Stalin was a rape apologist.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Even I was surprised to read this. In response to hearing about the mass rapes in Germany committed by Russian soldiers, Stalin said " people should understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle."
On a different occasion when he heard about incidents of sexual abuse between soldiers and German refugees, Stalin said that "We lecture our soldiers too much; let them have their initiative".

[Zostrianos]

Beria was a serial rapist and Stalin knew it and did nothing about it, so it doesn't surprise me. Nothing surprises me about Stalin anymore.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I have have feeling this topic has already been covered in the countless threads about Stalin

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Do you have sources for this claim? Or does the Anti-Stalin brigade think that anything they say is validated by their irrational hatred of a guy who died 70 years ago and therefore requires no basis in factual evidence.

Cults of personality are negative not only because they are anti-Marxist, but because they distort our understanding of socialism by blending facts with fiction to create a romanticized view of what actually happened. The Anti-Stalin brigade is no different than the "Stalinist" camp in that they attempt the same feat, the only difference is that they do it in reverse

[Zostrianos]

Do you have sources for this claim? Or does the Anti-Stalin brigade think that anything they say is validated by their irrational hatred of a guy who died 70 years ago and therefore requires no basis in factual evidence.

T. Snyder, Bloodlands, pg. 316:
Yugoslav communists complained to Stalin about the behavior of Soviet soldiers, who gave them a little lecture about soldiers and “fun.”

[Luc]

One of the quotes is from Stalin and Molotov (I thinks) letters there's a book compiling them I would get but I'm on mobile and can't do ucking shit (sorry hate this damn thing) anyways it's on wikiquote an they source I properly with the letter compiling books name and shit

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

T. Snyder, Bloodlands, pg. 316:
Yugoslav communists complained to Stalin about the behavior of Soviet soldiers, who gave them a little lecture about soldiers and “fun.”


Fair enough, I will concede that Stalin acted barbarically in this incident. but I still stand by the sentiment of my post.

If I were to say the same thing about Trotsky without a source for example, I would be lambasted as a baboon and rightly so. The same standard ought to apply when we are making accusations against Stalin. Just because you don't like a guy doesn't mean you can slander him all you want.

That last bit obviously doesn't apply to the people who cite factual evidence, but we all know who is guilty of pulling cheap shots against Stalin just because the Universally Accepted Unquestionable Evil of Stalin allows them to.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Whatever Stalin's personal position on the matter, it's clear that the Red Army had no great interest in properly addressing the issue of rape. Whether that involved dealing with the issue beforehand or punishment after the fact, it just wasn't a priority. I don't think it can be excused as a sign of the times, because the British were hanging soldiers for being rapists way back in the 18th century.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Whatever Stalin's personal position on the matter, it's clear that the Red Army had no great interest in properly addressing the issue of rape. Whether that involved dealing with the issue beforehand or punishment after the fact, it just wasn't a priority. I don't think it can be excused as a sign of the times, because the British were hanging soldiers for being rapists way back in the 18th century.

I agree, don't take my post as justifying any negative aspects of Stalin's rule

[hetz]

The exact quote, from Wikiquotes:


Does Djilas, who is himself a writer, not know what human suffering and the human heart are? Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?In response to complaints about the rapes and looting commited by the Red Army during the Second World War, as quoted in Conversations with Stalin (1963) by Milovan Djilas

[Let's Get Free]

Throughout history, rape has been an omnipresent aspect of militarism, and to this day, basic military training establishes women as targets for sexual conquer.

[Sir Comradical]

Of course according to anti-revisionists Djilas was a liar. lol.

[Jack]

The exact quote, from Wikiquotes:

In response to complaints about the rapes and looting commited by the Red Army during the Second World War, as quoted in Conversations with Stalin (1963) by Milovan Djilas

>Milovan Djilas

I just want to point out the likelihood of this being actually true is near nil if it comes from Milovan Djilas of all people.

Is this really what the ultraleft has resorted to? "Oh look at this comment he may have made in response to a question he had no responsibility for PATRIARCHIALRAPELOVINGFASCIST!!11!1!1".

First the "Marx was a sexist" shit and now this. Applying your identity politics radicalism of 2012 to what someone may have said 70-150 years ago in a personal manner. Give it up.

[hetz]

I don't know if the quote is authethentic or not, maybe some other members could elaborate on that...

[Jack]

Of course according to anti-revisionists Djilas was a liar. lol.

He's an anti-communist whose fame and entire career outside Yugoslavia was based on his image as an anti-communist and dissident. What interest does he have for intellectual honesty concerning Stalin?

[Sir Comradical]

He's an anti-communist whose fame and entire career outside Yugoslavia was based on his image as an anti-communist and dissident. What interest does he have for intellectual honesty concerning Stalin?

So if someone is anti-communist it must mean they're liars? Do you have any positive evidence to suggest this is a fabrication? Or can you point to any instances of Milovan Djilas having lied in the past? I ask this partially out of curiosity.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Wikiquote as a source.

Fuck me, jesus christ. :')

[Omsk]

Milovan Đilas was a traitor and an anti-communist hound. He lied about Stalin a lot, and constantly changed his opinions. For an example, he reported that Stalin was a good honest man, when the CPY and CPSU were close, but after 1948, he lied and called Stalin a totalitarian dictator. He was an anti-communist traitor, a liberal. The thing is, the ultra-leftists here don't know anything about him and they probably heard about him for the first time when they found this "quote".


As for this subject, not one word will be come out of any ML anti-reivisionist, because this is flame-baiting and because the last time a thread like this was created, over 10 people (I think) ended up banned.

As for the claim, it's Milovan being Milovan. Forget him. His books is just an example of journalist idiocy.

There are a lot of quotes which people link to Stalin, but in reality, they don't come from him, like this one:" The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic!" In reality, that is the quote from the German novelist Erich Maria Remarque, not Stalin.

[Crux]

"As for this subject, not one word will be come out of any ML anti-reivisionist, because this is flame-baiting and because the last time a thread like this was created, over 10 people (I think) ended up banned."

Banned without just cause? No, I think not.I've heard of Milovan Dijas and I am well aware he moved away from Stalin. For me however that does not brand anything he says as untrue.

[Ostrinski]

MLs gonna ML

[Leo]

So typical of the Stalinists - if they don't like what's being said, they resort to discrediting the author.

[l'Enfermé]

Last time we had a thread like this Stalinists were defending rape apologism, and got banned for it"

Wait, that's a bad thing?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Throughout history, rape has been an omnipresent aspect of militarism, and to this day, basic military training establishes women as targets for sexual conquer.

That's news to me. Got a source for that?

[hatzel]

As for this subject, not one word will be come out of any ML anti-reivisionist, [...] because the last time a thread like this was created, over 10 people (I think) ended up banned.

Not to just turn this all into shameless tendency-bashing or whatever else, but considering you're a proud ML anti-revisionist yourself, this strikes me as a very strange thing to say. I mean, it stands as a tacit admission (from an ML, no less!) that ML's are totally incapable of opening their mouths without a load of reactionary bullcrap pouring out. "We ML's won't say anything about rape because the last time we said something about rape we all got banned for being massive sexists and we don't want that to happen again" only goes to show that you don't even entertain the possibility that an ML could speak a word on the matter without it being horribly sexist and thus warranting a restriction or ban. Or perhaps you acknowledge that it could happen, but consider it so unlikely that you prefer to keep silent, so as not to take any risks - both possibilities suggest that you know that your (in the plural) position is reactionary, and must therefore simply be 'hidden' behind a veil of silence. Why are you so insecure in your gender politics that you don't even trust yourself to speak on the subject of (war) rape without it descending into rape apology?

(In fact, maybe this isn't even simply a statement that ML's won't comment, but a warning to them that they shouldn't, a 'loose lips sink ships' kind of comment, standing to remind your brethren of the dangers of letting their stance on the issue be known...)

[Ostrinski]

hatzels goin ham

[GoddessCleoLover]

Perhaps Stalin was a rape apologist since in his own sexual practices he didn't respect women. Didn't he impregnate a thirteen year old girl in Siberia? Didn't he physically and emotionally abuse his second wife to the point where she committed suicide?

[soso17]

I haven't heard of any physical or mental abuse of Nadja Allulieva on Stalin's part. I'm currently reading Montefiore's "Court of the Red Tsar", and the author is no apologist for JVS. He only talks of how difficult it was to be married to any Bolshevik, let alone the vozhd. Her suicide seems to be the end of a life of depression and her family did have a history of mental instability. Nadja's death changed Stalin for the rest of his days and scarred him deeply. He loved her as best he could (considering the trauma of his own childhood and the mentality that comes from working underground for decades).

[Prometeo liberado]

I have it on good authority that Stalin was also responsible for all the events on 9/11, my dry turkey on Thanksgiving, and an overall pissy attitude in regards to global warming.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Requesting sources is also a fair response. A google search turned up a number of items, for starters Stalin: An Unkown Portriat by Miklos Kun. I picked this biography since Kun focuses on primary sources, including oral histories and is therefore less ideological than Service or Figes. IMO the evidence that Stalin abused Nadja Allilueva is compelling, clear and convincing so I stand by my post.

[ind_com]

The following is what every true communist should have for Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin/Mao for their racism/sexism/rape-apologism/homophobia/transphobia:

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

Following someone's theory doesn't mean that you'll have to copy their fuck-ups as well.

Edit: And quit whining about racism/sexism/homophobia being too common back in those days, that didn't make them a bit less wrong.

[Questionable]

The following is what every true communist should have for Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin/Mao for their racism/sexism/rape-apologism/homophobia/transphobia:

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

Following someone's theory doesn't mean that you'll have to copy their fuck-ups as well.

Edit: And quit whining about racism/sexism/homophobia being too common back in those days, that didn't make them a bit less wrong.

I have to say, this is my take on it as well. I've personally never heard of this apparently anti-communist person who is sourced for this quote, but whether its true or not, I clearly don't support Stalin if he apologized for rape.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Requesting sources is also a fair response. A google search turned up a number of items, for starters Stalin: An Unkown Portriat by Miklos Kun. I picked this biography since Kun focuses on primary sources, including oral histories and is therefore less ideological than Service or Figes. IMO the evidence that Stalin abused Nadja Allilueva is compelling, clear and convincing so I stand by my post.

Maybe a good idea to actually cite a source because I have not seen you do that in this thread.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I have heard of Milovan Djilas and would describe him as an ex-Communist rather than anti-communist. Djilas was extremely close to Tito, in fact a chief deputy along with Edward Kardelj. He represented the Yugoslav partisans and later the Tito regime in several high level negotiations in which Stalin personally participated. In the 1950s he became disillusioned with the Tito regime and wrote a critique entitled The New Class. IMO The New Class is a valuable work still worth reading today and Djilas was a credible source.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Maybe a good idea to actually cite a source because I have not seen you do that in this thread.

I cited Miklos Kun as a source. Orlando Figes way be a second source. Khrushchev would be a definite source but I didn't cite him since I know how much M-Ls hate Khrushchev.
.

[Quail]

I'm not entirely sure why you think this is particularly important. If it is true then obviously it discredits Stalin as a person, but it doesn't do anything to discredit his ideas. Surely if you wanted to have a genuine discussion about Stalin you wouldn't start a thread like this.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I cited Miklos Kun as a source. Orlando Figes way be a second source. Khrushchev would be a definite source but I didn't cite him since I know how much M-Ls hate Khrushchev.
.

You named a source.
How can I know the context if you don't actually quote what they're saying.

Call me paranoid but I don't believe something until I have actually seen proof, saying that there is something in a certain book is not proof.

MLs 'hate' Khrushchev with pretty good reasons.

[Yuppie Grinder]

"We aren't going to not excuse an incident of mass rape, but we also aren't going to outright excuse it."

[Yuppie Grinder]

The inevitability of mass rape in total war is one of the many reasons why Communists should not take sides in intercapital war.

[Rafiq]

Perhaps Stalin was a rape apologist since in his own sexual practices he didn't respect women. Didn't he impregnate a thirteen year old girl in Siberia? Didn't he physically and emotionally abuse his second wife to the point where she committed suicide?

Thats from a movie, he didn't impregnate a 13 year old...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[GoddessCleoLover]

Perhaps it was also in a movie, but in real life her name was Lidia Pereprygina.

[Omsk]

That story is bullshit. You read that in a journalist article with no evidence.

As for the responses to my post, i won't go into it, because such a debate would not be productive. Our arguments were clear, officers were persecuted because of the war rapes, which happened, and were, of course, horrible. The exact number of German women which were raped, is unclear, fascist/capitalist propaganda mentions some 2.000.000 or 3.000.000 women, but i doubt that. The lies and slander against the Red Army are common these days, i won't accept them.

As for our politics, they are not a secret: we condemn the actions of the soldiers involved, but you can't condemn an idea because of the actions of soldiers. It had little to do with ideology.

As for Đilas, he was a stupid Titoite who would have probably shot all of you if you met him in his pre-'54 phase.

[Luc]

I think some officers were gulag'd for their responsibility regarding the WW2 rapes

Also sorry y'all my bad on the Djilas thing could of sworn it was said to Molotov in some Letters book :glare:

[GoddessCleoLover]

You might dislike Montefiore but he has published major biographical works on Stalin. The evidence in The Young Stalin. It may be true, it may be untrue, but the evidence may or may not be persuasive, but it does exist.

I don't deny that Milovan Djjilas had blood on his hands but the issue is whether he is a credible witness for certain statements allegedly made by Stalin. Did any of the surviving participants (Molotov, Kaganovich) ever contradict Djilas? If they did, are they any more credible? They certainly had far more blood on their hands than did Djilas.

[Omsk]

I think some officers were gulag'd for their responsibility regarding the WW2 rapes


More than 4000.


You might dislike Montefiore but he has published major biographical works on Stalin. The evidence in The Young Stalin. It may be true, it may be untrue, but the evidence may or may not be persuasive, but it does exist.



That books is horrible, read Deutscher if you want an anti-Stalin biography. (Even Deutscher made idiotic claims)

He is not a credible witness, because he was good when it comes to demagogy, and because he had every reason to demonize Stalin. His books was published in 1962, (the one in which he talks about Stalin) and by that period, he was an anticommunist and a known former spy and slitthroat. You don't even know how many communists died because of him, he slaughtered all of the best communists, and he was also active in the ordeal of Albania, because he was on the negotiations team, in 1948, with Koča Popović and other Titoites.

Molotov and Kaganovich were good men, especially Kaganovich, they were honest communists, Đilas on the other hand, was an anticommunist right-wing swine.

[Rafiq]

Perhaps it was also in a movie, but in real life her name was Lidia Pereprygina.

Oh, that nonsense? There's literally no substantial evidence to validate this. Khrushchev did investigate the matter, however, outside of the "witness" accounts of some villagers in buttfuck nowhere in Siberia, there is no substantial evidence. I mean sometimes they were just too detailed, for example, reports that when police cam busting in the lodge, Stalin was "furious" because he was interrupted while fucking Lidia. I mean, what the hell? Even if he did have sex with her, even if all of that occured, how would they have known that? There were not accounts from the actual police officers, or even if such an event occurred, only the ramblings of confused villagers.

[Rafiq]

Even if Stalin was an asshole personally, this shouldn't mean anything to us. As Marxists it is important to criticize him on a pragmatic level, of what he represented, of his theoretical garbage about "socialism in one country" and so on, however a personal criticism, a moral criticism, is useless. If Stalin represented a proletarian state dictatorship, and still ate babies in his teen years, or, better yet, still continued to eat babies in the privacy of his own home, we could not make much of a criticism as far as Stalin goes symbolically. I mean, are you really under the impression that Stalin's personality had hegemony over the state? This, great man nonesense. It's no better than the fools who go about praising Stalin for the ever glorious (lol) achievements of the Soviet Union.

Obviously the rapes were not systemic, they were indeed punishable offenses (though many officers looked the other way). They were not a result of "Stalinism" but of existent social backwardness in Russia, the country was after all emerging out of semi-feudalism, as most of soldiers were peasants. For Russian soldiers it was of norm, these mass rapes, plundering had existed, well, throughout the whole nation's history. Interestingly enough during Feudalism mass-rape was a systemic tactic at times and none the less was not out of the ordinary.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The following is what every true communist should have for Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin/Mao for their racism/sexism/rape-apologism/homophobia/transphobia:

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

Following someone's theory doesn't mean that you'll have to copy their fuck-ups as well.

Edit: And quit whining about racism/sexism/homophobia being too common back in those days, that didn't make them a bit less wrong.
Good to see one of my Maoist Comrades sticking with his principles on this one! *high five*

[Grenzer]

I think some officers were gulag'd for their responsibility regarding the WW2 rapes

Also sorry y'all my bad on the Djilas thing could of sworn it was said to Molotov in some Letters book :glare:

I have a book containing Stalin's to Molotov, but it only goes up to 1936. I don't think there is any other book containing letters past that date.

It's interesting that all the letters pertaining to the "Holodomor" are there. There was nothing to hide, it was not a deliberate act against the Ukrainians. With the Purges, on the other hand, all the letters on that subject are mysteriously absent. Molotov must have disposed of them before handing them to the archive(which he did to try to make his re-admission to the party in the 1960's more likely). No doubt there was something damning contained within.

[Althusser]

So if someone is anti-communist it must mean they're liars? Do you have any positive evidence to suggest this is a fabrication? Or can you point to any instances of Milovan Djilas having lied in the past? I ask this partially out of curiosity.

Well to be fair, as an anti-communist, he would have an interest in possibly lying about Stalin's character.

He doesn't mean that being an anti-communist means you're a liar. It's just that since he's an anti-communist, maybe he's not a reliable source when it comes to the character of a communist leader. Just sayin'.

[JoeySteel]

It's interesting that all the letters pertaining to the "Holodomor" are there. There was nothing to hide, it was not a deliberate act against the Ukrainians. With the Purges, on the other hand, all the letters on that subject are mysteriously absent. Molotov must have disposed of them before handing them to the archive(which he did to try to make his re-admission to the party in the 1960's more likely). No doubt there was something damning contained within.

Just FYI, the letters between Molotov and Stalin and Kaganovich and Stalin are from times when Stalin was outside of Moscow and that type of communication was necessitated for day to day business. Later in the 1930's, and during the time of the "Purges" (the party purge and Ezhovschina were not the same thing) Stalin left Moscow much less frequently, and for a stretch of years not at all for vacations. Furthermore, by that time telephones were becoming more available and letters were used less often. I believe the Stalin-Kaganovich and Stalin-Molotov letters collections point this out as well. There would be no need for letters to have existed about the "purges" (by which I assume you are talking about a supposed sinister plot to intentionally persecute innocent people, not the verification of party cards which is in fact what purge refers to).

[GoddessCleoLover]

During the Ezhovshchina the repressive organs forwarded Stalin lists of persons to be executed. I take your point about the increased use of telecommunications, but the Ezhovshchina did leave a paper trail. Just to clarify the historical record, even prior to the Ezhovshchina, Communist Party members were subjected to imprisonment for disagreeing with the leadership. In the case of comrade Ryutin, Stalin advocated that Ryutin be put to death, but was overruled by a majority of the Politburo. Stalin ultimately got his way and Ryutin was executed for his courageous opposition to the hideous collectivization fiasco.

[JoeySteel]

During the Ezhovshchina the repressive organs forwarded Stalin lists of persons to be executed. I take your point about the increased use of telecommunications, but the Ezhovshchina did leave a paper trail.

I never claimed it didn't? I said there would be no need for Stalin and Molotov or Kaganovich to send letters to each other about it that were then hidden away.


In the case of comrade Ryutin, Stalin advocated that Ryutin be put to death, but was overruled by a majority of the Politburo. Stalin ultimately got his way and Ryutin was executed for his courageous opposition to the hideous collectivization fiasco.

The sole originating source of this story is Nikolaevsky's yarn. Kvelniuk who is an anticommunist researcher, finds absolutely no support for it even in the special protocols of the Politburo archives which contain documents on more important and secret matters. It is discussed on pages 64-66 of his book "Master of the House." Like every other story originating from Nikolaevsky it is made up; an integral part of the story is the idea of a major disagreement between Stalin and Kirov on the issue, and that Kirov was a moderate compared to Stalin. Scholars today have shown that this is hogwash.

[GoddessCleoLover]

With all due respect to Arch Getty, the historical record is clear that Ryutin was sentenced initially to ten years' imprisonment by the Politburo itself for the "crime" of criticizing the Stalin and his allies in the party leadership. The historical record is also clear that Ryutin was executed in January, 1937. It seems reasonable to infer that this punishment "upgrade" was decided at the very highest level and to further infer that this may well have involved a certain settling of accounts from the initial 1932 Politburo decision. The conduct of the Ryutin affair by the Politburo was a repulsive mockery of justice.

[Zostrianos]

I think some officers were gulag'd for their responsibility regarding the WW2 rapes


What I remember reading is that the Soviet authorities looked the other way for most of the rapes, and eventually when the rapes started to become known, they finally decided to act. By then of course, countless women had already been brutalized. It's important to note that before the Soviets, the Nazis had already developed a taste for gang raping women before killing them throughout eastern Europe, but the Soviets far exceeded them in the end in this regard.

[JoeySteel]

With all due respect to Arch Getty, the historical record is clear that Ryutin was sentenced initially to ten years' imprisonment by the Politburo itself for the "crime" of criticizing the Stalin and his allies in the party leadership. The historical record is also clear that Ryutin was executed in January, 1937. It seems reasonable to infer that this punishment "upgrade" was decided at the very highest level and to further infer that this may well have involved a certain settling of accounts from the initial 1932 Politburo decision. The conduct of the Ryutin affair by the Politburo was a repulsive mockery of justice.

There were other jailed oppositionists who were not executed until 1937. There is no reason at all to "infer" from the fact of Riutin's execution anything to do with a 1932 Politburo decision. Furthermore, the source of the claim of the Politburo going against Stalin on executing Riutin was published in 1936, before Riutin's death. You are taking an event that occurred after the source was published to support the claims of the source. It makes no sense. The decision to expel Riutin's group and hand them over to the OGPU to punish them according to the law as a counterrevolutionary group (Kulak restorationists, specifically) was a resolution approved by polling politburo members and Stalin simply wrote "Agreed" on it. See page 65-66 of Kvelniuk's book. There is no mystery here. If it wasn't for Nikolaevsky's book, which we know is invented, you wouldn't be contorting logic to presume something for which there is no evidence.


It's important to note that before the Soviets, the Nazis had already developed a taste for gang raping women before killing them throughout eastern Europe, but the Soviets far exceeded them in the end in this regard.

I don't know the statistics for punishment in the Soviet Army during WWII, but do you realize that it was German law that no soldier could be punished for acts committed against enemy civilian populations, while punishment for a variety of offenses could be very strict in the Soviet army? Furthermore, are you now extending from the Soviet army being worse rapists that the German nazis to the Soviet Army routinely killing women "throughout eastern Europe"?

[GoddessCleoLover]

It is reasonable to infer that Riutin was executed in January, 1937 due to his distribution of the "Riutin circular", and that the decision to "upgrade" the punishment from imprisonment to death constituted an implicit repudiation the 1932 decision. That would be the most logical conclusion. Certainly Riutin wasn't organizing a counter-revolution from prison. The fact is that Riutin was not a counter-revolutionary but an honest and brave Communist who saw the revolution going astray.

[Zostrianos]

I don't know the statistics for punishment in the Soviet Army during WWII, but do you realize that it was German law that no soldier could be punished for acts committed against enemy civilian populations, while punishment for a variety of offenses could be very strict in the Soviet army? Furthermore, are you now extending from the Soviet army being worse rapists that the German nazis to the Soviet Army routinely killing women "throughout eastern Europe"?

Yes I knew that. And what I said was the Soviets were worse rapists than the Nazis, not that they were routinely killing women, although many women did die as a result of soviet rapes.

[JoeySteel]

It is reasonable to infer that Riutin was executed in January, 1937 due to his distribution of the "Riutin circular", and that the decision to "upgrade" the punishment from imprisonment to death constituted an implicit repudiation the 1932 decision. That would be the most logical conclusion. Certainly Riutin wasn't organizing a counter-revolution from prison. The fact is that Riutin was not a counter-revolutionary but an honest and brave Communist who saw the revolution going astray.

I'm not actually sure what you're arguing, if you're arguing now, or why you felt the need to reply. You claimed there was a split in the Politburo in 1932 over punishment of Riutin, with Stalin in favour of it, that he was overruled by the majority, that he later 'got what he wanted' so to speak when Riutin was executed, and moreover that his execution later somehow lends credibility to Nikolaevsky's story.

I simply pointed out that a) the entire narrative originates solely with an academically discredited book of inventions b) that the actual archival record doesn't agree whatsoever with that narrative, in fact that the decision to expel Riutin and hand him over to the OGPU was done as a poll of Politburo members, where Stalin simply wrote "Agreed" and made insignificant alterations to the motion. Therefore the narrative about Stalin demanding execution and the majority disagreeing in the 1932 Politburo decision has no support in evidence. This isn't even controversial. I never argued that Riutin wasn't executed in 1937 due to his opposition activity in 1932 in the first place, so...? Other oppositionists in jail were executed in that year whose execution had never been sought previously.

[Karabin]

Throughout history, rape has been an omnipresent aspect of militarism, and to this day, basic military training establishes women as targets for sexual conquer.

Though it is true that rape and military ventures are intertwined (In some cases more intertwined than others), the last comment there is an utter falsehood. Maybe within the basic training of rebel armies in the Congo do they teach soldiers to target women for rape, but this is not the case for any modern military. This allegation is as ludicrous and unfounded as the multitude of accusations made against Communists.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Though it is true that rape and military ventures are intertwined (In some cases more intertwined than others), the last comment there is an utter falsehood. Maybe within the basic training of rebel armies in the Congo do they teach soldiers to target women for rape, but this is not the case for any modern military. This allegation is as ludicrous and unfounded as the multitude of accusations made against Communists.

It's a part of military culture in the first world and elsewhere. It may not actually be part of the training regiment but it's taught to new recruits regardless.

[hetz]

It may not actually be part of the training regiment but it's taught to new recruits regardless.
Evidence?

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree with Hetz.

[RadioRaheem84]

No support for Stalin is this is true, No support for him regardless if it's not.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Evidence?

That it's not actually part of the training regiment or that sexual assault is systematic in military culture?

If it's the latter there is a huge amount of info about it, this is from the first lazy google search i did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_War
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/14/culture-coverup-rape-ranks-us-military
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/world/asia/curfew-imposed-on-american-troops-in-japan.html?_r=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_scandal

This kind of shit is built into the culture, everyone is initiated into it one way or another.

[Geiseric]

Didn't Beria have certain practices that were looked over by high ranking soviet officials for a long time? Certain disgusting, subhuman practices, such as raping women, after promising to release their dead relatives from Gulags? Stalin knew bout this, or else he wouldn't of freaked out after his daughter visited Beria.

[Grenzer]

I love how the first thing the Stalinists say on this is "Well at least we're not that bad compared to the Nazis.".

[Jack]

I love how the first thing the Stalinists say on this is "Well at least we're not that bad compared to the Nazis.".

Generally we're more apt to say "at least we're relevant".

Really the whole Stalin bashing gets old and we stop caring, because it's various ultraleftists parroting whatever bourgeois propaganda they can dig up that damages the memory of Lenin, Stalin, or the Soviet Union. They can't attack our ideology so they try to attack our history, we'd like to do the same but can't think of any notable accomplishments you various ultraleftists, "neo Marxists", Eurocommunists, and trotskyites have made.

Edit: I know this is going to turn into an ultraleftist Stalin bashing circlejerk, or at least intensify from what it already was, so carry on because I'm abandoning this thread.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Really the whole Stalin bashing gets old and we stop caring, because it's various ultraleftists parroting whatever bourgeois propaganda they can dig up that damages the memory of Lenin, Stalin, or the Soviet Union. They can't attack our ideology so they try to attack our history, we'd like to do the same but can't think of any notable accomplishments you various ultraleftists, "neo Marxists", Eurocommunists, and trotskyites have made.

uh, yeah, no.

[Geiseric]

Lol yeah we do attack your history, because that's a lot more important than your "ideology." Especially the history in the 20's and 30's.

[Ostrinski]

You don't have an ideology. Your "ideology" is a loose conglomeration of policies of the Soviet Union in a certain time period.

[kashkin]

Both John Erickson and David Glantz write that front-line Soviet troops were relatively (by soldier's standards) well-behaved in East Germany, it was the second-echelon troops, generally POWs who had survived the camps and NKVD questioning, who committed most of the rapes or murders.

Personally Stalin may have been a rape apologist, I don't know. In terms of the war, he certainly was to the extent he could get away with it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thats from a movie, he didn't impregnate a 13 year old...

Someone's been watching too much Daniel Craig outside James Bond.

[Rafiq]

Ha yeah and I think I made a thread about it before actually..

[RedMaterialist]

how many rapes did german troops commit in russia?

[Omsk]

Rapes were also committed by German forces on Eastern Front, where they were largely unpunished (as opposed to rapes committed in Western Europe); the overall number of rapes is difficult to establish due to lack prosecution of the crime by German courts. Wehrmacht also established a system of military brothels, in which young women and girls from occupied territories were forced into prostitution, the conditions were extremely hard and many women tried to escape their captors. In Soviet Union women were kidnapped by German forces for prostitution as well; one report by International Military Tribunal writes "in the city of Smolensk the German Command opened a brothel for officers in one of the hotels into which hundreds of women and girls were driven; they were mercilessly dragged down the street by their arms and hair.

Milions, no doubt.

I know some friends from Russia, almost all of them had some female family members which were raped and killed. My family was lucky and ran away before the Germans burned the village, all of the people were slaughtered, and the females raped and impaled on rifles. The war was too horrible, when i talk about it with some older people, they can't stop remembering horrible things. Everyone who is at least 80 years old has horrid memories from the occupation.

[prolcon]

I'd say Stalin was a product of his time, which is certainly true, but I don't want to sound like I'm excusing him for things like this. Every Communist needs to step back and examine how his personal attitudes are shaped by history and society. I understand Stalin presided over a time during which homosexuality was deliberately associated with fascism as a way to "feminize" it and make it a system of sexual deviance.

[Art Vandelay]

I'd say Stalin was a product of his time, which is certainly true, but I don't want to sound like I'm excusing him for things like this. Every Communist needs to step back and examine how his personal attitudes are shaped by history and society. I understand Stalin presided over a time during which homosexuality was deliberately associated with fascism as a way to "feminize" it and make it a system of sexual deviance.

WTF :confused:

Calling Marx a product of his time for being sexist, okay; calling Bakunin a product of his time for holding some bullshit conspiracy about the jews, okay; calling Stalin a product of his time for being a rape apologist, umm are you being serious?

[prolcon]

WTF :confused:

Calling Marx a product of his time for being sexist, okay; calling Bakunin a product of his time for holding some bullshit conspiracy about the jews, okay; calling Stalin a product of his time for being a rape apologist, umm are you being serious?

I know you're just trying to start shit, but a lot of men held similarly warped views at the time. You'll notice in my post that I made no attempt to excuse this attitude.

[Art Vandelay]

I know you're just trying to start shit, but a lot of men held similarly warped views at the time. You'll notice in my post that I made no attempt to excuse this attitude.

I'm not just trying to 'start shit' I'm honestly perplexed how someone believes that the acceptance of rape during the 1940's, is in anyway equal to the acceptance of the other views listed during their respective time frames.

[prolcon]

I'm not just trying to 'start shit' I'm honestly perplexed how someone believes that the acceptance of rape during the 1940's, is in anyway equal to the acceptance of the other views listed during their respective time frames.

You don't really explain what you mean, there. Are you saying that these attitudes were unique to Stalin? If that's the case, why are we wasting our time assaulting the personal character of a dead man?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Not that I am overly anxious to continue beating this particular dead horse, but Stalin was a public figure and rape is a serious issue and as leftists we ought to defend women's rights.

[prolcon]

Not that I am overly anxious to continue beating this particular dead horse, but Stalin was a public figure and rape is a serious issue and as leftists we ought to defend women's rights.

That's absolutely true. I'm not sure how much progress we'll make revisiting this issue, though. Stalin said something really fucked up and it affected policy that harmed women. It's important to consider how our society affects what attitudes we harbor and why. To suggest that Stalin was just an especially evil person doesn't really accomplish anything. In fact, it harms our understanding of history.

[GoddessCleoLover]

That's absolutely true. I'm not sure how much progress we'll make revisiting this issue, though. Stalin said something really fucked up and it affected policy that harmed women. It's important to consider how our society affects what attitudes we harbor and why. To suggest that Stalin was just an especially evil person doesn't really accomplish anything. In fact, it harms our understanding of history.

Dogma, too, harms our understanding of history. On this narrow issue there is evidence (from bourgeois historians no less) that Stalin was dismayed by the level of mistreatment of German women by Soviet soldiers as he saw it as a barrier to post-WWII German-Soviet relations.

[Geiseric]

Wow so at this point i'm saying that rape is okay, i'm a product of my time, so nobody better get pissed off when I go around raping people, seeing as i'm a product of my environment and stuff. this is so fucking stupid, this thread makes communists look like morons.

[prolcon]

Wow so at this point i'm saying that rape is okay, i'm a product of my time, so nobody better get pissed off when I go around raping people, seeing as i'm a product of my environment and stuff. this is so fucking stupid, this thread makes communists look like morons.

It's funny how I can say, twice, that this kind of attitude is objectively horrible and that I'm not defending it, and people will still get on my case about it. Quit trying to start something; you know as well as I do that no one here is condoning or excusing rape anywhere in this thread. Your attempt to suggest otherwise is petty.

[Geiseric]

There's no difference though, you either condemn rape or condone it, there's no middle ground, especially if you're premier of a so called "workers republic." I mean do you think that rape apoligy was just an underlying stereotype that many people ignorantly thought was normal, like anti semitism? This was only 50 years ago.

[prolcon]

There's no difference though, you either condemn rape or condone it, there's no middle ground, especially if you're premier of a so called "workers republic." I mean do you think that rape apoligy was just an underlying stereotype that many people ignorantly thought was normal, like anti semitism? This was only 50 years ago.

So what exactly are you trying to get from this? I've made it clear I condemn rape. Why are you so insistent that I say Stalin was just especially endowed with evil at the time? How is that improving our understanding of anything? How do we know more about the world believing Stalin was just particularly evil for no reason than when we examine why Stalin and others held these kinds of beliefs?

[hetz]

...but a lot of men held similarly warped views at the time.
Rape wasn't really an acceptable thing in the 30s-40s.
Most men didn't think it was OK to rape women.

[Geiseric]

Rape wasn't really an acceptable thing in the 30s-40s.
Most men didn't think it was OK to rape women.

Apparently most men in Russia did!

[hetz]

Apparently most men in Russia did!
I doubt it.
The Red Army had an unusually high number of rapists, and that's a sad fact, but the Soviet society wasn't a medieval one. Russia saw large improvements in womens rights and everything else since 1917.

[GoddessCleoLover]

There was a sense that the Soviet Army was entitled to revenge itself upon the Germans for the horrors committed upon Soviet civilians. Soviet poet Ilya Ehrenburg wrote some fairly blood-curdling propaganda. Don't recall anything about rape specifically, but IMO encouraging revenge upon civilians leads to rape and murder.

[Geiseric]

I was being sarcastic.

[prolcon]

So what exactly are we figuring out, here, about the way society behaves? What is this helping us conclude about the natural laws of the development of human civilization? Because all I'm really sensing right now is "Stalin was just especially a shit-bag for no reason." I fail to see how determining the personal character of an individual is empowering the struggle for socialism at large. Again, what Stalin said and did in this case is absolutely reprehensible, but what is attributing that to individual shittiness actually accomplishing for us? I'm pretty sure no one is going to come away from this saying, "Wow, Stalin condoned rape. I guess socialism in one country can't work."

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO SIOC can't work for a variety of reasons, none of which have to do with the individual character of the man born Iosif Vissarionovich Jugashvili or anything he said about the subject of rape. I posted earlier that Stalin apparently was dismayed by the extent of violence perpetrated against German civilians by the Soviet Army. The reasons for the mass rape of German women in 1945 have far more to do with the climate of revenge created by the ghastly atrocities committed by German soldiers against Soviet civilians and the resulting climate of revenge it created than anything else. Blaming Stalin seems to be a bit of a red herring.

[Geiseric]

Why did the germans mass rape than, they were doing it since the offset of Ww2.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Why did the germans mass rape than, they were doing it since the offset of Ww2.

The short answer is that their officers told them they didn't have to behave decently toward the Untermenschen.

[Zostrianos]

"Wow, Stalin condoned rape. I guess socialism in one country can't work."

Stalin was no socialist, he was a despot

[prolcon]

Stalin was no socialist, he was a despot

Okay. Wow. It's like my point is at one address, and you're all the way on one of the ice moons of Jupiter.

Also, it's nuanced historical analysis like this that keeps me coming back.

[TheCat'sHat]

I doubt it.
The Red Army had an unusually high number of rapists, and that's a sad fact, but the Soviet society wasn't a medieval one. Russia saw large improvements in womens rights and everything else since 1917.


I'm not a fan of the Soviet Union, at all. But one of the really good accomplishments of the USSR was a really earnest, and very progressive, promotion of women's rights. I think trying to absolve Stalin for his pretty disgusting attitude towards rape really pisses on one of the more noble aspects of the Soviet Union's legacy.

Stalin knew and understood that rape was a bad thing. When he found out that Beria was alone in a house with his daughter he, very understandably, freaked the fuck out. If he didn't think that rape was a benign thing to happen to his daughter then he had no excuse for thinking it was an acceptable thing to have happen to someone else's daughter.

[Art Vandelay]

Stalin knew and understood that rape was a bad thing. When he found out that Beria was alone in a house with his daughter he, very understandably, freaked the fuck out. If he didn't think that rape was a benign thing to happen to his daughter then he had no excuse for thinking it was an acceptable thing to have happen to someone else's daughter.

Exactly and yet Stalin let that sick fuck Beria continue doing what he was doing for years, he only got uppity about the situation when it was his own Daughter. When Stalin hears about mass rapes happening, he brushes it off as soldiers having some fun after a long battle; so now the conclusion we are left is, that Stalin was largely indifferent to rape, as long as it wasn't his family as the victims.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Exactly and yet Stalin let that sick fuck Beria continue doing what he was doing for years, he only got uppity about the situation when it was his own Daughter. When Stalin hears about mass rapes happening, he brushes it off as soldiers having some fun after a long battle; so now the conclusion we are left is, that Stalin was largely indifferent to rape, as long as it wasn't his family as the victims.

Spot on.

[prolcon]

I think we've accomplished a lot here: Stalin was just an evil human being. Good to know; that'll come in handy later.

EDIT: I mean to say that I don't know what we're doing here besides Stalin-baiting. I absolutely agree these attitudes are reprehensible, but why are we not discussing what conditions give rise to attitudes like this? Why is it that when I suggested we look at the social context of this kind of disgusting apologia, it was insisted that Stalin just kind of happened to be especially evil for no reason?

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Since all of this thread accuses Stalin of justifying rape on the basis of a primary source by an anti-communist when it's well-known that the Red Army issued a crackdown on rape as soon as it crossed into German territory, I am also going to add to this with more anti-left sources to keep this pot boiling.


Discoverthenetworks.org: A Guide to the Political Left

Chairman Mao was a sex maniac, as it turned out, who in his later years did in fact prove unstoppable. Around 1953 the “Great Hero” ordered the People’s Liberation Army to provide him with a steady stream of fresh, young, attractive female “recruits.” Leading General Peng Dehuai, later purged, bitterly complained about having to pimp for Mao, comparing it to “selecting imperial concubines."[5] Unlike imperial concubines, however, who had lived in the Forbidden City, had a certain status, and were well cared for, most of Mao’s date rape victims were warned by his bodyguards never to speak of what had happened—and sent packing.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2073

"Since I don't have any credible sources of what happened next, I'm going to go off of the next best thing: hearsay and rumor." - George Ozounian

[Art Vandelay]

I think we've accomplished a lot here: Stalin was just an evil human being. Good to know; that'll come in handy later.

EDIT: I mean to say that I don't know what we're doing here besides Stalin-baiting. I absolutely agree these attitudes are reprehensible, but why are we not discussing what conditions give rise to attitudes like this? Why is it that when I suggested we look at the social context of this kind of disgusting apologia, it was insisted that Stalin just kind of happened to be especially evil for no reason?

Holy fuck you just don't get it do you? Social conditions indeed do play a factor in what views are generally held during any given period. In fact, I brought this up earlier: Bakunin was antisemitic, now antisemitism is indeed a disgusting belief, however it was fairly prevalent during Bakunin's time. It has been accused of Marx of being a sexist, now whether or not that is true I don't know, I've never really looked into the matter, but it was a sociatel norm during Marx's time to view women as second class citizens and I wouldn't be surprised that despite Marx being a highly progressive man, he also fell prey to such stupidity.

What we're saying is that the idea of rape being a-okay wasn't as prevalent during the 1930's-1940's, as the ideas of sexism and antisemitism were during the 19th century. How is that so hard to understand? And by trying to lay this back on societal conditions, is merely attempting to sweep under the rug a disgusting characteristic of your man Uncle Joe.

Now yes, I realize you've come out against rape and stated its horrible (congratulations) just fucking man up and say Stalin was a rape apologist and that it was disgusting what happened. Then this discussion can end.

[Art Vandelay]

Since all of this thread accuses Stalin of justifying rape on the basis of a primary source by an anti-communist when it's well-known that the Red Army issued a crackdown on rape as soon as it crossed into German territory, I am also going to add to this with more anti-left sources to keep this pot boiling.



"Since I don't have any credible sources of what happened next, I'm going to go off of the next best thing: hearsay and rumor." - George Ozounian

It's bourgeois propaganda man, totally just bourgeois propaganda. :rolleyes: Enjoy your blissful ignorance by only trusting sources which fall into your tiny and irrelevant paradigm.

[Grenzer]

Well it's you who doesn't get it, 9mm. The inviolability of Stalin and his political doctrines are at the center of this chump's ideology. I mean for as much as he whines about people dissing Stalin, he doesn't seem to realize that there already is quite a bit of discussion as to why it was a matter of conditions that led to the failure of the revolution and Stalin's role as a guardian of Capital. The shitty ideology of the Soviet Union is a reflection of this, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's shitty and should be called out as such.

If one is forced to concede that Stalin fucked up about something, then the entire edifice collapses and his credibility is called into question; that's why these goons are going on about "Ignore the fact that he was a rape apologist, think of the conditions, man, the conditions!".

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

It's bourgeois propaganda man, totally just bourgeois propaganda. :rolleyes: Enjoy your blissful ignorance by only trusting sources which fall into your tiny and irrelevant paradigm.

No, Milovan Djilas wrote it down, so it must be true. I believe it.

[prolcon]

Holy fuck you just don't get it do you? Social conditions indeed do play a factor in what views are generally held during any given period. In fact, I brought this up earlier: Bakunin was antisemitic, now antisemitism is indeed a disgusting belief, however it was fairly prevalent during Bakunin's time. It has been accused of Marx of being a sexist, now whether or not that is true I don't know, I've never really looked into the matter, but it was a sociatel norm during Marx's time to view women as second class citizens and I wouldn't be surprised that despite Marx being a highly progressive man, he also fell prey to such stupidity.

What we're saying is that the idea of rape being a-okay wasn't as prevalent during the 1930's-1940's, as the ideas of sexism and antisemitism were during the 19th century. How is that so hard to understand? And by trying to lay this back on societal conditions, is merely attempting to sweep under the rug a disgusting characteristic of your man Uncle Joe.

Now yes, I realize you've come out against rape and stated its horrible (congratulations) just fucking man up and say Stalin was a rape apologist and that it was disgusting what happened. Then this discussion can end.

I like how you can at once acknowledge that I've admitted Stalin was a rape apologist and then, in the same sentence, tell me to admit Stalin was a rape apologist to end the discussion. In any case, you're not actually addressing my point: how is coming to the conclusion that Stalin was just kind of especially evil for his time helping us understand anything in any way? I have not once tried to excuse Stalin's behavior, and you know that, but the trend here on RevLeft is to put oneself above others and that's all most of you come here for.

So we've come to the conclusion that Stalin's time was not especially conducive to fomenting indifference toward rape and, from there, we conclude that Stalin was just kind of a shit-head for no real reason other than the inherent shittiness with which he was born. Great. Now what? How do we prevent this shittiness in the future? How does this knowledge empower us in any way? You have not yet answered this. Instead, everyone's priority is to bash Stalin and anyone who would dare suggest that, while, yes, Stalin was a fucker, it doesn't really help us in any way, shape, or form just to attribute these attitudes to shortcomings of personal character.


It's bourgeois propaganda man, totally just bourgeois propaganda. :rolleyes: Enjoy your blissful ignorance by only trusting sources which fall into your tiny and irrelevant paradigm.

I like how he can point out that the source in this case was patently and virulently anti-communist, and your response isn't to provide other sources that confirm this story. Your reaction instead was to mock him. If Stalin is a rape apologist and this story is true, it can be confirmed through more than one source. I very much doubt one anti-communist in the history of the world is the only person who could've gotten his hands on this information. If you have a problem with skepticism arising from characterizing the source of this information, go find more sources.

God damn it, people.

[Geiseric]

I'm not a fan of the Soviet Union, at all. But one of the really good accomplishments of the USSR was a really earnest, and very progressive, promotion of women's rights. I think trying to absolve Stalin for his pretty disgusting attitude towards rape really pisses on one of the more noble aspects of the Soviet Union's legacy.

Stalin knew and understood that rape was a bad thing. When he found out that Beria was alone in a house with his daughter he, very understandably, freaked the fuck out. If he didn't think that rape was a benign thing to happen to his daughter then he had no excuse for thinking it was an acceptable thing to have happen to someone else's daughter.

Stalin didn't do jack when people other than his daughter were being raped, one small detail. And prolecon, your argument is basically saying we're wasting our time talking about what you think is a minute detail, which is funny and messed up since you're trivializing a reactionary attitude.

[GoddessCleoLover]

No, Milovan Djilas wrote it down, so it must be true. I believe it.

Milovan Djilas is a credible source. He demonstrated real courage by writing The New Class.

[prolcon]

Seriously, I can time and again make it very clear I'm not condoning what Stalin said or did, but God help the guy who doesn't fall in with the "Stalin was the embodiment of absolute evil" line, and fuck you if you for one second suggest that it'd be at all helpful to look into how society nurtures certain attitudes. That clearly makes me a rape-indifferent Stalin-cultist.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

If one is forced to concede that Stalin fucked up about something, then the entire edifice collapses and his credibility is called into question; that's why these goons are going on about "Ignore the fact that he was a rape apologist, think of the conditions, man, the conditions!".

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I will respond in case it was about me.

I'm not a fan of Stalin, but it seems that if you ever don't align with a tendency on something here, you're become linked to the opposite tendency or whatever.

Stalin fucked up plenty of things. Djilovas, an anti-Stalin memoirist, said Stalin justified rape. Therefore we must accept that he supported rape. When bourgeois writers say that Stalin was pro-rape, they refer to the alleged conversation in Djilas' memoir.

Mao fucked up a lot of things. Jung Chang, an anti-Mao memoirist, said she knew that Mao engaged in rape. Mao fucked up plenty of things. Therefore we must accepted that Mao was a rapist. When anti-communist writers say that Mao was pro-rape, they refer to Jung Chang's memoir.

Do you condemn rape in both instances?

[prolcon]

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I will respond in case it was.

It was directed at me; I dared suggest that maybe we should look into how rape apologia arises as a trend. This, of course, means that, despite by continued condemnation of Stalin's rape apologia, I am in fact both condoning rape and preserving a delicate worldview centered on notions of Stalin as an inerrant deity. Because RevLeft.

[Art Vandelay]

God damn it pretty sure I said in the revisionist group that I was going to start to join the group of people ignoring the M-L's in the hope that they'd maybe get sick of talking to no one and go away (thus making the boards overall level of intelligent discussion skyrocket), sorry for forgetting guys, I'll stop this now. Talking to these two is like repeatedly smashing my head against a brick wall.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

It was directed at me; I dared suggest that maybe we should look into how rape apologia arises as a trend. This, of course, means that, despite by continued condemnation of Stalin's rape apologia, I am in fact both condoning rape and preserving a delicate worldview centered on notions of Stalin as an inerrant deity. Because RevLeft.

These discussions make RevLeft look highly intelligent. I've often thought about what the people casually browsing through the forum think about the show.

[prolcon]

Comrade 9mm, I love the level of maturity you exhibit. Seriously, how is it that I'm frustrating you by calling Stalin a reprehensible shit-head for being a rape apologist? Or is it that I thought maybe we'd do better to look into how attitudes like this occur rather than just attributing them wholly to individual character? Would it help if I restated my opinion? Because here it is: Stalin was a rape apologist and this makes him really shitty. I think we'd do well to look into how people become rape apologists, but does my saying that somehow make me into a rape apologist and Stalin-cultist?

You're really one to talk about intelligent discussion, aren't you?

[Art Vandelay]

Comrade 9mm, I love the level of maturity you exhibit. Seriously, how is it that I'm frustrating you by calling Stalin a reprehensible shit-head for being a rape apologist? Or is it that I thought maybe we'd do better to look into how attitudes like this occur rather than just attributing them wholly to individual character? Would it help if I restated my opinion? Because here it is: Stalin was a rape apologist and this makes him really shitty. I think we'd do well to look into how people become rape apologists, but does my saying that somehow make me into a rape apologist and Stalin-cultist?

You're really one to talk about intelligent discussion, aren't you?

Rape apologia wasn't a societal norm during Stalin's time.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I will respond in case it was about me.

I'm not a fan of Stalin, but it seems that if you ever don't align with a tendency on something here, you're become linked to the opposite tendency or whatever.

Stalin fucked up plenty of things. Djilovas, an anti-Stalin memoirist, said Stalin justified rape. Therefore we must accept that he supported rape. When bourgeois writers say that Stalin was pro-rape, they refer to the alleged conversation in Djilas' memoir.

Mao fucked up a lot of things. Jung Chang, an anti-Mao memoirist, said she knew that Mao engaged in rape. Mao fucked up plenty of things. Therefore we must accepted that Mao was a rapist. When anti-communist writers say that Mao was pro-rape, they refer to Jung Chang's memoir.

Do you condemn rape in both instances?

Equating Milovan Djilas with Jung Chang with respect to credibility overlooks the fact that Djilas fought long and hard for revolution and anti-Fascism in Yugoslavia AND had the courage to oppose the Tito dictatorship from within Yugoslavia.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Equating Milovan Djilas with Jung Chang with respect to credibility overlooks the fact that Djilas fought long and hard for revolution and anti-Fascism in Yugoslavia AND had the courage to oppose the Tito dictatorship from within Yugoslavia.

In other words, you believe the fact that he "fought long and hard for revolution and anti-Fascism in Yugoslavia" counts to his reliability of his account of Stalin but you don't believe that his anti-Stalinism during the Tito-Stalin split and his general anti-communism after that doesn't count against his reliability on Stalin?

Djilovas was jailed under Tito in the 1950s. He reestablished himself as an anti-Tito, anti-communist dissident in Yugoslavia by the time he got out. His book Conversations with Stalin was when he got out of Yugoslav prison. When Western writers try to show that Stalin was cool with rape - although the Red Army high command took multiple official measures to prevent it in 1945 - they turn to Djilas' book of memoris.

Jung Chang became a Red Guard at age 14 and became an anti-communist at approximately the same period as Milovan Djilovas did - back in the 1960s.

You should at least give her the same credit you give Djilas for being a communist who had "the courage to oppose the Mao dictatorship from within China."

From a logical perspective, it's a very simple matter. Djilas' account is hearsay published in 1962, after Stalin's death. In other words, a primary source published after Stalin's death. Even crappy Wikipedia has a policy discouraging the use of primary sources.

Are you going to condemn Mao too, or do you have a political standard for rumors you accept and rumors you don't?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Conversations With Stalin is not hearsay, Djilas was the Yugoslav party's envoy sent to negotiate personally with Stalin. Djilas was quite prescient both in his critique of the Tito regime and also predicted that Yugoslavia would fall apart. His track record as an analyst was excellent.

Jung Chang's accusations against Mao are not as reliable as the testimony of Milovan Djilas. A number of primary sources contradict her, but others at least partially corroborate her assertions. I don't understand the aversion to primary sources, since secondary sources are by their very nature LESS reliable.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Conversations With Stalin is not hearsay, Djilas was the Yugoslav party's envoy sent to negotiate personally with Stalin. Djilas was quite prescient both in his critique of the Tito regime and also predicted that Yugoslavia would fall apart. His track record as an analyst was excellent.

Jung Chang's accusations against Mao are not as reliable as the testimony of Milovan Djilas. A number of primary sources contradict her, but others at least partially corroborate her assertions. I don't understand the aversion to primary sources, since secondary sources are by their very nature LESS reliable.

I'm perfectly aware of who Djilas was. What he said Stalin said cannot be verified.

If we had an actual written or other record of Stalin being cool with rape, we would have something serious. We could also speculate about it if the Red Army high command simply ignored rape. But we do not - in fact, we clearly know that the Soviet high command immediately began to take measures against revenge against the enemy.

Rokossovsky, whose troops were the first to cross the border onto German territory (in East Prussia) almost immediately issued Order No 006, instructing the troops to not harm German civilians. Zhukov ordered all Soviet troops in Germany to stay on military bases in June 1945, when there was when functioning military administration in Germany.

Among the Soviet troops in Germany were ordinary criminals released from prisons so that they could fight the invaders. It was a desperate time, and total war required all the resources that the Soviets could muster, so all available manpower was thrown into the war effort. Many of these were not the best of men. Of course, even regular soldiers out for revenge are hard to control, and even many of the lower-ranking officers must have turned a blind eye to what was happening. But there was a policy against rape. That's why there were court martials for crimes like rape.

In other words, the only evidence that Stalin was okay with war rape is something Djilas said he said in his anti-Stalin book years later. When you die and I say you told me that you were okay with rape, it cannot be independently confirmed or denied.

No one but me will have a way of knowing if you were cool with rape or if you were against rape. That is why primary sources are distinguished from other sources of history.

[prolcon]

Rape apologia wasn't a societal norm during Stalin's time.

And this means that:



there is nothing to be gained from exploring how it is people come to adopt indifference or apologetic attitudes toward rape;
and I'm a rape apologist and Stalin cultist.

If the above doesn't accurately describe what you've been aggressively insisting this entire time, please clarify.

[Art Vandelay]

And this means that:



there is nothing to be gained from exploring how it is people come to adopt indifference or apologetic attitudes toward rape;
and I'm a rape apologist and Stalin cultist.

If the above doesn't accurately describe what you've been aggressively insisting this entire time, please clarify.

1) Sure there are definitely reasons to explore how people come to reprehensible positions, if you'd like to discuss it, start a thread about it.

2) You're probably a Stalin fan boy, not really sure about your politics, it was just a guess, and no I never called you a rape apologist, but rather Stalin one.

[prolcon]

1) Sure there are definitely reasons to explore how people come to reprehensible positions, if you'd like to discuss it, start a thread about it.

I don't need to. We have a thread right here about Stalin's rape apologia. I figure now's a good time to figure out what made Stalin a rape apologist.


... You're probably a Stalin fan boy, not really sure about your politics, it was just a guess ...So you didn't even know.

[Luís Henrique]

It's funny how I can say, twice, that this kind of attitude is objectively horrible and that I'm not defending it, and people will still get on my case about it.

Welcome to revleft, bro.

Luís Henrique

[hetz]

As perverse and criminal Beria might have been, I doubt he would be stupid enough to do anything to Stalin's daughter.
He knew very well that people lost their heads for much less.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I don't need to. We have a thread right here about Stalin's rape apologia. I figure now's a good time to figure out what made Stalin a rape apologist.



Stalin referred his mother as the "old whore". He verbally abused at least his second wife if not his first and at least pretended to physically abuse her by poling at her face with cigarette butts. Perhaps the common denominator here is a disrespectful attitude towards women?

[Luís Henrique]

Rape apologia wasn't a societal norm during Stalin's time.

Well, according to "radical feminism", rape apologia is a societal norm as of now.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Even crappy Wikipedia has a policy discouraging the use of primary sources.

Er... how does one manage to study history without primary sources?

Luís Henrique

[prolcon]

Stalin referred his mother as the "old whore". He verbally abused at least his second wife if not his first and at least pretended to physically abuse her by poling at her face with cigarette butts. Perhaps the common denominator here is a disrespectful attitude towards women?

In Stalin's defense (worst possible way to start any post on RevLeft, ever), maybe he was just dirty-talking his mom?

[GoddessCleoLover]

In Stalin's defense (worst possible way to start any post on RevLeft, ever), maybe he was just dirty-talking his mom?

That is not a place where I want to go. Suffice to say that Stalin's mom wanted him to be a priest and he was a bit resentful.

[Geiseric]

The only way for him to get an education was to go through preist school, so I don't see why he'd be pissed about that. Can't we just accept that stalin, like many other powerful men, simply thought he was better than everybody else, and didn't value the lives of those who he thought were lesser than him? Because that's really the simplest, down to the point explanation that would explain many misogynist dominant male figures.

[prolcon]

The only way for him to get an education was to go through preist school, so I don't see why he'd be pissed about that. Can't we just accept that stalin, like many other powerful men, simply thought he was better than everybody else, and didn't value the lives of those who he thought were lesser than him? Because that's really the simplest, down to the point explanation that would explain many misogynist dominant male figures.

It would be the simplest. It would also be the least informative, demanding the least amount of any kind of honest intellectual effort. "Stalin was bad just because he was a dick," for the goddamn fucking ass millionth time, doesn't. tell. us. anything. at. all.

[Geiseric]

Haven't you ever read anything about feminism or sexism in modern society?

[prolcon]

Haven't you ever read anything about feminism or sexism in modern society?

Do feminists insist that the problem with sexism is that people are just kind of dicks?

[Geiseric]

No they say that males in power positions develop chauvanism, sexism, and racism. Stalin had false consciousness due to his undeniable position of power in a place above society. It's a basic sociological belief too that Engels goes over in The Origins of the Familly, which was a good read.

[prolcon]

No they say that males in power positions develop chauvanism, sexism, and racism.

I don't doubt that many do, but I'd like to know to whom you're referring specifically. By that, I mean which specific feminists say that? I don't doubt that it's true, but I'd like to know who in particular says it and where. I ask because it's worth looking into why certain positions do this and how authority functions in society. Again, it's not really enough to say "Stalin was just a dick because he was in a position of authority over other people." In fact, while I can't prove this right now, I think I recall something about young Koba being quite the nasty little motherfucker without having much power at all. It would be interesting to look at how priestly education may have played a role in Stalin's chauvinism.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't doubt that many do, but I'd like to know to whom you're referring specifically. By that, I mean which specific feminists say that? I don't doubt that it's true, but I'd like to know who in particular says it and where.
In revleft, when you read the word "feminism", you don't question what kind of feminism it is, you bow down and accept anything that comes after it as god-given revealed truth.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

No they say that males in power positions develop chauvanism, sexism, and racism.

Marxist feminists don't argue that; they argue that sexism is functional to a capitalist system because it makes the costs of the reproduction of labour power fall exclusively upon the working class.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Er... how does one manage to study history without primary sources?

Luís Henrique

It isn't a question of trying to write history without primary sources but evaluating to what extent a given source can be relied on. Primary sources can range from photographs and news reports to letters and memoirs, so you would obviously place more trust in some than you would in others. What good historiography involves is properly analyzing and weighing them.


Evaluating Primary Sources

Primary sources comprise the basic material with which historians work. Nevertheless, historians do not take the evidence provided by such sources simply at face value. Like good detectives, they evaluate the evidence, approaching their sources analytically and critically.

Since primary sources originate in the actual period under discussion, we might be inclined to trust what they say implicitly. After all, if the author is an eyewitness, why should anyone doubt his or her word?

However, as any police investigator could tell you, eyewitnesses see different things and remember then in different ways. One way in which historians evaluate primary sources is to compare them; a fact or description contained in one source is more likely to be accepted as trustworthy if other sources support or corroborate it. Another technique historians use to evaluate the reliability of a source is to identify the author’s biases.

Evaluating Primary Sources: An Example

In a letter written to Sheik El-Messiri in 1798, Napoleon expresses the hope that the sheik will soon establish a government in Egypt based on the principles of the Qu’ran, the sacred text of Islam. Those principles, according to Napoleon, “alone are true and capable of bringing happiness to men.” Should we assume, on the evidence of this letter that Napoleon believed in the truth of Islam? A historian might ask, “Do we have any other evidence for Napoleon’s attitude toward Islam? What do other primary sources tell us about Napoleon’s attitude toward religions such as Catholicism, Protestantism, and Judaism? Do any other primary sources contradict the attitude toward Islam expressed in Napoleon’s letter to the sheik?” In other words, “How accurately and to what extent can this source answer questions about Napoleon’s religious beliefs?” In addition, historians try to understand or interpret their sources even if those sources do not offer the best or most accurate information on a certain topic. As it happens, Napoleon did not believe in Islam. This does not mean, however, that his letter to the sheik should be relegated to the dustbin. Instead, a good historian will ask, “under what circumstances did Napoleon write this letter? Who was Sheik El-Messiri, and what was his relationship to Napoleon? What does this letter tell us about Napoleon’s willingness to use religion to his political advantage?” Thus, to write about historical questions, you will need to know how to approach many different kinds of primary sources and ask appropriate questions of them.

Questions for Evaluating Written Primary Sources
• Who is the author?
• How does the author’s gender and socioeconomic class compare to the people about whom he or she is writing?
• Why did he or she write the source?
• Who was the intended audience?
• What unspoken assumptions does the text contain?
• Are these detectable biases in the source?
• When was the source composed?
• What is the historical context in which the source was written and read?
• Are there other contemporary sources to compare against this one?

my.ccsd.net/download/2027492889-Boivie/resource/27818

And so forth, obviously.

[Luís Henrique]

It isn't a question of trying to write history without primary sources but evaluating to what extent a given source can be relied on. Primary sources can range from photographs and news reports to letters and memoirs, so you would obviously place more trust in some than you would in others. What good historiography involves is properly analyzing and weighing them.

And the same regarding secondary sources, isn't it?

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

And the same regarding secondary sources, isn't it?

Luís Henrique

Depends on the quality of the source, yes. A good secondary source based on primary material is supposed to have properly evaluated such material, so the assumption is that such a source is easier to use as reference since the preliminary step of evaluating the evidence was already done by a historian.

[Geiseric]

I don't doubt that many do, but I'd like to know to whom you're referring specifically. By that, I mean which specific feminists say that? I don't doubt that it's true, but I'd like to know who in particular says it and where. I ask because it's worth looking into why certain positions do this and how authority functions in society. Again, it's not really enough to say "Stalin was just a dick because he was in a position of authority over other people." In fact, while I can't prove this right now, I think I recall something about young Koba being quite the nasty little motherfucker without having much power at all. It would be interesting to look at how priestly education may have played a role in Stalin's chauvinism.

you know that's a really good point, he grew up around the russian orthodox church, one of the most repressive institutions around the world. That on top of his position of unquestioned leadership probably did it.

[prolcon]

His leadership was hardly as unquestioned and absolute as people like to think, even if he did have a lot of power. I do think I have a little bit of insight into his infamous boorishness and chauvinistic attitudes, though. See, I grew up in a very fundamentalist, conservative part of the world and, even when I renounced religion and began to pursue ideas counter to what I'd been taught, all I really managed was to take the hate and bile and angry energy and redirect it, rather than dissipate it. The world I grew up in made assholes of the people who embraced it as well as the people who reacted against it.

[Zostrianos]

One thing I've often seen cited as a factor in Stalin's (and Hitler's for that matter) personality was that he had an extremely abusive father, and that screwed him up for life. Many psychologists attribute their disdain for human life and narcissism as a consequence of childhood abuse.

[Louis Riel]

Although I am not a Marxist-Leninist I have to point out that Joseph Stalin is dead and his historical viewpoints on rape have nothing to do with his contributions to Communist theory. Karl Marx also said some racist things. I don't think MLs like Stalin as a person or think he was a great guy, they just adher to his political theories.

[ManU]

Can someone tell me why people call Stalin Russian when he was not a Russian looking

[Ostrinski]

Because he was Georgian.

[RedAnarchist]

Can someone tell me why people call Stalin Russian when he was not a Russian looking

People tend to use the word Russian or Russia to describe the USSR, partly out of ignorance and partly because Russia was by far the most dominant republic in the USSR - after all, the Soviet Union was basically the same area as the Russian Empire.

[l'Enfermé]

In Russian a member of the Russian ethnicity is a Русский - Ruskiy. A citizen of the Russian state(back then, the Empire, and the RSFSR, today, the Russian Federation) though is a Российский (Rossiyskiy) citizen. Rossiyskiy doesn't have anything to do with race or ethnicity. Both, however, are translated as "Russian" into English. Thus, Stalin was a Rossiyskiy revolutionary(until the foundation of the USSR in 1922), as were all the other non-Russian Bolsheviks.

The Russian Federation, by the way, is not the Ruskaya Federation, but the Rossiyskaya Federation. The RSFSR also wasn't the Russkaya Sovetskaya Federativnaya bla bla bla, but the Rossiyskaya Sovetskaya Federativnaya bla bla bla. The Russian Empire, too, was not a Ruskaya Imperiya, but a Rossiyskaya Imperiya - the Emperor was not a Ruskiy Imperator but a Rossiyskiy Imperator. Before Peter the Great though, the Russian government was a Ruskoye Czarstvo, not a Rossiyskyo.

All of this nuances have to be kept in mind cause before WWI, Russians were a majority of the Russian Empire's inhabitants only if you pretended that Ukrainians and Belarusians are Russian also, which is what the Empire did.

[Raskolnikov]

One thing I've often seen cited as a factor in Stalin's (and Hitler's for that matter) personality was that he had an extremely abusive father, and that screwed him up for life. Many psychologists attribute their disdain for human life and narcissism as a consequence of childhood abuse.


..The Court of the Red Tsar shows it was not as 'simple' as that, for the case of Stalin.

This, and Psychoanalysis trumps Psychology. One is a specific study of human social relations and it's developments.

The other half-asses it's way on a trapeze, trying to remain "academic".

[ManU]

Because he was Georgian.
A Georgian marxist ruling over Russians is pretty odd. dont u think

[Ostrinski]

Meh. He eventually started identifying strongly with Russian nationalism, as did many other non-Russian Bolsheviks.

[Geiseric]

Meh. He eventually started identifying strongly with Russian nationalism, as did many other non-Russian Bolsheviks.

Dzerinsky was polish and is a good example of this later on ^

[Invader Zim]

It isn't a question of trying to write history without primary sources but evaluating to what extent a given source can be relied on. Primary sources can range from photographs and news reports to letters and memoirs, so you would obviously place more trust in some than you would in others. What good historiography involves is properly analyzing and weighing them.


Well, that isn't what historiography actually is. Historiographical discussion, while potentially including examinations of methodology, is about the history of ideas - specifically the ideas of historians. In other words a historiographical piece of work charts that historians have argued about any given topic.

And the fact is that all primary sources require a degree of circumspection. The premise that documents are more reliable, or have greater value, than memory is fallacious and extremely short-sighted. Of course, in the context of this discussion, I actually tend to agree with you - a memoir written by a political figure cannot be taken immediately at face value with out corroboration for a variety of other sources. In short, it does not stand alone. But, then again, neither would any other source regarding the mindset of a figure such as Stalin. I recently read that the journalist/historian Laurence Rees, in his 2010 book, actually discusses this. Unfortunately I don't have the book, but it would be interesting to see what sources he uses (though given the populist nature of the work it may well be that it fails to include footnotes).

[feeLtheLove]

His actions and statements kind of say what kind of "Communist" he was...