Stalin: Was he killed like an old rat?

[resisting arrest with violence]

Death

According to Khrushchev's autobiography, Stalin frequently engaged in all night partying, with his aides, after which he would sleep all day and expect them to stay up and run the country. On March 1, 1953, after an all-night dinner with interior minister Lavrenty Beria and future premiers Georgi Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin collapsed, having probably suffered a stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body. He died four days later, on March 5, 1953, at the age of 73, and was buried on March 9. Officially, the cause of death was listed as a cerebral hemorrhage. His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until October 31, 1961, when de-Stalinisation was taking place in the Soviet Union. Stalin's body was then buried by the Kremlin walls.

It has been suggested that Stalin was murdered. The ex-Communist exile Avtorkhanov argued this point as early as 1975. The political memoirs of Vyacheslav Molotov, published in 1993, claimed Beria had boasted to Molotov that he poisoned Stalin. In 2003, a joint group of Russian and American historians announced their view that Stalin ingested warfarin, a powerful rat poison that thins the blood and causes strokes and hemorrhages. Since it is flavorless, warfarin is a plausible murder weapon. But the facts of Stalin's death will probably never be known with certainty, unless an autopsy is performed on his corpse, which is still embalmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

[El_Revolucionario]

like an old rat?

Stalin was an old rat!

:D

[MKS]

The greatest thing Stalin ever did was die.

[El_Revolucionario]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:35 AM
The greatest thing Stalin ever did was die.
I agree.

[rice349]

like an old rat?

Stalin was an old rat!




The greatest thing Stalin ever did was die.

I agree.

You guys are *****es.

[Matthew The Great]

I would rather be a ***** than a stalinist.

[Red Skyscraper]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:35 PM
The greatest thing Stalin ever did was die.

If it wasn't for Stalin, your ancestors would have eventually ended up under the boot of the Nazis, and the world would have been engulfed in flames. :rolleyes:

I would rather live under someone like Stalin than any bullshit "liberal democracy" any day of my life. I would have a good job earned from a good education, a nice apartment, confidence that I can go to a decent hospital and get decent treatment, and when I retire earn a nice pension. I would love to live this kind of simple life, without having to worry about surviving like I would in capitalist society. And it's the little things like these that make someone like Stalin great. :D

[Matthew The Great]

...as long as you ignore the long laundry list of horrible things he did.

[Red Skyscraper]

Which never happened and such "things" were invented by the Western media.

[Maksym]

Originally posted by Matthew The [email protected] 3 2005, 05:40 AM
...as long as you ignore the long laundry list of horrible things he did.
Name these “laundry list of horrible things he did”? The USSR was a revolutionary state. The bourgeoisie killed plenty of people during revolutionary wars when overthrowing the aristocracy. I will just highlight a few:

French Revolution (1789-94)
M. de Jarjayes, A little bit of History [http://amarisee.tripod.com/FoR/Debate8.html]
· Executions: 13,800-18,613 with trial, 25-40,000 without trial
· Wars: 400,000 in Revolutionary Wars; 400-500,000 in civil wars

French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802)
Eckhardt: 1,000,000 civ. + 1,030,000 mil. = 2,030,000

Napoleonic Wars (1803-15)
· K. in Battle: 560,000
· Military. Killed and died: 3,105,000
o French: 1,200,000
o Russian: 450,000
o German: 400,000
o Austrian: <200,000
o Spanish: >300,000
o British: 243,000
o Italians: 120,000

English Civil War
TOTAL: 868,000

[LSD]

Which never happened and such "things" were invented by the Western media.

Yes, the purges, the terror, the culling of the Red Army, the Ukrainian Famine, the treatment of repatriated Red Army POWs, the doctor&#39;s plot, the oppression, the NKVD, Beria, the invasion of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland, the blockade of Berlin, the party assasinations...

...they&#39;re all a big Bourgeois conspiracy. :lol:


Napoleonic Wars (1803-15)

maksym, what&#39;s your point?
Napolean did "bad things", so it&#39;s cool that Stalin did too?

By your count, Napolean killed 3 million. Today we call him a despot, a dictator, and an imperialist. Stalin killed about 5 times that number.. so what would you call him?

[Matthew The Great]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 3 2005, 08:16 AM
By your count, Napolean killed 3 million. Today we call him a despot, a dictator, and an imperialist. Stalin killed about 5 times that number.. so what would you call him?
It is generally said that Stalin killed anywhere from 20-40 million Russians under his rule.

Sounds great. :rolleyes:

[Roses in the Hospital]

the facts of Stalin&#39;s death will probably never be known with certainty, unless an autopsy is performed on his corpse, which is still embalmed.


Not likely, since he&#39;s now happily under 6 feet of concrete... :D

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Which never happened and such "things" were invented by the Western media.

Ok, cut the crap. I doubt very much that historians and researchers, in their neverending search for truth in the past, would continue to spread these "lies" if that is what they were. Someone would pick up on this, and not someone on "Bill&#39;s Website" or something like that, but someone professional and renowned.

I&#39;ve read things on Mao and he is given both praise and scorn in the same paragraph for things he has done. The same for Lenin, but not for Stalin, I have seen that, but not much of it. I guess to historians Mao and Lenin are ok, but Stalin is bad ... yea, that must be it because he could have never done those things, it is all a conspiracy.


If it wasn&#39;t for Stalin, your ancestors would have eventually ended up under the boot of the Nazis, and the world would have been engulfed in flames.

If it weren&#39;t for Stalin, their may have not been any need for that, considering the Nazis used themselves as a counter to "Bolshevism" and thus, maybe without Stalin, the Nazis would not have risen at all. But, that is simply a guessing game ... it works both ways.

Honestly, don&#39;t tell me these things did not happen, don&#39;t tell me that if they did, Stalin didn&#39;t know about it. That is the same argument made for Hitler ... of course they both knew about it, and they both supported it. Quit giving us this "conspiracy theory" crap, and just accept it.

"Kill one man and it is murder, kill a million and it is a statistic." - Stalin ... sounds like a great guy who would never do such things.

TGOW

PS: I hope your Sarcasm Meter went off a few times during that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So Stalin&#39;s dead... so what? I find it odd that the liberals here like to party over the death of Stalin, but have no analagous response over the death of the pope, who held sway over nearly a billion minds.

Stalin was a lesson, not a reason to party. He taught us that communism cannot come from on high, the people must actively seek it.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 3 2005, 05:36 AM
I would rather live under someone like Stalin than any bullshit "liberal democracy" any day of my life. I would have a good job earned from a good education, a nice apartment, confidence that I can go to a decent hospital and get decent treatment, and when I retire earn a nice pension. I would love to live this kind of simple life, without having to worry about surviving like I would in capitalist society. And it&#39;s the little things like these that make someone like Stalin great. :D
So you are saying everyone in Stalinist Russia had a good job, a nice apartement and decent health care ? :lol:

At least in this "liberal democracy" you don&#39;t have to worry about being denounced by someone who doesn&#39;t like you and then being sent to some sort of labour camp.

[rice349]

So you are saying everyone in Stalinist Russia had a good job, a nice apartement and decent health care ?

They did, at least the vast majority did. My family lived in Georgia (myself included) up until 1991 and there was almost 0% unemployment when Stalin led the Soviet Union. Also, the construction of hospitals and education provided for created whole new generations of doctors with an expertise in 20th century medicine. Society may not have been perfect, but it was pretty damn close, particularly in comparison to what it was before.


At least in this "liberal democracy" you don&#39;t have to worry about being denounced by someone who doesn&#39;t like you and then being sent to some sort of labour camp.

That&#39;s not true, you could easily get reported for being a "terrorist" have all your civil rights stripped away, sent to a military base prison, and never see a trial in the name of national security...as for labour camps they were established for the real criminals of the Soviet Union, as a way of making use of criminals for an-ever changing landscape of a nation undergoing radical change.

[El_Revolucionario]

You try going back in time and living in Stalin&#39;s Russia and tell me it&#39;s paradise because it&#39;s NOT. If you like famine, repression, executions of dissenters, a bourgeois class that called themselves communists but weren&#39;t, gulags, then I guess you would love Stalin lol. If socialism means going back to Stalinism then I&#39;m not a socialist. If socialism means staying true to the ideas of Marx i.e. POWER TO THE PEOPLE then I&#39;m a proud socialist.

You Stalinists claim that the crimes of Stalin are all "lies purported by the Western media". That is the same exact piece-of-shit argument that neo-nazis use in trying to argue that the holocaust never happened. But the facts are that the Holocaust happened. And the facts are that Stalin&#39;s crimes also happened.

[Red Skyscraper]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide+Apr 3 2005, 04:16 AM--> (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide &#064; Apr 3 2005, 04:16 AM)...they&#39;re all a big Bourgeois conspiracy. [/b]

As a matter of fact, yes. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 10:35 AM
So you are saying everyone in Stalinist Russia had a good job, a nice apartement and decent health care ?

Yes.


At least in this "liberal democracy" you don&#39;t have to worry about being denounced by someone who doesn&#39;t like you and then being sent to some sort of labour camp.

Shows what you know. In reality, if you step on the wrong toes, you can easily get sent to prison in a "liberal democracy." There is no such thing as freedom here, the concept of liberalism is to promote "free markets" in order to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few and to "educate" people to be thoughtless morons who can&#39;t resist their oppressors. What you think happened in "Stalinist" Russia happens here every day, while there these things didn&#39;t happen at all. So much for the Orwellian rhetoric. :rolleyes:


[email protected] 3 2005, 12:00 PM
You try going back in time and living in Stalin&#39;s Russia and tell me it&#39;s paradise because it&#39;s NOT. If you like famine, repression, executions of dissenters, a bourgeois class that called themselves communists but weren&#39;t, gulags, then I guess you would love Stalin lol. If socialism means going back to Stalinism then I&#39;m not a socialist. If socialism means staying true to the ideas of Marx i.e. POWER TO THE PEOPLE then I&#39;m a proud socialist.

Except that there was no artificial famine, no repression against the masses, the "dissenters" were the oppressors of the proletariat and lower peasants who got what was coming to them, the party was not separate from the masses, and the gulags were not as horrifying as a jackass like Solzhenitsyn would say. Yes, I love Stalin because he at least made Marxism a reality, unlike all of these half-assed "pyramid schemes" of trying to make the utopian forms of socialism possible when in fact they don&#39;t work.

There was more POWER TO THE PEOPLE UNDER LENIN AND STALIN than there was any other time in Russia. "Stalinism" works.


You Stalinists claim that the crimes of Stalin are all "lies purported by the Western media". That is the same exact piece-of-shit argument that neo-nazis use in trying to argue that the holocaust never happened. But the facts are that the Holocaust happened. And the facts are that Stalin&#39;s crimes also happened.

Oh yes, let&#39;s pull that Nazi-Stalinist card why don&#39;t we? Listen, we have nothing in common with those Nazi retards, because unlike them, we HAVE the evidence to prove that there was no "Soviet holocaust" and there have been some Western professors that have shown that the Soviet archives proved there was no holocaust. And yes, the Western media did make up these lies, that&#39;s what the whole purpose of the Western media is for, to keep people in the Dark Ages about how things really work. You do realize that Western media is run by corporate interests and because they run the media they control the thinking as well. And naturally, because the October Revolution in the USSR was so successful, the Western media has for years worked its ass off trying to discredit it as much as possible, just like they tried discrediting Mao Zedong, the Vietnamese, the North Koreans, the Cubans, and the Albanians.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 3 2005, 05:36 AM

If it wasn&#39;t for Stalin, your ancestors would have eventually ended up under the boot of the Nazis, and the world would have been engulfed in flames. :rolleyes:



Lol, well fucking said. :D

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

#The Soviet Union was the most well ordered spciety in human history.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:56 PM
That&#39;s not true, you could easily get reported for being a "terrorist" have all your civil rights stripped away, sent to a military base prison, and never see a trial in the name of national security...as for labour camps they were established for the real criminals of the Soviet Union, as a way of making use of criminals for an-ever changing landscape of a nation undergoing radical change.
I somehow doubt it. Im sorry but your neighbour cannot just accuse you of being a terrorist the same way people could be denounced in Stalinist Russia. I&#39;ll just give you a quote from R.Conquest in his book The Great Terror: A Reassessment; "Individual denouncers operated on an extraordinary scale. In one district in Kiev, 69 persons were denounced by one man, in another 100. In Odessa a single Communist denounced 230 people. In Poltava, a party member denounced his entire organisation." Now i&#39;d like to see you denounce that many "terrorists" in today&#39;s liberal democracy. Somehow i don&#39;t think it would be quite so easy.

In regards to labour camps, i agree with you that they were made for real criminals. If by criminal you mean anyone who disagreed with Stalin&#39;s tyranny or opposed the USSR becoming a degenerate workers state. <_<

[Maksym]

maksym, what&#39;s your point?
Napolean did "bad things", so it&#39;s cool that Stalin did too?

By your count, Napolean killed 3 million. Today we call him a despot, a dictator, and an imperialist. Stalin killed about 5 times that number.. so what would you call him?

The point was to show the Bourgeoisie did what was necessary to overthrow the aristocracy and take control of the state. 700 000 class enemies died in labour camps, 60% being captured German POWs. Take your estimates somewhere else.


Yes, the purges, the terror, the culling of the Red Army, the Ukrainian Famine, the treatment of repatriated Red Army POWs, the doctor&#39;s plot, the oppression, the NKVD, Beria, the invasion of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland, the blockade of Berlin, the party assasinations...

...they&#39;re all a big Bourgeois conspiracy.

You do not understand why these actions were taken.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:23 PM

Yes, the purges, the terror, the culling of the Red Army, the Ukrainian Famine, the treatment of repatriated Red Army POWs, the doctor&#39;s plot, the oppression, the NKVD, Beria, the invasion of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland, the blockade of Berlin, the party assasinations...

...they&#39;re all a big Bourgeois conspiracy.

You do not understand why these actions were taken.
I understand. Stalin was a paranoid bureaucrat obessesed with maintaining power.
He murdered or exiled anyone who spoke out against his mindless tyranny, including nearly all of the original Bolshevik revolutionaries. I think i have a pretty good understanding of the circumstances surrounding his actions. :D

[Maksym]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Apr 3 2005, 07:32 PM--> (Makaveli_05 @ Apr 3 2005, 07:32 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 07:23 PM

Yes, the purges, the terror, the culling of the Red Army, the Ukrainian Famine, the treatment of repatriated Red Army POWs, the doctor&#39;s plot, the oppression, the NKVD, Beria, the invasion of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland, the blockade of Berlin, the party assasinations...

...they&#39;re all a big Bourgeois conspiracy.

You do not understand why these actions were taken.
I understand. Stalin was a paranoid bureaucrat obessesed with maintaining power.
He murdered or exiled anyone who spoke out against his mindless tyranny, including nearly all of the original Bolshevik revolutionaries. I think i have a pretty good understanding of the circumstances surrounding his actions. :D [/b]
I believe you were being sarcastic or all you did was prove my point.

[El_Revolucionario]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Apr 3 2005, 07:32 PM--> (Makaveli_05 @ Apr 3 2005, 07:32 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 07:23 PM

Yes, the purges, the terror, the culling of the Red Army, the Ukrainian Famine, the treatment of repatriated Red Army POWs, the doctor&#39;s plot, the oppression, the NKVD, Beria, the invasion of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland, the blockade of Berlin, the party assasinations...

...they&#39;re all a big Bourgeois conspiracy.

You do not understand why these actions were taken.
I understand. Stalin was a paranoid bureaucrat obessesed with maintaining power.
He murdered or exiled anyone who spoke out against his mindless tyranny, including nearly all of the original Bolshevik revolutionaries. I think i have a pretty good understanding of the circumstances surrounding his actions. :D [/b]
I support you Makaveli. I&#39;m glad some people here at least have the reason and the mental capability to see that Stalin was indeed a monster.

[El_Revolucionario]

Originally posted by maksym+Apr 3 2005, 07:35 PM--> (maksym @ Apr 3 2005, 07:35 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:32 PM

[email protected] 3 2005, 07:23 PM

Yes, the purges, the terror, the culling of the Red Army, the Ukrainian Famine, the treatment of repatriated Red Army POWs, the doctor&#39;s plot, the oppression, the NKVD, Beria, the invasion of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland, the blockade of Berlin, the party assasinations...

...they&#39;re all a big Bourgeois conspiracy.

You do not understand why these actions were taken.
I understand. Stalin was a paranoid bureaucrat obessesed with maintaining power.
He murdered or exiled anyone who spoke out against his mindless tyranny, including nearly all of the original Bolshevik revolutionaries. I think i have a pretty good understanding of the circumstances surrounding his actions. :D
I believe you were being sarcastic or all you did was prove my point. [/b]
So......these are pictures of your little Stalinist paradise I guess :rolleyes: ...

http://www.videofact.com/english/workuta1_opt.jpg
http://www.videofact.com/english/wworkuta3_opt.jpg
http://www.videofact.com/english/workuta4_opt.jpg
A cemetery at a labor camp...I guess this picture speaks for itself
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/josef-stalin/gulag.jpg

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/showtrial1a.jpg
the trial where Stalin purged members of his own party

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/deportee1a.jpg
This Ukrainian just LOVES Stalin&#33; :rolleyes:

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/workers3a.jpg
So this is the fun Stalinist paradise you&#39;d love to live in, eh?

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/wheelbarrow.jpg
http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/gate.jpg
the entrance to the gulag

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/tower2a.jpg
a watchtower to shoot any citizens that try to escape

[Red Skyscraper]

The first three pictures were from a pro-American site on the Cold War, and were taken after Stalin&#39;s death. Next time learn to read the caption before taking the pictures. :rolleyes: As for the "Ukrainian woman," ever heard of something called the Russian Civil War?

The trial was not "for show." In fact, the Soviet justice system puts the Western system to shame. If you look at the picture carefully, in the center you see a professional judge, followed by two lay judges. Unlike the Western Euro-Yank justice system, there was no jury of "your peers." And the reason why is because juries don&#39;t know shit about the law. When I got called to jury duty long ago I really didn&#39;t care about the defendant, I had no idea about any of the laws and the "crash course" I took was definitely not sufficient to make a fair ruling, and most people on duty wanted to go back to work, because the pay we got was insufficient to handle expenses. The Soviet system was excellent because you had instead of a jury two lay judges who were professionally trained in law and knew exactly what to do. Plus, the trial was handled not in terms of legality, but truth. You had a procurator (same role as prosecutor) and a defense attorney, but rather than find out what legal rules were broken the idea was to find out from the defendant as much as possible why he acted as he did, what witnesses saw, and then it was up to the judges to find out what kind of action should be taken to re-educate him and how long he should work in a gulag to improve himself if he committed wrong.

As for the other pictures, take a good look at them. What do you see? People starving, dying? No. What you see is well-clothed, well-fed individuals who had broken the laws and were justly punished for them.

What would you rather have? Capitalists rampaging throughout the streets like today, stealing from people? Would you allow prostitution and gambling and pyramid schemes to be promoted throughout socialist society? I certainly would not. That&#39;s what these gulags were for, re-educating those who defied society. And please, don&#39;t bother saying that everyone was at risk to be sent to a gulag, because no one was at risk.

[El_Revolucionario]

:rolleyes:

If you want to keep on believing your historical revisionism bullshit, fine. I support your right to have that opinion. But the facts are that millions died in those labor camps, and all those millions were definitely not just criminals or Russia really had alot of criminals lol. They were people who disagreed with Stalin or groups of people that Stalin didn&#39;t like. Whether any of the pictures happened after Stalin&#39;s death is no matter, the system of Stalinism was still in place after his death.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 3 2005, 09:22 PM
And please, don&#39;t bother saying that everyone was at risk to be sent to a gulag, because no one was at risk.
No one was at risk eh ? I quoted a passage from a book earlier which quite clearly showed the risk. It may not have been in this thread, but it is in one of the Stalin threads. I&#39;ll jus give you a little recap of the quote;"In Odessa, a single Communist denounced 230 people. In Poltava, a party member denounced his entire organisation."

Now i know people often refer to capitalism as being a dog-eat-dog society, but i think this term suits Stalinist Russia quite well. It was a ruthless society filled with paranoia, terror and fear. Many innocent people, including party members, were often denounced by people whose only aim was to further themselves politically or economically. You could be denounced as an "enemy of the state" by someone who simply didn&#39;t like you.

Now that sounds like a friendly society were workers do everything possible to help their fellow worker. <_<

[Anarchist Freedom]

The stalinists hold some truth to there argument in stalinist russia in the cities like moscow living standards where pretty high and people would go on vacations and get cars it was high styling livin. BUT&#33; In the countryside it was a whole nother story... :(

[rice349]

R.Conquest in his book The Great Terror

You can&#39;t seriously be quoting anything from Robert Conquest...


the system of Stalinism was still in place after his death.

Speaking of historical revisionism bullshit....this is funny because anti-"Stalinists" are contradicting themselves on this point. Khruschev made his putrid "Secret Speech" in which he denounced stalin and thus began revisionism in the Soviet Union. Khrushchev was staunchly against Stalin and socialism as well, and began the liberalization of the market place. "Stalinism" did not continue to flourish in the U.S.S.R. after Khrushchev&#39;s assension to power. Real socialism was transferred to the Chinese (up until Deng Xiaping), the DPRK, Albania, and Cuba.

[LSD]

Speaking of historical revisionism bullshit....this is funny because anti-"Stalinists" are contradicting themselves on this point. Khruschev made his putrid "Secret Speech" in which he denounced stalin and thus began revisionism in the Soviet Union. Khrushchev was staunchly against Stalin and socialism as well, and began the liberalization of the market place. "Stalinism" did not continue to flourish in the U.S.S.R. after Khrushchev&#39;s assension to power. Real socialism was transferred to the Chinese (up until Deng Xiaping), the DPRK, Albania, and Cuba.

The Soviet union was not socialist under Khruschev.

But that&#39;s hardly surprising given that the Soviet Union was never socialist&#33;

Worker control? No.
Proletarian ownership of the means of production? No.
Proletarian democracy? No.
Democratic institutions? No.
Withering State? No.
Oppression, militarism, and authoritarianism? Yes&#33;

"Unquestioning submission to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of the labour process...the revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process."

[Wiesty]

I&#39;d rather be DEAD than be stalinist

[all-too-human]

I&#39;d rather be DEAD than be stalinist
"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem."
- Our good friend, Josef

[Maksym]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:36 PM
:rolleyes:

If you want to keep on believing your historical revisionism bullshit, fine. I support your right to have that opinion. But the facts are that millions died in those labor camps, and all those millions were definitely not just criminals or Russia really had alot of criminals lol. They were people who disagreed with Stalin or groups of people that Stalin didn&#39;t like. Whether any of the pictures happened after Stalin&#39;s death is no matter, the system of Stalinism was still in place after his death.
“Stalin this...Stalin that”. You obviously lack any sense in how the state operates and the rule of one man is a fantasy. As for the historical revisionism, look in the mirror. Here is what Joseph E. Davies, a lawyer and the US ambassador to the USSR during the purges, said in 1941:


“On the train that day, that thought lingered in my mind. It was rather extraordinary, when one stopped to think of it, that in this Nazi invasion, not a word had appeared of ‘inside work’ back of the Russian lines. There was no so-called ‘internal aggression’ in Russia cooperating with the German High Command. Hitler’s march into Prague in 1939 was accompanied by the active military support of Henlein’s organization in Czechoslavakia. The same was true of his invasion of Norway. There was no Sudeten Henleins, no Slovakian Tisos, no Belgian De Grelles, no Norwegian Quislings in the Soviet picture…There were no Fifth Columnists in Russia in 1941-they had shot them. The purge had cleansed the country and rid it of treason”

Davies explaining the purge trials to Churchill in 1937:


“Over the coffee, Churchill was interested ‘in these purge trials.’ He piled me with questions, I told him the truth as I saw it. It obviously was a great surprise to the diplomatic guests. That sort of talk is not fashionable here, so violent is the prejudice. Churchill has no love for the Communists. He has had bitter experiences with them. He is, however, fair and judicial minded and wants to know the facts. He is definitely not a ‘wishful thinker’. I gave the facts as interpreted from the Soviet viewpoint and briefly outlined the argument of the government in these cases. Churchill said that I had given him a completely new concept of the situation.”

This is the opinion of a US ambassador who oversaw the purge trials and is a primary source. Take your Conquest and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn cold war propaganda somewhere else.
Here is quotes taken from journalists, politicians and authors at the time who knew Stalin:
http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm
My great grandfather was sent to a gulag since he was a kulak that conspired during the famine. He returned from the experience healthy and lived for another 35 years. Your pictures prove nothing.

[resisting arrest with violence]

Originally posted by maksym+Apr 3 2005, 06:26 AM--> (maksym @ Apr 3 2005, 06:26 AM)
Matthew The [email protected] 3 2005, 05:40 AM
...as long as you ignore the long laundry list of horrible things he did.
Name these “laundry list of horrible things he did”? The USSR was a revolutionary state. The bourgeoisie killed plenty of people during revolutionary wars when overthrowing the aristocracy. I will just highlight a few:

French Revolution (1789-94)
M. de Jarjayes, A little bit of History [http://amarisee.tripod.com/FoR/Debate8.html]
· Executions: 13,800-18,613 with trial, 25-40,000 without trial
· Wars: 400,000 in Revolutionary Wars; 400-500,000 in civil wars

French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802)
Eckhardt: 1,000,000 civ. + 1,030,000 mil. = 2,030,000

Napoleonic Wars (1803-15)
· K. in Battle: 560,000
· Military. Killed and died: 3,105,000
o French: 1,200,000
o Russian: 450,000
o German: 400,000
o Austrian: <200,000
o Spanish: >300,000
o British: 243,000
o Italians: 120,000

English Civil War
TOTAL: 868,000 [/b]
I really hate motherfuckers who have contempt for the great French revolution&#33;

"There were two "Reigns of Terror," if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the "horrors" of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror -- that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves."

Mark Twain, writing about the French Revolution,
in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur&#39;s Court. Chapter XIII

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

The purge had cleansed the country and rid it of treason

His conclusion isn&#39;t right. Right after the Nazi invasion, large numbers of Soviet citizens and soldiers cheered and welcomed the nazi&#39;s. There was even a "Russian Liberation Army" which fought along the nazi&#39;s. The army was commanded by Vlasov, which was considerd as one of the most respected Bolshevik commanders before his collaboration. Soon after witnessing the nature of their "liberators", these collaborators formed their own independant sides.

Killing and "correcting" so many people did not help. People were still fed up with Stalin, but they kept themselves quiet, waiting for a chance to fight it. One of the bigger problems for Stalinism: people don&#39;t want it.

People and Stalinism do not mix. It would require the death of all men who wish to be treated with respect, to have autonomy. "Unfortunatly" that would count in the grand majority of people. That would leave one option for Stalinists:No man, no problem.

[TheKwas]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 3 2005, 05:36 AM

If it wasn&#39;t for Stalin, your ancestors would have eventually ended up under the boot of the Nazis, and the world would have been engulfed in flames. :rolleyes:
When anlayzing history, one should not judge actions on later results, but rather on expected and likely results that seemed apperant at the time.

No one says the Nazi&#39;s were good people because technology took massive leaps during WWII. No christian thinks that Attila was a good man because he caused massive migrations northwestern and spread christianity further into the northernlands. No one should say Jesus was a bad, evil man because a religion based off him ended killing millions.

[Totalitarian Militant]

Jesus Christ.

Do you people like anyone?

Stalin wasnt that bad. He did horrible things, but good as well.
He got the USSR to the 2nd most powerful country on the planet.
How can you not call him a decent leader even?

[rice349]

Jesus Christ.

Do you people like anyone?

Stalin wasnt that bad. He did horrible things, but good as well.
He got the USSR to the 2nd most powerful country on the planet.
How can you not call him a decent leader even?

Heh. From a lot of the people in this particular thread they will tell you they hate Stalin, but love Leon Trotsky. That&#39;s because trotskyites like to ***** and complain on ideological differences that Stalin was some kind of "nazi." They seem to argue that bourgeois liberal capitalism is better than "stalinist" (not a real term per se) communsim. Just so you know.

[KuliNeMeL]

Originally posted by Totalitarian [email protected] 22 2005, 03:49 AM
Jesus Christ.

Do you people like anyone?

Stalin wasnt that bad. He did horrible things, but good as well.
He got the USSR to the 2nd most powerful country on the planet.
How can you not call him a decent leader even?
mmmm so?

he almost ruled the world... wooohoo for Stalin.

[KuliNeMeL]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:10 AM
[QUOTE=El_Revolucionario,Apr 3 2005, 09:36 PM] :rolleyes:
My great grandfather was sent to a gulag since he was a kulak that conspired during the famine. He returned from the experience healthy and lived for another 35 years. Your pictures prove nothing.
omg, it doesnt matter that he came back healthy and alive...
its the whole "if u are a kulak u go to a labor camp"... that kinda stuff shouldn&#39;t be in a so called &#39;socialist&#39; country...
i cant belive u support this or something.

[Hiero]

i cant belive u support this or something.

What do you support, what should we do with the enemies of the people?

This constant Stalin bashing is getting annoying, don&#39;t you realise we don&#39;t care.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Red Skyscraper+Apr 3 2005, 06:36 AM--> (Red Skyscraper &#064; Apr 3 2005, 06:36 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 10:35 PM
The greatest thing Stalin ever did was die.

If it wasn&#39;t for Stalin, your ancestors would have eventually ended up under the boot of the Nazis, and the world would have been engulfed in flames. :rolleyes:
[/b]
Ah so Stalins instinct of self preservation means that we should all worship him like he&#39;s some kind of saviour?

Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps the USSR would have defeated the nazis earlier if Stalin hadn&#39;t butchered the purged of the USSR&#39;s officers prior to the war?

I can see this fellow is a genius.

But as for the rest of you, leave the Stalinist kiddies alone, they don&#39;t want to learn. I have been arguing this stuff with them for years, and its all a big "trot" conspiricy, or words to that effect.

You may as well give up, igorance is bliss, and these guys are as happy as flies around shit.

[Hiero]

Ah so Stalins instinct of self preservation means that we should all worship him like he&#39;s some kind of saviour?

No one is proposing that, and none of us do.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:48 PM

Ah so Stalins instinct of self preservation means that we should all worship him like he&#39;s some kind of saviour?

No one is proposing that, and none of us do.
Pardon?


If it wasn&#39;t for Stalin, your ancestors would have eventually ended up under the boot of the Nazis, and the world would have been engulfed in flames

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Enigma+Apr 23 2005, 01:06 AM--> (Enigma @ Apr 23 2005, 01:06 AM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 02:48 PM

Ah so Stalins instinct of self preservation means that we should all worship him like he&#39;s some kind of saviour?

No one is proposing that, and none of us do.
Pardon?


If it wasn&#39;t for Stalin, your ancestors would have eventually ended up under the boot of the Nazis, and the world would have been engulfed in flames [/b]
Thats not saying we should worship him.

When people say Stalin they mean (or should mean) they whole Soviet system of Stalins era when refering to such things as policies, war and such.

Like when we say Bush is imperialist neo con, we mean his whole admin.

When RedScyscrapper says Stalin, he means the whole CP, the USSR and the Soviet proleteriat.

[rice349]

it ever cross your mind that perhaps the USSR would have defeated the nazis earlier if Stalin hadn&#39;t butchered the purged of the USSR&#39;s officers prior to the war?

I can see this fellow is a genius.

But as for the rest of you, leave the Stalinist kiddies alone, they don&#39;t want to learn. I have been arguing this stuff with them for years, and its all a big "trot" conspiricy, or words to that effect.

You may as well give up, igorance is bliss, and these guys are as happy as flies around shit

Your understanding of history is pathetic. Stalin could&#39;ve defeated the nazis not because of some supposed slaughter of USSR&#39;s officers, but because the western nations weren&#39;t willing to open up another front. They were facing the full force of the nazi army after France fell. The eastern front was a complete mess, the soviet union was massive and had plenty og officers and what not, they lacked the technology equivalent to that of the nazi forces. The western nations (America in particular) waited until d-day before they decided to make an attack and alleviate some pressure of the USSR. The U.S. wanted the nazis and soviets to slaughter each other, then come in when it was most convenient. The fact remains that the soviet union which was in many ways militaristically inferior to the nazis had to face them basically alone. This is why stalin didn&#39;t defeat them sooner.

Second of all, nobody is denying all the things Stalin did; we just refute some of the bullshit lies such as he killed 65 million people (that is the quoted number according to the history channel&#33;). The fact that most of you don&#39;t even know where these fucking numbers are derived from shows your bliss in ignorance. I, as well as the other "stalinist" kiddies are willing to admit there were gulags and the such, and certain freedoms had to be suspended, the difference between us is that we don&#39;t care. I have no problem executing any bourgeoisie, counter-revolutionary, or capitalist. I have no problem sending them to a gulag for hard labor. SO stop *****ing and complaining that we just refuse to acknowledgge what you know to be as the "truth" (btw nice to know you&#39;re getting your information on stalin from capitalistic bourgeois sources&#33;). We have no moral objections to what stalin did, and i think if any of us were in his position we would&#39;ve done the exact same thing.

As for the fact that we worship him, that is absurd. Nobody is worshipping here, we admire and respect a true comrade who fought until his death for socialism. A realistic type of socialism that could be applied to the real world respective to conditions in Russia prior to 1917...let&#39;s keep things in perspective shall we. I think no stalinist is as guilty as as much "hero" worship as any trotskyite or avakianist...

[Hiero]

We have no moral objections to what stalin did,

I have certian moral objections to what Stalin did, but i am not going to say &#39;eehhh stalin what a monster". I plan to learn and develop from Stalin.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Red Skyscraper+Apr 3 2005, 05:36 AM--> (Red Skyscraper @ Apr 3 2005, 05:36 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 10:35 PM
The greatest thing Stalin ever did was die.

If it wasn&#39;t for Stalin, your ancestors would have eventually ended up under the boot of the Nazis, and the world would have been engulfed in flames. :rolleyes:

I would rather live under someone like Stalin than any bullshit "liberal democracy" any day of my life. I would have a good job earned from a good education, a nice apartment, confidence that I can go to a decent hospital and get decent treatment, and when I retire earn a nice pension. I would love to live this kind of simple life, without having to worry about surviving like I would in capitalist society. And it&#39;s the little things like these that make someone like Stalin great. :D [/b]
Your wrong, that&#39;s if it wasn&#39;t forthe U&#036;&#036;R, stalin was not a one man army, the red army would have been better withut himas they wouldn&#39;t have signed a pact with Hitler. And the best thing stalin ever did was certainly to die.

[Invader Zim]

Your understanding of history is pathetic.

Really? Do feel free to send an email to my professors telling them to boot me out of university, in that case.

Stalin could&#39;ve defeated the nazis not because of some supposed slaughter of USSR&#39;s officers

We are not talking about beating the Nazis, we all know that the USSR beat the Nazis, what we are debating is how soon, and if you really think that the army is helped by a bout of paranioa which resulted in the execution of the majority of its officers, then you are an god damn idiot.

Also, please feal free to not give me a rather sparce lecture in a subject which I study at degree level.

The fact that most of you don&#39;t even know where these fucking numbers are derived from shows your bliss in ignorance.

Listen up, I know exactly where these numbers are derived from, I too have read Robert Conquest, R. J Rummel etc. I however have also read Alec Nove, who quotes far more realistic numbers.

Either way Stalin killed millions. Whether it be 10 million or 60 million.

(btw nice to know you&#39;re getting your information on stalin from capitalistic bourgeois sources&#33;)

Where, prey have I quoted my sources in this thread? Oh wait, i haven&#39;t, I guess your just making an assumption.

But dear Rice, you must understand that just because the author of a sources has a different opinion of economics to you, does not make their work any worse than yours.

The fact of the matter is that the evidence against Stalin is massive, witnesses, the Gulags, confessions, disapperances, etc.

[rice349]

Really? Do feel free to send an email to my professors telling them to boot me out of university, in that case.
Heh. WHat university is this? I stand by what I said you have a misguided, pathetic understanding of history. And if this is what your professor is telling you then feel free to tell him he is a useless twat.


We are not talking about beating the Nazis, we all know that the USSR beat the Nazis, what we are debating is how soon, and if you really think that the army is helped by a bout of paranioa which resulted in the execution of the majority of its officers, then you are an god damn idiot.

Did you even bother to read my post?? I answered why the soviet union wasn&#39;t able to beat the nazis sooner--they needed time to increase the war production and they needed some of the pressure alleviated on the western front, what part of that don&#39;t you understand? goddamnit that&#39;s what i hate about these internet forums nobody fucking reads anything. There was no paranoia; however there was legitimate suspicion amongst his ranks. I&#39;d like to see your sources for how many officers were purged (by purged you know it doesn&#39;t mean simply sent to the gulag--it also means simply made to leave the party).


Listen up, I know exactly where these numbers are derived from, I too have read Robert Conquest, R. J Rummel etc. I however have also read Alec Nove, who quotes far more realistic numbers.

Either way Stalin killed millions. Whether it be 10 million or 60 million.

Conquest is the absolute epitome of anti-communist historical bias. I seriously hope you&#39;re not even thinking of quoting him. SEcond of all, I come from Gori with a solid understanding of what the hell was going on by people who actually lived through the Stalin-era. If you so strongly believe that it was really 10 millon, 60 million or whatever peole killed then i want to see a deatiled list as to what percentages of those were from starvation, war (WWII and the Civil War), disease, etc? Then how many were supposedly murdered in comparison to these other causes of casualties?


Where, prey have I quoted my sources in this thread? Oh wait, i haven&#39;t, I guess your just making an assumption.

You havent and you didn&#39;t have to either, i could tell by your inflated statistics exactly where it came from. Let me also guess, you&#39;rea very liberal college kid probably from some suburb who likes to play revolutionary politics like its some game...you have no understanding of how things really work except the workings of coffee shop revolutionaries.


Also, please feal free to not give me a rather sparce lecture in a subject which I study at degree level.

Let me guess, you&#39;re in your second semester studying history 116 right? Please, i major in history and political philosophy--anytime you want an indepth lecture in either subject just let me know.

[Lamanov]

From a lot of the people in this particular thread they will tell you they hate Stalin, but love Leon Trotsky. That&#39;s because trotskyites like to ***** and complain on ideological differences that Stalin was some kind of "nazi." They seem to argue that bourgeois liberal capitalism is better than "stalinist" (not a real term per se) communsim. Just so you know.

Oh, great, rice, now USSR was communist? That&#39;s just great.
Nobody hates or loves, we are, as marxists, men of science, and on the scientific plain - you were allready beaten. I [and many others] could criticize Trotsky scientificly and like marxists too, but you don&#39;t even get the easy stuff, like Stalin-critiques. Its funny, at first you appeared with the link in your signature which stated "Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky", so I assumed that you knew what you were talking about. When I criticized your hipothesis [and beaten it] that stalinist ussr was socialist, you suddenly changed your link [to "Stalin library"] , so I suppose that was the first time you got close to marxism [no need to thank me]. You claimed that you understand things better than everyone else, but so far you&#39;ve failed to prove any of the &#39;stuff&#39; you claimed to be true. When you were criticized by &#39;others&#39; on my &#39;&#39;anti-bonapartist suggestion&#39;&#39; thread you tried to back out by saying you are not a.... hmmm, what was it???... a "classical marxist-leninist" [or something like that].

Oh man, you are so unclallenging.


Please, i major in history and political philosophy--anytime you want an indepth lecture in either subject just let me know.

I suggest you studdy harder.

[Invader Zim]

Alright, my stalinist kiddie friend. I can&#39;t be bothered to argue a subject like this on the internet throwing around google sources. No, I am also not going to insult your intellegence by asking you to read Rummel or Conquest, who we both know are poor sources.

see a deatiled list as to what percentages of those were from starvation, war (WWII and the Civil War), disease, etc?

Try visiting a wonderful institution known as a library, and do little research. For a start my I suggest you research the following essay: -

Nove. Alec., Victims of Stalinism: How Many?, in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, (Cambridge, 1993).

Go read this essay, then come back to me, and write a detail critique on it. If its any good then fair enough, but if it isn&#39;t then pardon me if I dismiss you as a foolish stalinist kiddie arguing a subject which he knows nothing about.

[rice349]

Oh, great, rice, now USSR was communist? That&#39;s just great.

Communist in ideology...i never said the U.S.S.R. was communist meaning it was a communist society.


When I criticized your hipothesis [and beaten it] that stalinist ussr was socialist, you suddenly changed your link [to "Stalin library"] , so I suppose that was the first time you got close to marxism [no need to thank me]. You claimed that you understand things better than everyone else, but so far you&#39;ve failed to prove any of the &#39;stuff&#39; you claimed to be true. When you were criticized by &#39;others&#39; on my &#39;&#39;anti-bonapartist suggestion&#39;&#39; thread you tried to back out by saying you are not a.... hmmm, what was it???... a "classical marxist-leninist" [or something like that].

Your arguments are based on your interpretation of socialism, solely that. SO of course you&#39;ll feel as if you "beat" me and my hypothesis...as to not proving anything that i&#39;ve said the burden of proof isn&#39;t my responsibility, i can&#39;t prove that x number of people weren&#39;t slaughtered, its up to you to prove that they were. You laid out information that conveniently showed the U.S.S.R. wasn&#39;t your ideal socialist state, but that doesn&#39;t take away from any other&#39;s subjective understanding of what socialism is or isn&#39;t. Secondly, i don&#39;t put that much effort in trying to argue petit-bourgeois trotskyites on the internet, so if i don&#39;t take the time to "refute" your oh so knowledgable arguments with quotes and statistics its mainly because i really don&#39;t give a shit...I don&#39;t feel like challenging you on anything more than mere opinions...


I suggest you studdy harder.
don&#39;t flame me you piece of shit.


Alright, my stalinist kiddie friend. I can&#39;t be bothered to argue a subject like this on the internet throwing around google sources...No, I am also not going to insult your intellegence by asking you to read Rummel or Conquest, who we both know are poor sources.


I don&#39;t get any of my sources from google you worthless piece of shit. I&#39;ve read Conquest, both Stalin: Breaker of Nations and his earlier one.


Try visiting a wonderful institution known as a library, and do little research. For a start my I suggest you research the following essay: -

I&#39;ve seen these bullshit records before that doesn&#39;t make them correcet...i&#39;ve also read Revolution Betrayed what&#39;s your point? While I haven&#39;t read those particular essays before i&#39;ve read Nove&#39;s Thick red line and it was complete garbage. Anybody can misuse facts and subtly make numbers look a lot more impressive than they really are. I&#39;ve also read Zavlavsky, Patrikeef, and others so i&#39;ve heard all these ridiculous numbers you&#39;ve thrown around. Eastern critics of stalin are even more pathetic than western ones who are only out to set an agenda. I can personally cite at least a dozen first hand sources who may not happen to be intellectuals but actually lived under Stalin. You do realize that these proposterous numbers that you throw out are conflicting even amongst anti-stalinists... it&#39;s the same rhetorical bullshit that says the ukrainian famine was single-handedly perpetrated by Stalin himself.



Go read this essay, then come back to me, and write a detail critique on it. If its any good then fair enough, but if it isn&#39;t then pardon me if I dismiss you as a foolish stalinist kiddie arguing a subject which he knows nothing about.

i&#39;ll read ANOTHER one of these fucking essays and i&#39;ll refute you... By the way you never answered my question---what university and what year of study are you?

[Invader Zim]

I suggest you studdy harder.

don&#39;t flame me you piece of shit.

Oh the irony...


I don&#39;t get any of my sources from google

Ha, then prey what are your sources? I would be most amuzed to read them. After all no serious historians contemplait that Stalin wasn&#39;t guilty. I have been having a busy week, I am sure that this comedy will be a welcome bonus.

you worthless piece of shit

:lol:

I&#39;ve seen these bullshit records before that doesn&#39;t make them correcet

You obviously have published a essay noting the flaws of such rcords, and contradicted many a respected historian to totally re-model the the way we view Soviet history, thus making you one of the the most respected modern day historian?

While I haven&#39;t read those particular essays before

Your lack of reading is clear Rice.

so i&#39;ve heard all these ridiculous numbers you&#39;ve thrown around.

Clearly you know far more than historians who have dedicated their lives to the subjects which they are debating.


i&#39;ll read ANOTHER one of these fucking essays and i&#39;ll refute you.

Not me dear Rice, but Nove, one of the most respected authorities on the subject (now unfortunatly dead). I unlike you would never claim to have a greater understanding on the subject than such people, unless of course I had a PhD, about 20 years of research under my belt and was a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.

I wait in eager anticipation of your critique.

what university and what year of study are you?

Try reading my profile my dear Rice, thats what it is there for.

[Aryan theme]

Originally posted by El_Revolucionario+Apr 3 2005, 07:38 PM--> (El_Revolucionario @ Apr 3 2005, 07:38 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:32 PM

[email protected] 3 2005, 07:23 PM

Yes, the purges, the terror, the culling of the Red Army, the Ukrainian Famine, the treatment of repatriated Red Army POWs, the doctor&#39;s plot, the oppression, the NKVD, Beria, the invasion of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland, the blockade of Berlin, the party assasinations...

...they&#39;re all a big Bourgeois conspiracy.

You do not understand why these actions were taken.
I understand. Stalin was a paranoid bureaucrat obessesed with maintaining power.
He murdered or exiled anyone who spoke out against his mindless tyranny, including nearly all of the original Bolshevik revolutionaries. I think i have a pretty good understanding of the circumstances surrounding his actions. :D
I believe you were being sarcastic or all you did was prove my point.
So......these are pictures of your little Stalinist paradise I guess :rolleyes: ...

http://www.videofact.com/english/workuta1_opt.jpg
http://www.videofact.com/english/wworkuta3_opt.jpg
http://www.videofact.com/english/workuta4_opt.jpg
A cemetery at a labor camp...I guess this picture speaks for itself
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/josef-stalin/gulag.jpg

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/showtrial1a.jpg
the trial where Stalin purged members of his own party

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/deportee1a.jpg
This Ukrainian just LOVES Stalin&#33; :rolleyes:

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/workers3a.jpg
So this is the fun Stalinist paradise you&#39;d love to live in, eh?

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/wheelbarrow.jpg
http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/gate.jpg
the entrance to the gulag

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/tower2a.jpg
a watchtower to shoot any citizens that try to escape [/b]
Now compare those pictures of Stalinist Russia with those of the sublime utopic ideal of Third Reich. It&#39;s like comparing the Dark Ages with the Rennaisance.

[Invader Zim]

Now compare those pictures of Stalinist Russia with those of the sublime utopic ideal of Third Reich. It&#39;s like comparing the Dark Ages with the Rennaisance.

Really?

I only see that the Gulags are missing "Arbeit macht frei", and the only freedom in Nazi Germany if you were a Jew was death or liberation, work had fuck all to do with it. Please do tell me what significant differences exist between Hitlers death camps and concentration camps.

But then again, do you really believe that, or more likley are yoyu just a troll here to piss people off. I suspect you don&#39;t even believe the crap proclaim.

[rice349]

Ha, then prey what are your sources? I would be most amuzed to read them. After all no serious historians contemplait that Stalin wasn&#39;t guilty. I have been having a busy week, I am sure that this comedy will be a welcome bonus.

A number of respected professors, scholars, former soviet soldiers and citizens. Perhaps the majority of my information comes from my readings of Ludo Martens, i suggest you read a few pieces of his works as well.


You obviously have published a essay noting the flaws of such rcords, and contradicted many a respected historian to totally re-model the the way we view Soviet history, thus making you one of the the most respected modern day historian?

Nothing published yet, as i&#39;m only a year older than you but i&#39;m in my third year of studying history/political philosophy and i&#39;ll have obtained my bachelors by Fall 2005. I have, however, already read works that have contradicted your "respected" historians. If you think your golden-boy Nove doesn&#39;t have some biases of his own your mistaken. I&#39;ve said before i&#39;ve read Nove as well as other (both western and european) but of course, you&#39;re petit-bourgeois hero-worship for anti-"stlainist" historians is of course superior. Read "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martens and offer me a detalied critique.


Your lack of reading is clear Rice.

you&#39;re such a fucking douche bag...i have read plenty on the topic as well as studied it, the difference between me and you is my being extremely critical of what i hear and read.


Clearly you know far more than historians who have dedicated their lives to the subjects which they are debating.

I never made such an arrogant statement. If you think that these respectable historians don&#39;t have shit on their slate in which obstructs them from taking a clear, objective look at history then you are wrong. Conquest, Martens, Nove, Rogovin etc. all have biases. Everytime anybody reads something it is subject to their own individual biases. How many articles/essays regarding Stalin have you read that didn&#39;t use the initial phrase "terror/murder/genocide/slaughter" somewhere in the title or opening paragraph? You consider this un-biased factual information, or historical facts sanctioned by western historians to make stalin look like a complete maniac and denounce socialism at the same time...


Not me dear Rice, but Nove, one of the most respected authorities on the subject (now unfortunatly dead). I unlike you would never claim to have a greater understanding on the subject than such people, unless of course I had a PhD, about 20 years of research under my belt and was a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.

I wait in eager anticipation of your critique.

Read "Another View of Stalin." As i stated before it&#39;s by Ludo Martens everything you need to know is there. Just because someone has a PhD, 20 years of research, and a "Fellow of the Royal Historical Society" doesn&#39;t mean shit. If you really think this bullshit entitles one to objectively look at history then you are mistaken.

Again, i never claimed (please show me where i made such a statement) to be more knowledgeable of the subject...I did however, say that i find all human beings to be subjective and biased and incapable of not having some form of motive regarding anything.

SEcondly, i don&#39;t personally give a shit what Stalin did. If he killed 100 million people then so be it. I stated before i have no moral objections to this type of governmental behavior, as long as it&#39;s not racially/ethnic based and directed towards the bourgeoisie or counter-revolutionaries then I could really care less.

[Invader Zim]

If he killed 100 million people then so be it. I stated before i have no moral objections to this type of governmental behavior

Then you are no leftist.

However, I must say I love the idea of an adult Stalinist Kiddie, however, even that is not origional.

Good day.

[rice349]

Then you are no leftist.

However, I must say I love the idea of an adult Stalinist Kiddie, however, even that is not origional.

Good day.

I&#39;m done arguing with you, i don&#39;t like you and i hope Jordan does have his way with your skull some day :ph34r:

However, i am a leftist i&#39;m not a liberal leftist - i&#39;m a totalitarian marxist-leninist anti-revisionist...save your petit-bourgeois liberal bullshit for someone else.

BTW, read that Martens piece.

[Invader Zim]

i don&#39;t like you and i hope Jordan does have his way with your skull some day

LOL, take a number and get in line.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Rice what do you actually want to achieve with a revolution? What are workers missing in this world, that they will get in your world.

[rice349]

Rice what do you actually want to achieve with a revolution? What are workers missing in this world, that they will get in your world.

I want a stateless, classless society--the same as any marxist-leninist. I just simply see that the only way to get that is the creation of a totalitarian state that runs a dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries until they no longer exist. The only way to achieve communism is temporary totalitarianism. The state won&#39;t last forever, once society can fully establish socialism without threats (since the state will work to extinguish all threats) and society has made a social/political/economical conversion to socialism, then the state will eventually become useless and wither away. I want workers&#39; liberation, equality, and social justice.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

:lol: You really expect people to gain massive power and then just to give it up?

[Donnie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:07 AM
I want a stateless, classless society--the same as any marxist-leninist. I just simply see that the only way to get that is the creation of a totalitarian state that runs a dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries until they no longer exist. The only way to achieve communism is temporary totalitarianism. The state won&#39;t last forever, once society can fully establish socialism without threats (since the state will work to extinguish all threats) and society has made a social/political/economical conversion to socialism, then the state will eventually become useless and wither away. I want workers&#39; liberation, equality, and social justice.
You don&#39;t need a state a people&#39;s malitia will do the trick against bourgoise counter revolution, also if you smash the state it will be alot difficult for a bourgoise to take over becuase there will be no state.

Also how does a party dictartorship know whats best for my community? The people of my community will know whats best for them, not some stalinist regime.

Militia&#39;s are much more effective anyway as people will defend their freedom. Also during the revolution we will be able to collectivise all lands and industries as we have the revolution. Unions will help us in the aid of this.

We don&#39;t need a state to get to communism.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:07 AM

Rice what do you actually want to achieve with a revolution? What are workers missing in this world, that they will get in your world.

I want a stateless, classless society--the same as any marxist-leninist. I just simply see that the only way to get that is the creation of a totalitarian state that runs a dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries until they no longer exist. The only way to achieve communism is temporary totalitarianism. The state won&#39;t last forever, once society can fully establish socialism without threats (since the state will work to extinguish all threats) and society has made a social/political/economical conversion to socialism, then the state will eventually become useless and wither away. I want workers&#39; liberation, equality, and social justice.
Wait so you want to free the peole by oppressing them? ;)

[Red Skyscraper]

Jesus Christ.

Do you people like anyone?

No, they want to rebel against the world and then fifteen years down the road "grow up" and get a job at an office at Merrill Lynch, or ExxonMobil. These kids aren&#39;t revolutionaries of any kind, they&#39;re your next generation of white collar employees.


Ah so Stalins instinct of self preservation means that we should all worship him like he&#39;s some kind of saviour?

He certainly saved more of the world than your Internet addicted sorry ass ever will.



Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps the USSR would have defeated the nazis earlier if Stalin hadn&#39;t butchered the purged of the USSR&#39;s officers prior to the war?

And did it ever cross your mind that the West promoted the destruction of the USSR by allowing the Nazis to keep on attacking and wiping out Soviet comrades? And that in the end thanks to "Stalinism" the world lived to see another day?


I can see this fellow is a genius.

Well, at least you&#39;re being honest. I&#39;d rather be a genius than the other brainless "fellows" who wander around these forums.


Your wrong, that&#39;s if it wasn&#39;t forthe U&#036;&#036;R, stalin was not a one man army, the red army would have been better withut himas they wouldn&#39;t have signed a pact with Hitler. And the best thing stalin ever did was certainly to die.

Um, gee, was that post in English? Because that didn&#39;t make one damned bit of sense at all. What with the grammar, the spelling, and all. And you expect me to take you seriously?



Really? Do feel free to send an email to my professors telling them to boot me out of university, in that case.

Professors will tell you anything. Of course, professors are those people who were too afraid to deal with the real world and they decided to bury their heads in books. Professors claim they&#39;re intelligent, and they wave their degrees and credentials around at others, but when it comes to the real world, they haven&#39;t got a clue.


The fact of the matter is that the evidence against Stalin is massive, witnesses, the Gulags, confessions, disapperances, etc.

The people who "present" evidence against Stalin are the same people who say communism, socialism, progressive movements, any of that just won&#39;t work, and that capitalism is the only solution. The fact of the matter is that you&#39;re extremely gullible, "dear fellow Enigma."

[Colombia]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 1 2005, 04:37 AM

The fact of the matter is that the evidence against Stalin is massive, witnesses, the Gulags, confessions, disapperances, etc.

The people who "present" evidence against Stalin are the same people who say communism, socialism, progressive movements, any of that just won&#39;t work, and that capitalism is the only solution. The fact of the matter is that you&#39;re extremely gullible, "dear fellow Enigma."
But what of Kuschreuv, Guevara, ZeDong, and most importantly Trotsky? They all opposed him and they were not capitalist. In the end Stalinism has no friends in communist ideology because it relies to much on becoming a decentralized workers state.

[Red Skyscraper]

Kuschreuv, Guevara, ZeDong, and most importantly Trotsky?

Khrushchev and Trotsky opposed Stalin because they were capitalist apologists. Guevara was one of the most pro-Stalin Marxists out there, his love for the Soviet hero was great, and he essentially despised those who said that Stalin was bad. Ironically, the people Che Guevara despised ended up turning him into their hippie cult figure. As for Mao, he didn&#39;t despise Stalin either, he also supported him to the end, even if he had a minor disagreement with him in private.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 1 2005, 05:21 AM
Khrushchev and Trotsky opposed Stalin because they were capitalist apologists
Trotsky a capitalist apologist ? :lol:

If was interested in capitalism, he wouldn&#39;t have fallen out with Stalin. He would have stayed on side with him and in turn he wouldn&#39;t have been exiled from the Soviet Union. He would then have became part of the obscene state capitalist bureaucracy which Stalin created.

He didn&#39;t do that. Instead he followed the true Marxist line, something which Stalin didn&#39;t. He constantly criticised Stalin for his paranoid obsession with power. Stalin had no interest in letting the state wither away, and therefore cannot be recognised as truly Marxist.

And another thing. Surely you Stalinists don&#39;t value your idol above comrade Lenin ? Because that&#39;s what seems to come across.

[Hiero]

state capitalist bureaucracy which Stalin created.


Can you explain how the Soviet Union was Capitalist under Stalin, it was more capitalist under Lenin.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:00 PM
Can you explain how the Soviet Union was Capitalist under Stalin, it was more capitalist under Lenin.
I didn&#39;t say it was capitalist to the extent that it had a free-market economy, i said that it was state capitalist. There&#39;s a difference.

The Soviet Union was state capitalist in the sense that the wage labour system continued and that workers performed labour for their employers beyond what was necessary to produce enough to pay for their wages, the Surplus Labour theory. This is an intrinsic part of capitalist economy and as it existed in the USSR, you must conclude that capitalism in some form was prevalent.

The other part of a state capitalist economy is that the state actually owns the means of production, which was the case in "Soviet" Russia.

Surplus Labour + State owned industry = state capitalism.

[bolshevik butcher]

Don&#39;t forget the lack of eqaulity.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+May 3 2005, 06:07 AM--> (Makaveli_05 @ May 3 2005, 06:07 AM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 01:00 PM
Can you explain how the Soviet Union was Capitalist under Stalin, it was more capitalist under Lenin.
I didn&#39;t say it was capitalist to the extent that it had a free-market economy, i said that it was state capitalist. There&#39;s a difference.

The Soviet Union was state capitalist in the sense that the wage labour system continued and that workers performed labour for their employers beyond what was necessary to produce enough to pay for their wages, the Surplus Labour theory. This is an intrinsic part of capitalist economy and as it existed in the USSR, you must conclude that capitalism in some form was prevalent.

The other part of a state capitalist economy is that the state actually owns the means of production, which was the case in "Soviet" Russia.

Surplus Labour + State owned industry = state capitalism. [/b]
And how would anyone else do anything different? This is the neccassary step.

[Redmau5]

Well for a start i would have introduced more internal democracy and given real power to the soviets. I would have set up courses to instruct workers and ex-peasants on how to operate factories. Then they could have run the factories themselves which would mean less need for the state to interfere in the affairs of the workers.

However the very nature of Stalinism prevents true communism from ever being reached. "Socialism in one country" is a flawed system which can have no hope of succeeding due to one main reason: money. True communism advocates the abolition of the money economy. If the USSR was to thrive in a captalist world, it would have to maintain the money economy in order to trade with other nations. Barter can be used sometimes, but can&#39;t be used in all occasions, as other nations won&#39;t always accept it. This is why Trotsky&#39;s theory of international revolution is so important. For communism to truly succeed you would need several revolutions in highly industrialised nations, so they could trade with each other. From this point of view, using Stalinism as a means to achieve Communism is out of the question.

Stalin could have at least made steps to de-centralizing the state and party machine. However he was so obsessed with his personality cult, his image as a god-like leader and power in general he refused to introduce more democracy. This inability to reform planted the seeds for the eventual collapse of the USSR in 1991, when Gorbachev tried to make N.E.P.-style reforms.

[Edelweiss]

Here&#39;s the true story about Stalin&#39;s death, it&#39;s quiet revealing, but also very ironic, the source is an Russian historian who had access to the Soviet archives:
When Stalin puked off in his room, and didn&#39;t left his room at the usual time in the morning than, Stalin&#39;s guards didn&#39;t dare to enter his room for several hours, because they where so intimidated by him, and feared his punishment. They called sveral commanders, noone wanted to take responibility for entering his room. During that time he maybe still could have been saved. So in the end Stalin&#39;s autocratic rule, and his own tyranic way of governing,has killed himself. :)

And now the robotic Stalin kiddie reply, please: Something like "Borgeois/Nazi/Trot lies&#33; How can you believe such blatant lies" :lol:

[bolshevik butcher]

Well i&#39;m gonna believe it. It&#39;s a great story anyway. :D

[Anti-establishment]

Borgeois/Nazi/Trot lies&#33; How can you believe such blatant lies&#33;







Joke

[workersunity]

Originally posted by Matthew The [email protected] 2 2005, 11:29 PM
I would rather be a ***** than a stalinist.
HAHAAH LOL

so true

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:56 AM

So you are saying everyone in Stalinist Russia had a good job, a nice apartement and decent health care ?

They did, at least the vast majority did. My family lived in Georgia (myself included) up until 1991 and there was almost 0% unemployment when Stalin led the Soviet Union. Also, the construction of hospitals and education provided for created whole new generations of doctors with an expertise in 20th century medicine. Society may not have been perfect, but it was pretty damn close, particularly in comparison to what it was before.


At least in this "liberal democracy" you don&#39;t have to worry about being denounced by someone who doesn&#39;t like you and then being sent to some sort of labour camp.

That&#39;s not true, you could easily get reported for being a "terrorist" have all your civil rights stripped away, sent to a military base prison, and never see a trial in the name of national security...as for labour camps they were established for the real criminals of the Soviet Union, as a way of making use of criminals for an-ever changing landscape of a nation undergoing radical change.
there was also 0% unemployment under hitler, its because if they left their job theyd be taken to the camps, jailed, etc...

[workersunity]

with a record like this Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.41

no wonder he doesnt care about how many people die

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.41

he doesnt care if anyone has rights or not

[Redmau5]

Well we don&#39;t have to worry about arguing with Rice anymore, because he&#39;s banned.

[986Boobop424]

Yes, because you can&#39;t debate intelligent people you have to them.

[Redmau5]

God, i hate it when people come on RL impersonating someone else.....

Message to all those people: Get a life, i repeat, get a life &#33;&#33;&#33;