The USSR

[Osman Ghazi]

Now let's make one thing clear: I am not a Stalinist. I do not think he was a great man or even a good one and I do not think that his crimes against humanity are merely 'imperialist propaganda'. That being said however, I do think that the Soviet Union is possibly one of the greatest states ever in that it took essentially a mass of uneducated peasants and brought them to a level not much worse than that of today's leading industrial states.

Many people say that it was a totalitarian state. Under Stalin yes, this was a fairly true statement. However, if you believe that Stalin's 25 year reign was typical of the Soviet Union as a whole, you are gravely mistaken. Firstly, in 1956, under Krushchev, the gulags were almost entirely emptied and the power of the police, especially that of the NKVD was severely curbed. Never again was there a dictator in the USSR.

Secondly, people's veiw of the Soviet political and economic system shows extreme ignorance. For instance, many people don't refer to it as a democracy when in fact it was. This is easy to mistake however, as it is not the same as Western, liberal-democracy.
By direct election, the people voted in the Soviet of the Union, which had 767 delegates in total, apporoximately 1 per 300000 Soviet citizens. There was also the 750-member Soviet of Nationalities, which was elected by the people of the various Union Republics, (Ukraine, Latvia etc.) Autonomous Republics, (Moldavia, North Osetia etc.) Autonomous regions and national areas. This body formed the Supreme Soviet, which elected the 37-member Presidium. This body is equivalent to the Parliaments and Congresses of the Western nations in that it was the supreme legislative body of the Soviet Union.
Also, there were local Soviets, who had about 4 million part-time delegates all told. Another fact is that 42% of the local delegates were women, a percentage which has yet to be topped by the West. However, it is also true that on average, the Presidium only had 1 or 2 female delegates.

People also don't seem to understand that the CPSU was not all-powerful. It served the same purpose as a political party in Western societies; that is it served to articulate and aggregate the interests of the people. (For those who don't know, articualtion is finding out what the people want and aggregation is fulfilling those desires.)

i'll write more later but right now i have hockey to go to. (I'm a Canadian stereotype)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So... you're siding with the revisionists? :unsure:

[Commie Girl]

:unsure: I need some help! Can someone please explain Stalinism, communism ( I thought they were the same) and what is/was a Bolshevik?

[Osman Ghazi]

RedZeppelin: I don't at all agree with Gorbachev. I don't even agree with all of Krushchev's policies. He made some very good decisions domestically but peaceful co-existence was not very well thought out. He should have realized that the West didn't want peace, they wanted another 'evil empire' so that they could invade the world in the interests of protecting it from them. However, overall i admire Krushchev because he had the balls to denounce Stalin's atrocities when everyone else was still pissing their pants about it.

Sexydj4u:
Stalinism: Not really socialism at all, except economically. Usually refers to the USSR during Stalin's reign when he used brutal methods to deal with real and imagined enemies. He basically made a good system useless by constantly purging the Soviets, the Party and the economic ministries.

Communism: Basically, you have capitalism. Once that is overthrown and the dictatorship of the proletariat established, classes are abolished, land is nationalized, you have socialism. Communism comes when the people begin to govern themselves and the state begins to wither away. As Lenin said "As lng as there is a State there is no freedom, when there is freedom there will be no state"

Bolshevik: Communist party member. Basically, this was Lenin's faction after the split. (The other side were the Mensheviks) The basic difference was that the Mensheviks did not believe that Russia was ripe for communism and they thought that a democratic capitalist system should be set up to industrialize the state. The Bolsheviks argued that there was a sufficient proletarian and petty bourgois (peasant) population to have a firm power base for a socialist state.

[Osman Ghazi]

Basically, to continue my previous post, the USSR was organized into 3 main branches of power: the party, which as i mentioned before, serves the purpose of interest articulation and aggregation. The Soviets, local regional/Union-Regional and Supreme/All-Union are the main legislative body.
The third, which i did not discuss in my last post is the economic councils and the council of ministers. Basically, this serves as the executive arm of the Soviet Union. At the start of every year, they make up a plan for the economic developement to be made and the production necessary to meet demand. They are also responsible, with the 'gosplan' councils for the developement of the five-year plans. They are divided into ministries based on the type of work they control i.e. Heavy Industries, Light Industries, Transportation and Communication etc.
This is the arm most associated with the 'ruling bureaucracy' theory of totalitarian USSR. However, they are not all-powerful. (Although they were powerful enough to successfully support Brehznev, Podgorny and Kosygin in their bid for power against Krushchev.)

Another important point to be made, possibly the most important: THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE USSR. Again, the two main branches of the government were the Soviets and the economic councils/ministerial apparatus.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I am not about to attack post-Stalin USSR. I agree with Osman in that respect. I do not think that the USSR was truely revisionist like China and Vietnam are today.

[Osman Ghazi]

Until Gorby came along anyway.

[Fidel Castro]

Interesting piece Osman. What I want to know is (because I am pretty ignorant on this subject) what part did Gorbachev actually play in the collapse of the USSR, and was it ever his intention to end Communism in Russia? :huh:

[M.L]

Gorby made some reforms, i'm not certain what he did. One thing i know for sure is that he was the direct reason to the collapse because he broke up the Warsawpact which was the deathblow for the Sovjetunion!!

One thing that is pretty strange is that when Gorby and Jeltsin shared the "control" over the country the people had the chance to vote wheter to keep the Sovjet Union or to become Russia...75% of the people voted to keep Sovjet but some months later Jeltsin changed that anyway, and that after Sovjet becoming a democratic country!!!

[Osman Ghazi]

Basically, Gorbachev wanted to make the reforms perestoika (i forget what this means some help me out) and glasnost (openness). It wasn't such a bad thing really. By glasnost he meant more popular discussion of the political process and political issues. I think peretroika had something to do with either being more western-styled or more market-oriented. Anyway, the reforms were being instituted too fast and the Union Republics started to demand independance or at the very least more autonomy from the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic (RSFSR) which is today's Russian federation. Once they stopped censorship, people started reading more radical anti-communist literature and propaganda and they became more rebellious. Plus Yeltsin was stirring shit up and wanted a more western state.

Anyway, it went to hell in a handbag from there: old hardline Communist members (the group of eight) attempted a coup. It failed becuase the only politician they arrested was Gorbachev. Yeltsin escaped the cluches of the KGB by leaving 45 minutes earlier than usual and no attempt was made to arrest the Duma. The group of eight sent troops to attempt to capture the Winter Palace (Duma meeting place) but people took to the streets and the military wouldn't attack. After that Yeltsin was proclaimed president, the coup members were arrested and the Union Republic declared independance.

Hope that wasn't too long

[M.L]

ok, thanks for that.
I watched this show on discovery "the fall of the USSR". They talked to Gorby and he had one line he always used and it went something like this " i was determined to be democratic all the way". And even after Jeltsin taking the power and changing from Sovjet to Russia whitout democracy he still was determined to be democratic all the way.
But do anyone has any comment on Gorby braking up the Warzawpact?

[Osman Ghazi]

Basically, with all the domestic troubles, he couldn't keep control ther anymore. They were essentially satellite states. Once they were sure that there would be no Soviet intervention, people began to rebel. Notable was Lech Walesa and his movement Solidarity Poland.

[M.L]

Thanks agin.
But if the people wanted to keep Sovjet wasn't that the same as wanting Gorby instead of Yeltsin?
I'm not certain on what it means to be a satellite state?
Gorby got the Nobel peace prize becuase of his work with making the connection between West and East better. And to make that connection better he had to give up the pact and let go of the censorship and making democracy. All theese reforms did just reflected bad on him. Even if that was what he truely wanted, which i belive.

people started reading more radical anti-communist literature and propaganda and they became more rebellious.
That definitely reflected bad on him!!

[Osman Ghazi]

By satellite state i mean that they weren't real soveriegn nations but in fact soviet puppets.
The main reason that people turned against Communism was becasue the inneffiency of the industrial ministries. Since 1970, their main goal had been to acheive the American level of consumption. However, through the innefficiency of the industrial minitries, they were unable to acheive this.

[M.L]

OK.
And a follow up question!
Did Yeltsin(the walking bottle of vodka) use that to win voices? And did he increase the consumption?

[Osman Ghazi]

He most definately did not. The economy completely collapsed because there wasn't any market mechanism in the USSR. Know one had any idea what was going on and no one knew how to make it better. The Soviet Union went to having 2 million people living under the poverty line to 60 million. From what i've heard anyway.
Yeltsin offered them that and 'more freedom' i.e. western-style democracy.
Russia has recovered a little, but it is facing many of the same problems as prior to the revolution of 1917: that is, little government protection of workers and an increasing gap between rich and poor.

[M.L]

When Sovjet changed from planned economy to market economy some investors bought up factories for practiclly no money at all. And know they are the Elite of Russia.

Many belive that Putin is making Russia to a "dangerous" Communist country again. It's a common thread in Swedish newspapers, and they got fuel by this oppositioner who disapeared.
The classdifferences is very big and Putin have made some comments on those who are "too rich".
But the people lived better under the USSR then they do now and thats a fact. Still people can't understand that socialism/communism aren't making things worse!!

In Russia today you are either Filthy Rich ore Terribly Poor!! Maybe a slight exaggeration but you see my point!

[Se7en]

People consider Putin to be a socialist? That is news to me, I had no idea...

I don't see how Russia is returning to communism at all. Oligarchic-Authoritarianism? - yes. Communism? - no.

I have this feeling that Russia will once again be the setting of a Communist Revolution in this century...hopefully they do a few things differently the second time around.

[JasonR]

i do not know how you can support post-Stalin USSR sir. It was disgraceful and inhumane, yes, they may have emptied the gulags and allowed more "markets freedoms", but khruschev was no better than George W Bush. he destroyed all countries that disagreed with the USSR's agenda, and forced nations into the warsaw pact. Atleast stalin and molotov gave countries freedom to do what they wanted, like yugoslavia that "stalin' considererd "revisionist.

I don't really like the Stalinist line, but Soveit peoples will tell you that they lived better under stalin than under Khruschev and Gorbachev (especially the latter). Why do you ythink the Russian Communist party marches with the symbols of Lenin and Stalin rather than the symbols of gorbachev an dKhruschev? because the people support the first two the most.

I have a psecial place in my heart of Leninist and Stalinist Russia because I am half Ukrainian and my grandmother absolutely loves Stalin and tells me magnificiant stories on how goods were extremely affordable and how people were treated like human beings, rather than like animals like here in America. Khruschev was a bad man, eventhough he was kinder and easier on soviet prisoners.

BTW, I believe Putin enacted a law to put Lenin and Stalin on coins. He has called Stalin a graet man for leading russia during WWII

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:19 PM
BTW, I believe Putin enacted a law to put Lenin and Stalin on coins. He has called Stalin a graet man for leading russia during WWII
So far he is doing a good job at taking after the Soviet leaders. Just look at the work in Chechnya, Stalin would be proud.

[Osman Ghazi]

Ya, Stalin was such a swell guy. I'm sure he thought he was doing the Ingush a favour when he ethnically cleansed the Caucasus of them and had them deported to Siberia.

In fact, Stalin was so kind and generous that he even sought to bring the Poles under his enlightened rule by means of the alliance with our brothers the Nazis. Of course anyone who even looked like they would resist was killed. Ah, Benevolent Assimilation.

The thing is that there are facts to back up my claims. The Soviet Union was far better under Krushchev. It is simply an undeniable fact that people had more money under Krushchev. By the by, it wasn't Krushchev who set up the more market-oriented system. It was Brehznev. Gorbachev i'll give you though. Nobody likes him.

Who do you think forced Eastern Europe to become satellite states? Who set up the Communist Parties there after he invaded during WW2? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't Krushchev.

I don't know if you talked to anyone in the gulags but they were somewhat less satisfied with the management than your dear old grandmama.

[JasonR]

In fact, Stalin was so kind and generous that he even sought to bring the Poles under his enlightened rule by means of the alliance with our brothers the Nazis. Of course anyone who even looked like they would resist was killed. Ah, Benevolent Assimilation.

What wouldve you done?

the USSR's decision regarding the molotov-ribbentrop pact was very good. It bought the USSR time to build up their forces against operation Barbarossa which they knew was coming. you are over exaggerating horribly when you speak as if Stalin and hitler were actually friends or that Stalin actually killed anyone hwho disagreed with him. Severel of my family members worked in soviet journalism under Stalin and had much freedoms to say what they wanted. they were not censored like they make it out to be ina merica.


The thing is that there are facts to back up my claims. The Soviet Union was far better under Krushchev. It is simply an undeniable fact that people had more money under Krushchev. By the by, it wasn't Krushchev who set up the more market-oriented system. It was Brehznev. Gorbachev i'll give you though. Nobody likes him.

Khruschev is one of the reasons the ussr collapsed! His ridiculous spending on weapons, space progects and all over the peoples needs are what ruined the economy. Brezhnev wasn't as bad as Khrsuchev, Khruschev reinstated various private property laws. the people of Russia and Eastern europe absolutely hate Khruschev and Gorbachev and the majority seem to support Lenin and Stalin. I for one disagree with most of their ideas on class situations, but they are respectable figures, not the monsters yo paint them out to be.


Who do you think forced Eastern Europe to become satellite states? Who set up the Communist Parties there after he invaded during WW2? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't Krushchev.

how was eastern europe forced to join the USSR ? they had their own sovereign governments, et. Let me tell you when Red army liberated the peoples of Eastern Europe there was not one occupying casualty, why? because it wasn't like in Iraq where the peopledon't want to be liberated, they wanted communism. Most of the communist parties had popular support and if the Ussr hadn't occupied these nations the Americans and their western friends would've ended up taking them over anyway (like West germany later took over East germany).

Khruschev was a very brutal man. under Stalin no country in eastern europe had an anti-communist revolt, under Khruschev there were countless, and Khruschev sent his imperial military to crush the popular social democratic revolts.


I don't know if you talked to anyone in the gulags but they were somewhat less satisfied with the management than your dear old grandmama

and...? People in gulags were criminals and convicts. I doubt many convicts in america are very found of the judicial system here in the USA, that is because it is giving them discipline. the gulags are harshly overstated too, people got fair trails before being sentenced, similar to the court system of the US. I don't think labour camps are ok, but it's not like things improved under khruschev. There are more prisoners in america today than in the Stalin era.

again simply because khruschev called stalin an evildoer doesn't mean he's right. If khruschev was so great than why was he recalled ? Because he was working for the interests of a small group of people. The economy of the USSR staggered horribly under Khrucschev, not to mention all the unnecessary spending. IT seems that in america they love khruschev for his role in preventing nuclear war, I dont understand this, che guevara himself called Khruschev a horrible imperialist.

[Comrade Zeke]

But then again you got to look at it this way........The Soviet Union........all of its presidents (except Krushchev served for life even look at an Ecycolpedia. We look at the statistics in certain books but we must be pratical. THe Communist party rulled everything. It may have been a cool country to you but is aint to me because it was oppresvie, imperalistic, and was seen tryed to convert people to be Communinsts. Now we must be more like Che Guvara and support poor people not the fat Communist party leaders. And the best example of a Communist system I have seeen is Yugosalvia. And on anthor note Brezhnev wanted sent all those Soveit troops into Praugue can't forget about that. And everyone knows just like the Fucked up United States it kept thosands of troops in the territory it captured. The only country in Eastern Eroupe that stayed out of its impealist ways was Yugoslavia and to a lesser Extent Rommania. Stalin did not want Communism he just wanted to rule every peice of land her got a hold of and keep it for his fat chubby greedy little hands. Josip Broz (Tito) on the other hand got away from the Bastard and Yugoslavia was the most susseful Socialist country this world of ours has seen. Oh and I forgot Albania remmained independent from Soviet Control but look what happend to them....Here is a joke: Two Serbians are walking on the border of Albania. They want woman and they need them quick. Well Albania is just over the border and they are going to cross over and go rape the woman in Albania. There is an old man on the Albania side. He is starving to death. The Serbians yell out "Attention you crigny old man we are comming into Albania to rape your woman!!!" THe old man replies with a tear in his eyes...."What Womman Enver Hoxha has killed us off, we have only our goats now. lol :lol:

[Comrade Zeke]

Sorry can't spell tonight

[Comrade Ceausescu]

The thing is that there are facts to back up my claims. The Soviet Union was far better under Krushchev. It is simply an undeniable fact that people had more money under Krushchev. By the by, it wasn't Krushchev who set up the more market-oriented system. It was Brehznev. Gorbachev i'll give you though. Nobody likes him.

Khrushchev allowed private ownership,capitalism to a certain extent.He was a traitor and a pig.The best thing he did was crush the capitalist,anti-socialist uprising in Hungary.And also,can you give me a source for your claims that Stalin ethnically clensed certain minorites.

[Osman Ghazi]

Believe this or not, it's your choice. Personally I think Krushchev is a fairly reliable source considering he was there and you lot weren't.

Edit: Please note, this is actually a very crappy version of teh speech that leaves a lot out for some reason.
I have a book that contains what he said about Stalin's ethnic cleansing of the Caucasus.
I will add it at the part where it should be.

February 24-25 1956

N. S. Khrushchev’s Secret Speech
to the closed session of the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU

Comrades! ... quite a lot has been said about the cult of the individual and about its harmful consequences. After Stalin’s death the Central Committee began to implement a policy of explaining concisely and consistently that it is impermissible and foreign to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism to elevate one person, to transform him into a superman possessing supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god. ..

Such a belief about a man, and specifically about Stalin was cultivated among us for many years.

The objective of the present report is not a thorough evaluation of Stalin’s life and activity. Concerning Stalin’s merits an entirely sufficient number of books, pamphlets and studies has already been written ... [Khrushchev then reports the positions of Marx, Engels and Lenin in relation to collective leadership, the role of the party and the working class, etc, and introduces the delegates to the documents relating to Lenin’s Testament, in which he warns against Stalin, concluding with a reading of a letter from Lenin to Stalin] “... I ask therefore that you weigh carefully whether you are agreeable to retracting your words and apologising or whether you prefer the severance of relations between us.” Lenin, 5 March 1923.

Comrades! I will not comment on these documents. They speak for themselves. Since Stalin could behave in this way during Lenin’s lifetime ... we can easily imagine how Stalin treated other people. ...

When we analyse the practice of Stalin in regard to the direction of the party and of the country, when we pause to consider everything which Stalin perpetrated, we must be convinced that Lenin’s fears were justified. The negative characteristics of Stalin, which, in Lenin’s time were only incipient, transformed themselves during the last years into a grave abuse of power by Stalin, which caused untold harm to our party.

We have to consider seriously and analyse correctly this matter in order that we may preclude any possibility of a repetition ...

We must affirm that the party fought a serious fight against the Trotskyites, the Rightists, and bourgeois nationalists, and that it disarmed ideologically all the enemies of Leninism. This ideological fight was carried on successfully, as a result of which the party became strengthened and tempered. Here Stalin played a positive role. ...

This was a stubborn and a difficult fight but a necessary one, because the political line of both the Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc and of the Bukharinites led actually toward the restoration of capitalism and capitulation to the world bourgeoisie. ...

But some years later, when socialism in our country was fundamentally constructed, when the exploiting classes were generally liquidated, when the Soviet social structure had radically changed, when the social basis for political movements and groups hostile to the party had violently contracted, when the ideological opponents of the party had long since been defeated politically - then the repression directed against them began. ...

We must assert that, in regard to those persons who in their time had opposed the party line, there were often no sufficiently serious reasons for their physical annihilation. The formula “enemy of the people” was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals. ...

Had Leninist principles been observed ... we certainly would not have had such a brutal violation of revolutionary legality and many thousands of people would not have fallen victim to the method of terror. ... [Khrushchev recalls the incident of Kamenev and Zinoviev’s betrayal of the Revolution in October 1917, and their subsequent reinstatement to the leadership] ...

As facts prove, Stalin, using his unlimited power, allowed himself many abuses, acting in the name of the Central Committee, not asking for the opinion of the Committee members nor even the members of the Politburo, or even inform them ...

During Lenin’s lifetime, party Congresses were convened regularly; ... It should be sufficient to mention that during all the years of the Great Patriotic War, not a single Central Committee plenum took place ...

A party commission was [recently] charged with investigating what made possible the mass repressions against the majority of the Central Committee members and candidates elected at the Seventeenth Congress ... many party activists who were branded in 1937-38 as “enemies” were actually never enemies. spies, wreckers, etc but were always honest communists ... and often, no longer able to bear barbaric tortures, they charged themselves with all kinds of grave and unlikely crimes.

...of the 139 members and candidates of the party’s Central Committee who were elected at the Seventeenth Congress, 98 persons, i.e., 70 per cent, were arrested and shot!! [consternation in the hall] What was the composition of the delegates? 80 per cent joined the party during the years of illegality before the Revolution and during the Civil War before 1921. By social origin the basic mass of the delegates were workers (60 per cent of the voting members).

For this reason, it is inconceivable that a congress so composed would have elected a Central Committee a majority of whom would prove to be enemies of the people ...

The same fate met not only the Central Committee members but also the majority of the delegates to the Seventeenth Congress. Of 1,966 delegates, 1,108 persons were arrested ... This very fact shows how absurd, wild and contrary to common sense were the charges of counter-revolutionary crimes ... [indignation in the hall]

... repression increased after the congress... after the complete liquidation of the Trotskyites, Zinovievites and Bukharinites, when as a result of that fight the party achieved unity, Stalin ceased to an even greater degree to consider members of the Central Committee or Politburo.

After the criminal murder of S M Kirov, mass repressions and brutal acts of violation of socialist legality began. ... the circumstances surrounding Kirov’s murder hide many things which are inexplicable and mysterious ...top functionaries of the NKVD were shot presumably to cover up ...

Mass repressions grew tremendously from the end of 1936 ... the mass repressions at this time were made under the slogan of a fight against the Trotskyites ... but ... Trotskyism was completely disarmed ... it was clear that there was no basis for mass terror in the country.

This terror was actually directed not at the remnants of the exploiting classes but against the honest workers. ...

Using Stalin’s formulation, namely, that the closer we are to Socialism the more enemies we will have ... the number of arrests based on charges of counter-revolutionary crimes grew 10 times between 1936 and 1937. ... Confessions of guilt were gained with the help of cruel and inhuman tortures ... when they retracted their confessions before the military tribunal [no one was told] ...

[Khrushchev cites at length the testimony of Eikhe, a member since 1905, tortured and shot in February 1940, and details the cases other well-known veterans denounced by Stalin, to consternation in the hall]

Not long ago we called to the Central Committee Presidium and interrogated the investigative judge Rodos ... he is a vile person with the brain of a bird and morally completely degenerate. And it was this man who was deciding the fate of prominent party workers ... he told us: “I was told that [they] were people’s enemies and for this reason, I, as an investigative judge, had to make them confess that they are enemies”. He could do this only through long tortures, which he did, receiving detailed instructions from Beria ... he cynically declared: “I thought that I was executing the orders of the Party”. ...

[Khrushchev moves on to talk of Stalin role in the War].

... Stalin put forward the thesis that the tragedy which our nation experienced in the first part of the war was the result of the “unexpected” attack of the Germans against the Soviet Union. But, comrades, this is completely untrue. As soon as Hitler came to power in Germany he assigned to himself the task of liquidating Communism. The ts were saying this openly; they did not hide their plans. ...

Churchill personally warned Stalin [and] ... stressed this repeatedly in his despatches of 18 April and in the following days.

However, Stalin took no notice of these warnings. ..

information of this sort .. was coming from our own military and diplomatic sources ... [Stalin ordered that] no preparatory defensive work should be undertaken at the borders, that the Germans were not to be given any pretext ... when the t armies actually invaded Soviet territory and military operations had begun, Stalin issued the order that the German fire was not to be returned. Why? It was because Stalin, despite evident facts, thought that the war had not yet started, ...

Very grievous consequences, followed Stalin’s annihilation of many military commanders and political workers during 1937-41 because of his suspiciousness and through slanderous accusations ...; during this time the cadre of leaders who had gained military experience in Spain and the Far East was almost completely liquidated ... large scale repression against the military cadres led also to undermined military discipline,...

after the first severe disaster and defeats at the front, Stalin thought that this was the end. In one of his speeches he said: “All that which Lenin created we have lost forever”. After this Stalin for a long time did not direct the military operations and ceased to do anything whatever. ...

when he returned to active leadership ... the nervousness and hysteria which Stalin demonstrated, interfering with actual military operations, caused our Army serious damage. ... during the whole Patriotic War, he never visited any section of the front or any liberated city ...

[laughter begins to break out in the hall from time to time as Khrushchev ridicules Stalin’s exaggeration of his role, after the war, and he concludes ...] Not Stalin, but the Party as a whole, the Soviet government, our heroic army, its talented leaders and brave soldiers, the whole Soviet nation - these are the ones who assured the victory in the Great Patriotic War! [tempestuous and prolonged applause, which breaks out repeatedly as Khrushchev continues this theme].

All the more monstrous are the acts whose initiator was Stalin .. we refer to the mass deportations from their native places, of whole nations .. not dictated by any military considerations .. the Ukrainians avoided this fate only because there were too many of them and there was no place to deport them [laughter]

Edit: Exact words were: Thus, already at the end of 1943, when there occurred a permanent break-through at the fronts of the Great Patriotic War benefitting the Soviet Union, a decision was taken and executed concerning the deportation of all the Karachai from the lands on which they lived.

In the same period, at the end of December 1943, the same lot befell the whole population of teh Autonomous Kalmyk Republic. In March 1944, all the Chechen and Ingush peoples were deported and the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic was liquidated. In April 1944, all Balkars were deported to faraway places from the territory of the Kabardino-Balker Autonomous Republic and the Republic itself was renamed the Autonomous Kabardian Republic.

The Ukrainians avoided meeting this fate only because there were too many of them and there was no place to which to deport them. Otherwise, he would have deported them also. (Laughter and animation in the hall.)

Not only a Marxist-Leninist but also no man of common sense can grasp how it is possible to make whole nations responsible for inimicable activity, including women, children, old people, Communists and Komsomols, to use mass repression against them and to expose them to misery and suffering for the hostile acts of individual persons or groups of persons.

... The Party came out of the war even more united .. [Khrushchev then tells of the “Leningrad affair” in which eminent military leaders were denounced and shot]. Stalin became even more capricious, irritable and brutal; in particular his suspicion grew. His persecution mania reached unbelievable dimensions ... this unbelievable suspicion was cleverly taken advantage of by the abject provocateur and vile enemy, Beria [explaining how Beria denounced Voroshilov and others. He then tells of the fictitious “Georgian plot”].

The “Yugoslavian affair” contained no problems which could not have been solved through party discussions among comrades ... it was completely possible to have prevented the rupture of relations with that country ... mistakes and shortcomings were magnified in a monstrous manner by Stalin, which resulted in a break of relations with a friendly country [Stalin thought he could destroy Tito, but] Tito had behind him a state and a people who had gone through a sever school of fighting for liberty and independence, a people which gave support to its leaders. ...

We have found a proper solution ... liquidation of the abnormal relationship with Yugoslavia was done in the interest of the whole camp of Socialism, in the interest of strengthening peace in the whole world.

[Khrushchev then deals with the “affair of the doctor-plotters”] Present at this Congress as a delegate is the former Minister of State Security, Comrade Ignatiev. Stalin told him curtly, “If you do not obtain confessions from the doctors we will shorten you by a head”. [tumult in the hall] ... the methods were simple - beat, beat and, once again, beat.

When we examined this “case” after Stalin’s death, we found it to be fabricated from beginning to end.

[Khrushchev then delivers a prolonged attack on the role of Beria]. Beria was unmasked by the Party’s Central Committee shortly after Stalin’s death. As a result of particularly detailed legal proceedings, it was established that Beria had committed monstrous crimes and Beria was shot.

[Khrushchev then explains how Stalin personally edited the biographies and histories lauding his role to ensure that his own role was presented in terms of the most extreme glorification, receiving applause as he suggests that Stalin’s name be removed from the national anthem, which should praise instead the role of the party, and loud, prolonged applause follows. As Khrushchev turns to the theme of how Stalin elevated himself above Lenin, even in the period of the Revolution, and denounced Stalin for this, he is greeted by repeated bursts of applause].

Comrades! The cult of the individual has caused the employment of faulty principles in party work and in economic activity; ... our nation gave birth to many flatterers and specialists in false optimism and deceit ... many workers began to work uncertainly, showed over-cautiousness, feared all that was new, feared their own shadows and began to show less initiative in their work ... a routine manner ... bureaucratising the whole apparatus. ...

All those who interested themselves even a little in the national situation saw the difficulties in agriculture, but Stalin never even noted it. Did we tell Stalin about this? Yes, we told him, but he did not support us. Why? ...He knew the country and agriculture only from films ... which so pictured kolkhoz life that the tables were bending from the weight of turkeys and geese ... The last time he visited a village was in January 1928 ... facts and figures did not interest him ... the fantastic ideas of a person divorced from reality.

We are currently beginning slowly to work our way out of a difficult agricultural situation ... We are certain that the commitments of the new Five-Year Plan will be accomplished successfully.

[prolonged applause]

Comrades! If we sharply criticise today the cult of the individual which was so widespread during Stalin’s life, and if we speak about so many negative phenomena generated by this cult which is so alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, various persons may ask: How could it be? Stalin headed the party and the country for 30 years and many victories were gained during his lifetime. Can we deny that? ...

The Socialist Revolution was attained by the working class and by the poor peasantry with the partial support of middle-class peasants. It was attained by the people under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party. Lenin’s great service consisted in the fact that he created a militant party of the working class, but he was armed with Marxist understanding of the laws of social development and with the science of proletarian victory in the fight with capitalism, and he steeled this party in the crucible of revolutionary struggle of the masses of the people. ...

Our historical victories were attained thanks to the organisational work of the party, ...and to the self-sacrificing work of our great nation.

... during the last years of Stalin’s life he became a serious obstacle ... During Stalin’s leadership our peaceful relations with other nations were often threatened, ... In recent years we managed to free ourselves of the harmful practice of the cult of the individual ...

Some comrades may ask us: Where were the members of the Politburo? Why did they not assert themselves against the cult of the individual in time? And why is this being done only now? ...

Initially many of them backed Stalin actively because Stalin was one of the strongest Marxists and his logic, his strength and his will greatly influenced the cadres and party work. ...

At that time Stalin gained great popularity, sympathy and support. The party had to fight those who attempted to lead the country away from the correct Leninist path; it had to fight Trotskyites, Zinovievites, and Rightists, and Bourgeois Nationalists. This fight was indispensable.

Later, however, Stalin, abusing his power more and more, began to fight eminent party leaders and to use terroristic methods against honest Soviet people. ...

Bulganin once said: “It has happened sometimes that a man goes to Stalin on his invitation as a friend. And, when he sits with Stalin, he does not know where he will be sent next - home or jail”.

It is clear that such conditions put every member of the Political Bureau in a very difficult situation. ...

... had Stalin remained at the helm for another few months, Comrades Molotov and Mikoyan would probably not have delivered any speeches at this Congress. Stalin had plans to finish off the old members of the Political Bureau. ...

We consider that Stalin was excessively extolled. However, in the past, Stalin doubtless performed great services to the party, to the working class and to the international workers’ movement....

Stalin was convinced that [these things he did] were necessary .. He saw this from the position of the interest of the working class, of the interest of the laboring people, of the interests of the victory of Socialism and Communism. We cannot say that these were the deeds of a giddy despot. ... In this lies the whole tragedy!

[Khrushchev then suggests that Stalin’s name, and also those of other leaders be removed from towns etc bearing their names, but] this should be done calmly and slowly. ... if we begin to remove the signs everywhere and to change names, people will think that these comrades in whose honour the given enterprises, kolkhozes or cities are named have met some bad fate and that they have also been arrested. ...

We should in all seriousness consider the question of the cult of the individual. We cannot let this matter get out of the party, especially not to the press. It is for this reason that we are considering it here at a closed Congress session. We should know the limits; we should not give ammunition to the enemy; we should not wash our dirty linen before their eyes. I think that the delegates to the Congress will understand and assess properly all these proposals.

[tumultuous applause, which escalates as Khrushchev winds up ...]

We are absolutely certain that our party, armed with the historical resolutions of the Twentieth Congress, will lead the Soviet people along the Leninist path to new successes, to new victories.

Long live the victorious banner of our Party - Leninism!

2nd Edit: If you want a source for this just type in '20th congress of the CPSU
The part in bold that I added is from David Lane's 'Politics and Society in the USSR'

[JasonR]

many members of the CPSU have called Khruschev a political opportunist, odes that make him one in your eyes? he was no Marxist, he was a politician, bent on mantaining power, he lived luxuriously.

when Stalin was in command Khruschev was friendly towards him, it is no doubt that during the 1956 struggle for power in the USSR Khruschev had to say something that made him different from the other candidates. Khruschev is also a coward for not criticizing Stalin when he had the power too, Stalin encouraged all CPSU members, journalists, soviet citiziens, and even non-capitalist intellectuals to critiicize him, Khruschev kept queit. So he waited until the poor man was dead to make these assumptions and allegations.

i don't know about you but when I was in Kiev 5 years ago (I spent 6 months there) in November there was a communist celebration of the Bolsvheik revolution, and nobody was holding pictures of Khruschev. again, if Stalin was such a great communist, than why was he asked to step down? he runied the russian economy and paved way for the collapse, along with the rest of the irresponsible soviet leaders.

[Osman Ghazi]

Stalin encouraged all CPSU members, journalists, soviet citiziens, and even non-capitalist intellectuals to critiicize him

haha

I'm sorry...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahah

Sorry, I'ts just that that is the single stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone say. The man who had people shot for looking at him the wrong way encouraging people to criticize him.

It probably went something like this:
"I would like to know what people really think of me"
"Well, I don't think your policy is very good"
"Shoot this man. Anyone else? Come on, I'm encouraging every Communist, Komsomol and journalist in the country to criticize me if they think I'm doing something wrong. Huh. I guess I'm doing a good job then."

Secondly, Krushchev wasn't 'asked to leave'. When he was on vacation, Brehznev, Podgorny and Kosygin forced the Central Commitee into kicking him out of the country. Krushchev tried to introduce regional economic councils to decentralize the system (because centralized systems cannot anticipate supply and demand in a complex economy). These would have replaced the innefficient Industrial Ministries so the ministries used their influence to back the anti-party group (Brehznev et alia).

You should really learn some history. I have read extensively on this and if there is one thing I know, it is that I know more about the USSR than you do.

[JasonR]

Osman,

I'm trying to debte you with logic, don't act like an idiot and strech the whole page like that, it makes yoyu look very unintelligent.

you obviously have a bias againts stalin, i am not for any authoritarianism, all of it, even trotskyism, unlike you, who is blinded by Trotskyism. there were many purges brought about by leon trotsky himself, ever hear of the atrocity the bolsheviks did in Poland under trotsky and lenin's command?

stalin wasn't the absolutist dictator you make him out to be, he was general secretary of the communist party. there were free elections in the Ussr, in varius articles by Anna Louis Strong (american journalist) she writes about life in the Ussr as proof, where she visited. what makes you think trotsky wouldve done things better? if trotsky was in power the nazis would be a world power today.

regional economics would be overall inefficient, Khruschev was not impeached by 3 people, he was voted to be impeached by the CC. I disagree with the cental committees setup, i believe it should be replaced with a parliament of socialists and left-leaning people.

do you know any Eastern europeans osman...or do you just judge stalin by what you hear on Cnn or trotsky books?

[Osman Ghazi]

Firstly, I don't watch CNN and please don't insinuate that I do. It is an insult.
Secondly, I got all my info from David Lane's Politics and Society in the USSR.
Where did you get yours? Oh right, your grandmother. Very reliable source I'm sure.
Just because people like something doesn't make it good.
Americans like Bush. Is he good? No. So why would Ukrainians liking Stalin make him good?
It is known fact that centralism in innefficient. The problem was that every factory was under the control
of about 3 or 4 different governmental bodies. That is called innefficiency.
What would Eastern Europeans know about Stalin that Trotsky wouldn't?
As I recall, Trotsky knew Stalin. Was your grandmother on a first name basis with Uncle Joe?
I'll admit, Trotsky has a bias against him. But he actaully talked to him on a daily basis for several years
so if anyone knows Stalin, it would be Trotsky.

Is that logic enough for you?
PS: The stretching of the page was an unfortunate consequence of your side-splitting joke.
Stalin open to criticism. Good one.

[Enver Hoxha]

That someone would laugh at the claim that Stalin allowed (read, encouranged since he weren't he couldn't tell anyone to shut up) criticism shows three things. One they haven't got a decent arguement so they only respond with sarcasm. Two they buy the myth that Stalin was the worst dictator ever and Three they haven't taken the time to look into the matter and see Stalin's statements aswell as other sources (not all of which are pro) which confirm there was far more to society in the USSR than Stalin telling everyone what to do.

Was the USSR a bad place? Depends on who you ask, ask the rich billionaires who number in the hundreds and they'll tell you it was terrible, ask the millions of unemployed and homeless and they'll probably tell you different. Khruschev is among other things a liar. Every statement of his so called 'Secret Speech' has been shown to either be a direct lie and can be contradictated by the real facts.

All the major Marxist-Leninist parties uphold Stalin, as Jason points out you dont see no nostalgia for Khruschev.

Plenty more to be said but when you've done this before a hundred times you cant be bothered.

[Professor Moneybags]

There are none blinder than they who do not wish to see.

Stalin was an evil dictator. Live with it.

[Osman Ghazi]

Show me proof. Show me proof that everything Krushchev said was a lie. Show me proof that Stalin didn't kill 2-3 million people (directly) and 3-4 million indirectly (through the famine.) Also, I responded the way I did because when I read that I actually truthfully fell on the floor laughing. So far the only source that has been presented against mine is JasonR's grandma. She may be a reliable source. I don't know. I've never met the old broad.

Now, who are you going to believe, an old babushka or an Essex sociology professor who did a 3-year study using all the available Soviet data that he could find as well as using the best of Western material on the subject?

I'll admit, his crimes have been blown way out of proportion but he still committed those crimes. It is a known fact according to Soviet archives that at any one time he had upwards of 500,000 political prisoners in the Gulags. Plus there were the ones who were killed.

Show me the proof. I could say that my ass has been to the moon but it doesn't make it so.

[synthesis]

The man who had people shot for looking at him the wrong way encouraging people to criticize him.

I also hear he liked a fine filet of Jewish babies.

Come on, do you actually have a source for this?

(Where's Cassius Clay when you need him?)

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, 'political prisoner' is a blanket term for people he thought were a threat to his rule. By 'looking at him the wrong way' I meant looking suspicious. And if he thought you looked suspicious you were probably going to get shot. Do I know of a specific incidence of this? No. But I do not think it is that far-stretched.

Edit: He did have 60% of the Central Commitee shot. Why would he do that?

[synthesis]

It is far-fetched. Saying that a dictator orders someone's execution because they "look at them funny" is the ultimate over-exaggeration of that ruler's tyranny.

You're trying to demonize Stalin, and while I don't think Stalin was that great of a guy, I think saying those types of things isn't honest debate, it's just sensationalism and exaggeration.

[Osman Ghazi]

It is indeed an exaggeration.
Come to think of it, that is what I was thinking when I wrote that.
However, I guess the point I was exaggerating was that he had people shot for arbitrary reasons. I don't really have any examples except maybe the purges in which almost 90% of the old military officers were killed. I'll grant you that normal armies are counter-revolutinoary and yes, the Red Army represented the USSR's 'systemic right'. But 90% of the officer corps being counter-revolutionary? I find that highly unlikely.

So I guess that what I was trying to say is that he shot anyone who he deemed a threat to his personal power.

However, it would be impossible for me to 'demonize' Stalin, as I do not believe in the concepts of good and evil.

[Enver Hoxha]

I'm right here DyerMaker.

Been offline for a few months because first I could no longer afford the internet bill and then before you know it I've joined this world's underclass by the virtue of the fact I have no roof over my head. Staying round a mates (well there shed) for the past 6 odd weeks has done by back and neck no good. Still I allways knew that this library thing at college would come in use some day so here I am.

Now I wont accept Stalin 'was just a evil dictator' because that's what you say. Neither will I accept it because plenty of others in this world say it.

Now I dont really have the time to be doing this but if you wish to get involved in a debate and have your arguments blown to peices regarding Josef Stalin then I can probably find the time. The question is do you really want that? Just go and look at a thread in the history forum which claims Stalin was a anti-semite, and the folkes in there came up with better stuff than you.

Most folkes come here to begin with thinking there carrying out some just crusade by repeating every Nazi lie about Stalin. It's not there fault since Uncle Joe dont get the best media coverage out there. But when faced with the facts they grudingly come round to a more sophisticated and balanced point of view atleast. Alot even fully regognise that they've had the wall pulled over their eyes and begin to defend Stalin.

I dont expect or really want you to do that. Cant be bothered. What would be better though is that whatever critcism of Stalin you ahve is based on the facts. Even people like Getty begin to do that now and while they are hardly pro-Stalin there sources easily counter the Cold Warrior books like Conquest who relied on Nazi sources. Sadly the posts in here seem to be more like a Heir Hitler monologue (did a thread once using two quotes and asked if people agreed with them, turns out most did and it was Hitler saying how evil the Stalin controlled Bolsheviks and Jews were).

To begin with your logic is very flawed. It's up to you to prove that Stalin killed however millions, it's up to you to prove that there was a famine or genocide in the Ukraine. Tell me how many sources or witnesses does Khruschev use in his little speech?

I could waste my and everyone elses time (well mainly mine since I have very limited net access at the moment) by proving to you the facts of the matter regarding those three matters. But since all you have to do is go to one of the numerous threads around here where I and others have done all this before I wont bother.

See yeah!

[Osman Ghazi]

There was no famine?
He didn't have anyone killed?

That is what you call propaganda.
Now I'm not ing Conquest who does things like estimate what the population should be, subtract the actual number and claim that Stalin killed the difference. But he did have a couple million people killed. He also had 600,000 people in prison for counter-revolutionary activities. Also, his policy of confiscating the 'surplus' produce of peasants did cause a famine.