that he loved Stalin he would have been more objective ?

Not neccaserily.It would depend what type of arguments he put up later on in the book.

[Soviet power supreme]

Shouldnt this thred be in chit chat. :unsure:

[cubist]

what the hell is a douche bag?

[Urban Rubble]

Yes, the book is biased, but just because someone is anti Stalin does not make them unobjective.


In my mind it does.It means you already have your mind set on something,and no matter what anyone says your right.

Find me one book that the author didn't already have an opinion on the subject he was writing. It's impossible. Everything you do is biased in some way. If I come to the conclusion that Stalin was wrong, but I write a book stating every bit of evidence from both sides, that is objective, right ? If not, how does one become objective ?

The fact that you kind of agreed with me when I said "it would have been ubiased if he was pro Stalin, right" shows your stance. You just don't like it because it is somewhat anti Stalin. It amazes me how people can think that just because someone agrees with them, that person is objective.

If you stop reading books in which the author says his opinion, you are going to remain a very very confused young lad. You have to read both sides of an argument then make a conclusion, something you obviously haven't done.