Once again: Stalin's crimes

[Red Polak]

I'm going to answer this, despite it not being at me:


Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+May 1 2006, 05:41 PM--> (Comrade Marcel @ May 1 2006, 05:41 PM)You "hate" comrade Stalin, yet if it wasn't for the Soviet Union in his era, most of us would probably be either dead or living under fascism.[/b]

under Stalin, many of my family were living in basically a Fascist state. Hell, most Russians were living in basically Fascist state.


Comrade [email protected] 1 2006, 05:41 PM
Are you accusing comrade Stalin of genocide? If so, you ar ein league with only the most reactionary bourgeois "scholars" and "Sovietologist" you fling this charge against Stalin. The accusation usually goes nowhere past speculation and a few anecdotes.

Are you joking?

There is no need to "accuse" Stalin of genocide - we all KNOW he did it. Hell, the Soviets admitted it in the early 90's.

The purges, the massacres, Katyn forest - 26000 Poles executed in a mass grave.


2.) Stalin was not "one of most cruel" dictators in the world. this is simply just your opinion, again without fact or argument. Now here's my opinion: this insult to Stalin is an insult to the millions of people who died and risked their lives liberating millions from the jackboot of fascism and nazism.

Yes and people who worship or agree with Stalin are an insult to the 40+ years of oppression Eastern Europeans had because of the bastard.

[chimx]

now if only they will start beating up stalinists in subways.

[Red Axis]

Do you think Stalinists are worse than Hitlerists? I am no libertarian commie, but I think Stalinists are just focused on one thing, power, not communism, but power. Still, you have to admit that Stalin transformed the Soviet Union, even if he was ever scarier than Hitler.

[chimx]

is 'hitlerists' a term?

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:38 PM
now if only they will start beating up stalinists in subways.
I know we're supposed to be mature and all but man, what pwnage of Comrade Marcel :lol:

[FinnMacCool]

Comrade Marcel, your posts are making me think that we should start beating down Authoritarians like you as well.

You absolutely slay me! You hate Gandhi because he was still supporting the caste system but then you call Stalin a comrade. What the hell?

I mean as much as I hate capitalism, I would rather live in a capitalist society then a Stalinist society. At least you have somewhat of a fighting chance in a capitalist society where as stalinism simply be reduced to absolute slavery.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:38 PM
now if only they will start beating up stalinists in subways.
The "Stalinists" are roaming in subways like bonehead gangs?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Red Polak+May 1 2006, 09:07 PM--> (Red Polak @ May 1 2006, 09:07 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 08:38 PM
now if only they will start beating up stalinists in subways.
I'm fine with that - as far as I'm concerned, Hitler and Stalin supporters are on the same level (and it's not the communist level). [/b]
This is very interesting. I think you are still very confused about who your friends and who your allies are.

If you can't tell the difference between fascism and Marxism-Leninism, then you still have a lot of reading to do.

Will their be a time when Anarchists are duking it out with Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists with Maoists, etc. etc.... Maybe in the west. But that time is not right now, and none of these ideologies have the mass support needed to carry forward a significant battle of ideas and battle of clout.

Possibly such battles wouldn't even go to the street, but rather through the people's democratic dictatorship mechanism, where the working class gets to compile their own system through people's assemblies and other means. Fighting among other leftists might not ever, nor ever need, to happen.

It is interesting to note though, that when it comes down to things it's not the "authoritarian Stalinists" who are proposing to fight with other leftists and split the antifa movement, but usually some self-proclaimed "anarcho-commies" who mostly have nothing better to do with their days then distribute newspapers that no proletarians will read, and try to start fights with other leftists that they can't even participate in because they're fuckin' wimps.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+May 1 2006, 10:00 PM--> (Permanent Revolution @ May 1 2006, 10:00 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 08:38 PM
now if only they will start beating up stalinists in subways.
I know we're supposed to be mature and all but man, what pwnage of Comrade Marcel :lol: [/b]
How exactly was I owned? Because a few who claim to be on our side don't like my politics, rather than attacking the issue of how to fight fascists?

On the other hand, there is atleast two other comrades in the forum who consider themselves anarchist, one is completely non-violent and yet they both still work with me. :o

ARA Toronto has Trotskyites, anarchists and anarcho-commies, yet for some reason they work with comrade Marcel. :unsure:

These internet warriors come on here and talk a lot of shit, but the bottom line is antifa work demands you either put up or shut up, whether it's non-violence (such as educational work, campaigns), militancy or straight up fighting.

They can "pwn3" me when they done their deeds and shown that I am somehow wrong in my approach. And you know what? If these keyboard comrades can show me that their tactic is better than the tried tested and true antifa shit I follow (which is in the footsteps of anarchists and anarcho-commies, punks BTW) then I would switch to the more effective tactic.

The problem is that their arguements are about solid as ice cream on a summer day in Florida. :lol:

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:03 PM
Comrade Marcel, your posts are making me think that we should start beating down Authoritarians like you as well.



You could give it a try (you won't catch me slippin') but I think you will find it much less likely that Stalinist are roaming around beating up Trotskyists and Anarchists.


You absolutely slay me! You hate Gandhi because he was still supporting the caste system but then you call Stalin a comrade. What the hell?

I actually didn't give you half the shit about Gandhi that some others did, and i know Trots that are even more vehemently against him then I am, not just because of his tactics but also because he was a nationalist.


I mean as much as I hate capitalism, I would rather live in a capitalist society then a Stalinist society.

This is completely eurocentric. Only someone who lives in the west could ever say something like this!



At least you have somewhat of a fighting chance in a capitalist society where as stalinism simply be reduced to absolute slavery.

"Fighting chance?" You mean the chance to go to war for imperialism? Because I know you are not stating that workers in the 3rd world have any sort of "fighting chance"! :rolleyes:

It's intersting though, that you still can't tell that 1984 is fiction! Explain why 50% of the Russian population still loves Stalin! you must know something they don't...

[FinnMacCool]

It's intersting though, that you still can't tell that 1984 is fiction! Explain why 50% of the Russian population still loves Stalin! you must know something they don't...

Dude, this argument holds no water and you know it. People in Germany still love Hitler. Besides where did you get that statistic from? Did you make it up?

If there is any reason why people love Stalin, its because of the massive amounts of soviet propaganda that was pushed on them and the fact that people can't let go of the fact that authoritarian socialism is dead.


And even if its true that people still love Stalin, it doesn't erase away the amount of lives he has taken. Your simply being an apologist for a genocidal statist regime.

[heavymanners]

..Besides where did you get that statistic from? Did you make it up?

If there is any reason why people love Stalin, its because of the massive amounts of soviet propaganda that was pushed on them and the fact that people can't let go of the fact that authoritarian socialism is dead.

I'm not a big fan of Stalin, and I kind of wish that the left could move on past endless circular debates about Stalin/Trotsky/Kronstadt/etc. and focus more on what we need to do today.

Nonetheless it's worth thinking seriously, in materialist terms, about why Stalin is still pretty popular in Russia, especially amongst older people (see quoted opinion poll stats below).


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030302045.html

In 2003, fully 20 percent said Stalin...was a "wise and humane" leader. Thirty-one percent also said they wouldn't object if Uncle Joe came back to rule again, according to surveys conducted by Russian pollsters.

I think it's less because of "propaganda," and more that most people in the USSR's standard of living had improved significantly by the end of the Stalin era (as compared to pre-revolution period) , and also that they successfully defended themselves against a genocidal war launched by the Nazis during that time.

For all the very real problems of the Soviet Union, things are much worse for tens of millions of people in Russia now. The average male life expectancy is down to about 58 years, there's tons of crime and violence, public pensions, healthcare, etc have collapsed, plus there's massive unemployment, declining birthrates, etc. It's pretty bleak.

So I don't think people are 'fools' or 'brainwashed' for feeling nostalgic for the Soviet era. Regardless of the political repression and authoritarianism of that time period, most average people actually were better off then, and probably felt more hopeful about their future than they do now.

[Vladislav]

Sorry for butting in, but I must admit that living in the Soviet times was way better than it is now and I've never heard my family complaining about Stalin. Part of the reason why my family moved to Australia was because of the break up of the U.S.S.R.

And come on comrades we must unite against fascism.Not argue amongst ourselves on how "Stalinism is the same as fascism" because it's not.Completely different ideologies.
I think some of you have been watching way too much documentaries about Stalin from the U.S point-of-view.

I did like Stalin's moustache. Let's discuss that! ;)

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+May 2 2006, 12:22 AM--> (Comrade Marcel @ May 2 2006, 12:22 AM)
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 1 2006, 09:07 PM

[email protected] 1 2006, 08:38 PM
now if only they will start beating up stalinists in subways.
I'm fine with that - as far as I'm concerned, Hitler and Stalin supporters are on the same level (and it's not the communist level).
This is very interesting. I think you are still very confused about who your friends and who your allies are.

If you can't tell the difference between fascism and Marxism-Leninism, then you still have a lot of reading to do.

Will their be a time when Anarchists are duking it out with Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists with Maoists, etc. etc.... Maybe in the west. But that time is not right now, and none of these ideologies have the mass support needed to carry forward a significant battle of ideas and battle of clout.

Possibly such battles wouldn't even go to the street, but rather through the people's democratic dictatorship mechanism, where the working class gets to compile their own system through people's assemblies and other means. Fighting among other leftists might not ever, nor ever need, to happen.

It is interesting to note though, that when it comes down to things it's not the "authoritarian Stalinists" who are proposing to fight with other leftists and split the antifa movement, but usually some self-proclaimed "anarcho-commies" who mostly have nothing better to do with their days then distribute newspapers that no proletarians will read, and try to start fights with other leftists that they can't even participate in because they're fuckin' wimps.[/b]
Oh I know the differences between the ideologies very well, but what confuses me is why I should give a shit what these differences are when we have all the similarities.

Let's see:

- both Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland
- Stalin pretended to ally with us but really didn't give a shit and basically just wanted the Germans to finish us off so he gained a nice bit of teritory after the war
- both Hitler and Stalin wanted the land
- both Hitler and Stalin wanted to send Poles to Siberia (hell, Stalin actually did - my own grandmother was sent from her home to Siberia by Stalin's army)
- both Hitler and Stalin killed millions of Poles (I don't care whether it was in a gas chamber or with a bullet in the neck, they still both did it)
- both Hitler and Stalin oppressed the nation horribly (Hitler for 4 or so years, Stalin's USSR for over 40)

Now, you say we should get along nicely? I know the differences very well indeed and I don't give two hoots about either murdering bastard.


Look comrade, maybe you don't want to murder millions like your hero, but then again maybe some nazis don't want to murder millions like their hero. :unsure: I just hope you want to stand in revolution alongside real communists rather than oppress and kill people like Stalin did.

[The Grey Blur]

How exactly was I owned?
Not 'owned' - pwned


Because a few who claim to be on our side don't like my politics, rather than attacking the issue of how to fight fascists?
Yeah, pretty much :lol:


internet warriors
You really seem to like that insult


On the other hand, there is atleast two other comrades in the forum who consider themselves anarchist, one is completely non-violent and yet they both still work with me. :o

ARA Toronto has Trotskyites, anarchists and anarcho-commies, yet for some reason they work with comrade Marcel. :unsure:

These internet warriors come on here and talk a lot of shit, but the bottom line is antifa work demands you either put up or shut up, whether it's non-violence (such as educational work, campaigns), militancy or straight up fighting.

They can "pwn3" me when they done their deeds and shown that I am somehow wrong in my approach. And you know what? If these keyboard comrades can show me that their tactic is better than the tried tested and true antifa shit I follow (which is in the footsteps of anarchists and anarcho-commies, punks BTW) then I would switch to the more effective tactic.

The problem is that their arguements are about solid as ice cream on a summer day in Florida. :lol:
Blah-de-blah-de-blah, I never even commented on the Anti-fa or anything else dumbass, in fact I support all Anti-fa actions (and if it weren't for the fact I am only fifteen I would probably participate) - I just stated that chimx's comment was pretty funny. Now chill :cool:

[Comrade Marcel]

Red Polak: Your arguments will fall flat if you really want to get down to it; I suggest you start a thread on Stalin...

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 2 2006, 04:33 PM
(...) I just stated that chimx's comment was pretty funny. Now chill :cool:
Yeah, funny... :rolleyes:

If you like stupid funny, like the kind I stopped laughing at when I was 10...

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bobhope/images/vcvg20.jpg

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:18 AM

It's intersting though, that you still can't tell that 1984 is fiction! Explain why 50% of the Russian population still loves Stalin! you must know something they don't...

Dude, this argument holds no water and you know it. People in Germany still love Hitler. Besides where did you get that statistic from? Did you make it up?

If there is any reason why people love Stalin, its because of the massive amounts of soviet propaganda that was pushed on them and the fact that people can't let go of the fact that authoritarian socialism is dead.


And even if its true that people still love Stalin, it doesn't erase away the amount of lives he has taken. Your simply being an apologist for a genocidal statist regime.
Move it over to a thread on Stalin.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 04:41 PM
Red Polak: Your arguments will fall flat if you really want to get down to it; I suggest you start a thread on Stalin...
Fact: Stalin murdered and oppressed millions of my countrymen
Fact: as did Hitler.

I don't think anything else needs to be said, neither of us will convince each other. And on that note, I will still regard you as bad as the nazis (regardless if you take part in a revolution because imo you'd probably gain power afterwards and once again ruin the name of Communism, oppress and murder).

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 05:41 PM
Red Polak: Your arguments will fall flat if you really want to get down to it; I suggest you start a thread on Stalin...
As much as I disagree with Stalin-Hitler comparisons, I can hardly imagine anything which could justify Stalin's crimes done to the Poles. Except maybe, the usual, disgusting Leninist euphemisms such as "revolutionary necessity", or if you can't stand the overwhelming facts of the crimes of Stalin anymore "lies of bourgeois, Trotskyist and fascist historians". I guess Red Polak will appreciate to know that his grandma was send to Siberia (in "best Tsarist tradition" BTW) was either one of the above. ;)

Wake up, Marcel.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Red Polak+May 2 2006, 04:48 PM--> (Red Polak @ May 2 2006, 04:48 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 04:41 PM
Red Polak: Your arguments will fall flat if you really want to get down to it; I suggest you start a thread on Stalin...
Fact: Stalin murdered and oppressed millions of my countrymen
Fact: as did Hitler.

I don't think anything else needs to be said, neither of us will convince each other. And on that note, I will still regard you as bad as the nazis (regardless if you take part in a revolution because imo you'd probably gain power afterwards and once again ruin the name of Communism, oppress and murder). [/b]
It sounds to me like you are afraid to debate this. In respect for this thread, I'm not biting the bait here, but if you want to start a new thread, I will be glad to take on these claims of yours.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Malte+May 2 2006, 04:52 PM--> (Malte @ May 2 2006, 04:52 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 05:41 PM
Red Polak: Your arguments will fall flat if you really want to get down to it; I suggest you start a thread on Stalin...
As much as I disagree with Stalin-Hitler comparisons, I can hardly imagine anything which could justify Stalin's crimes done to the Poles. Except maybe, the usual, disgusting Leninist euphemisms such as "revolutionary necessity", or if you can't stand the overwhelming facts of the crimes of Stalin anymore "lies of bourgeois, Trotskyist and fascist historians". I guess Red Polak will appreciate to know that his grandma was send to Siberia (in "best Tsarist tradition" BTW) was either one of the above. ;)

Wake up, Marcel. [/b]
We are just supposed to take his word for it? We know nothing about his gradma or why she was sent there, or if it is even true. We have to look at facts, not anecdotes. Red Polak has his emotional reasons why he doesn't like Stalin, and nothing scientific.

As for your accusation about Poland, where is your proof of mass murder in Poland? We already know accusations like Katyn fall flat; German shells as evidence???

Again, start a thread on Stalin. This is about antifa work and not a former nazi turned Trot's feelings about Stalin.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+May 2 2006, 04:56 PM--> (Comrade Marcel @ May 2 2006, 04:56 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:52 PM

Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 05:41 PM
Red Polak: Your arguments will fall flat if you really want to get down to it; I suggest you start a thread on Stalin...
As much as I disagree with Stalin-Hitler comparisons, I can hardly imagine anything which could justify Stalin's crimes done to the Poles. Except maybe, the usual, disgusting Leninist euphemisms such as "revolutionary necessity", or if you can't stand the overwhelming facts of the crimes of Stalin anymore "lies of bourgeois, Trotskyist and fascist historians". I guess Red Polak will appreciate to know that his grandma was send to Siberia (in "best Tsarist tradition" BTW) was either one of the above. ;)

Wake up, Marcel.
We are just supposed to take his word for it? We know nothing about his gradma or why she was sent there, or if it is even true. We have to look at facts, not anecdotes. Red Polak has his emotional reasons why he doesn't like Stalin, and nothing scientific.

As for your accusation about Poland, where is your proof of mass murder in Poland? We already know accusations like Katyn fall flat; German shells as evidence???

Again, start a thread on Stalin. This is about antifa work and not a former nazi turned Trot's feelings about Stalin. [/b]
what the fuck?

1) I'm a she
2) my grandmother was sent there after the Russians invaded, destroyed her family's farm and basically trashed the place (Eastern border)
3) you cannot defend your great hero so you say it's all lies, typical
4) Katyn fell flat? No, I think you'll find the Nazis uncovered it, they then blamed Stalin, Stalin denied it, tried to blame Nazis at Nuremberg, failed.
5) 1989 Soviets admitted JOSEPH STALIN HAD ORDERED THE MASSACRE
6) 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev admitted that the NKVD had executed the Poles

26000 Poles dead in a pit, an admission of this by the Russians - I think that is proof enough.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Red Polak+May 1 2006, 09:07 PM--> (Red Polak @ May 1 2006, 09:07 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 08:38 PM
now if only they will start beating up stalinists in subways.
I'm fine with that - as far as I'm concerned, Hitler and Stalin supporters are on the same level (and it's not the communist level). [/b]
I agree. They're both standing at the top of a pyramid of blood, and their economic policies weren't so completely different. Hitler may have been "far right" but the left and right scale usually represents economics, and Hitler seemed to employ largely Keynesian economics.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:18 AM

It's intersting though, that you still can't tell that 1984 is fiction! Explain why 50% of the Russian population still loves Stalin! you must know something they don't...

Dude, this argument holds no water and you know it. People in Germany still love Hitler.
Urm, show me a poll that shows people "still love Hitler" in Germany. I'm sure it is nowhere near the admiration for the Stalin era in Russia.

Yeah, why did they love Hitler? Well, many Germans benefitted from his era. They lived off the suffering of others.

Stalin didn't do things this way. He created a society of equal benefit and treated all enemies as enemies, and not just people of a certain race.


Besides where did you get that statistic from?

I've heard the 50% before, but would have to find that specific poll. These are another example (which hover around 30-40%)

http://worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wp...hrushcheva.html (http://worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj05-2/khrushcheva.html)

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=9524

http://www.twq.com/06winter/docs/06winter_mendelson.pdf

http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1070.cfm


Did you make it up?

No. Different polls have different results. It depends a lot on the wording, etc. and what type of people were polled.


If there is any reason why people love Stalin, its because of the massive amounts of soviet propaganda that was pushed on them and the fact that people can't let go of the fact that authoritarian socialism is dead.

Nothing to do with the economic, social, technological, industrial and human acheivments of course... :rolleyes:

* Under Stalin life expectancy doubled: THE GREATEST ACCOMPLISHMENT IN HUMYN HISTORY UP TO 1950! (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/lifeexpectussr2.html)
* Life expectancy for Russian males lower now than under Stalin despite medical technology progress (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/lifeexpectussr.html)
* Soviet Union almost completely at U.$. technological level when Stalin died: computers (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/sovietcomputers.html)

These are just a few examples.


And even if its true that people still love Stalin, it doesn't erase away the amount of lives he has taken.

This has nothing but emotion, noting really to argue with here. I pesynally don't wish to "reverse" much of those actions anyways... :lol:


Your simply being an apologist for a genocidal statist regime.

You admitted you prefer capitalism, so I'm not sure I feel very insulted. :lol:

But if you want to fling around words like "genocidal", "statist" and "regime" you might want to pull out a dictionary, and then find some evidence for your claims.

[Edelweiss]

We have to look at facts, not anecdotes.

What a disgusting, cold and entirely cynical statement.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:44 AM
Sorry for butting in, but I must admit that living in the Soviet times was way better than it is now and I've never heard my family complaining about Stalin. Part of the reason why my family moved to Australia was because of the break up of the U.S.S.R.

And come on comrades we must unite against fascism.Not argue amongst ourselves on how "Stalinism is the same as fascism" because it's not.Completely different ideologies.
I think some of you have been watching way too much documentaries about Stalin from the U.S point-of-view.

I did like Stalin's moustache. Let's discuss that! ;)
i liked nietzsche's moustache way more. you could grab him by the ankles and use him as a push broom.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:02 PM

We have to look at facts, not anecdotes.

What a disgusting, cold and entirely cynical statement.
Doesn't surprise me at all.

And there, comrades, we have a typical Stalinist. <_<


How these people can be called Communists I don&#39;t know - clearly everyone is not equal in their eyes.

[Nachie]

I think it was redstar2000 who was telling me how a little while ago Stalinists were restricted to Opposing Ideologies, but this strategy "didn&#39;t work" because then they all went and started other forums.

I replied, isn&#39;t that a good thing???

[LoneRed]

another thread on stalin.. how overdone

[Wiesty]

Agreed, But obiously some Authoratorians on this board don&#39;t mind the idea of living in a Police State.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 1 2006, 05:53 PM
under Stalin, many of my family were living in basically a Fascist state. Hell, most Russians were living in basically Fascist state.


What exactly do you define as fascism?


Are you joking?

There is no need to "accuse" Stalin of genocide - we all KNOW he did it.

Wow, everyone should be convinced then, since everyone already knows&#33; :lol:

What exactly do you consider genocide anyways? Some people really should check out a dictionary...

http://www.revmod.ca/stfu.jpg


Hell, the Soviets admitted it in the early 90&#39;s.

Admitted what? And would you like to be more specific, such as which publication? I can go down to the former-USSR friendship association tommorow and take a look, since they have most of the publication put out from the USSR there.


The purges, the massacres, Katyn forest - 26000 Poles executed in a mass grave.

Katyn has always been propaganda, since the day it was started by the nazis, as propaganda to get Poles to hate Russians and communism.

From a historian who did first hand research...

"At present, it is complicated for me to tell how man thousands of Polish oficers were freed by the soviets from april 1940 to the moment of the beginning of the German-russian war of 1941. Just one thing is known: as soon as the Polish officers crossed the German border, no kind of news about them was known, up to the 13th of April 1943 when the German radio broadcast the sensational news to the whole world about finding in the forest of Katin the murdered bodies of the polish officers.

"I have a basis to supposed that a part - possibly 2,000-3,000 officers - which were found in the Katin forests were transferred from the region of smolensk, which was under occupation of the Germans, in 1941 and the rest - from other places known only to the Germans. Knowing the history of the beastly deeds perpetuated by the Hitlerites, I don&#39;t doubt that the Germans planned those murders abd carried them out with their customary accuracy. They knew that the sudden disappearance of several thousand Polish officers, who it was universally believed, had been held in the USSR, would arose serious suspicions amongst their friends who were still living in the Soviet Union, and would become the cause of antagonism in the signing of the Polish-Soviet agreement, the relations between out two countries were soured....

"In reality, to no one&#39;s surprise, Germans did everything possible to sow discontent between the Poles and russians, since they did not want them uniting against Germany...."

-- Katin Forest Massacre, Military-Historical Journal, 1991 by Romyald Sviatec (translated from Russian by Max Rinis) (reprinted in Secret Documents, Nothstar Compass - Toronto, Canada) pgs. 202-203

" (...) I quote here an excerpt from the story "Salus" by Yedzhislava Bay, published in the "Pariska Kultura" (Np. 4/367/1978) in which it is confirmed that at the beginnning of December 191 in the Office of General Anders in buzuluk, there arrived four men under the leadership of Lieutenant Shatkovsky. They announced themselves as coming from Poland and belonging to the underground organization name "Musketeers". they told of rumours that Polish officers disappeared or were murdered somewhere near Smolensk.

"It was later proven that this quartet was working for the German Gustapo and their job was to sow discontent and disagreement and distrust between poles and Germans.

"Similiar provocations by the Germans were regular occurances(,) (...) the purpose being to prevent the unity of slavic peoples.

"Precisely from this standpoint, we must look at the discovery by the Germans of the grades in Katin. (wait a minute? they were first discovered by nazis? hmmm. -MR) It is generally known that in spring of 1943, the Germans were retreating along the entire Eastern Front and the "discovery" of the graves of the murdered Polish officers was not at al accidental, as the Germans and the ministr of Propaganda headed by Goebbells kept on repeating to the world. It was a well-planned and calculated excercise by the Gestapo in order to provoke antagonisms and hate towards the approaching Red Army."

-- Ibid. pgs. 204-205

Thos ethis part is anecdotal, it&#39;s somewhat noteworthy since the man was an officer.

"Being in Varkut, Camp #10, I met a Major of the German Army who, from 1941 found himself in Smolensk. From him, I found out that it definately was the Germans who operated several camps for Polish war prisoners. In one conversation, I got interested in his knowing about Katin. He answered me directly that this is the work of the hands of Germans, as it was in the interests of Germany to commit this massacre.

"He was sincerely surprised that the Polish officials were blaiming the Russians. (...) This German major did not, in the slightest, consider his Plish officers&#39; massacre by Germany as a crime. to his way of thinking, these Polish officers represented a daner to the German reich...

"In camp #11 in Verkut, I met Vlodzhimir Mandryk, who, before the war and during the period of occupation, worked in the main post office in Smolensk. He absolutely insisted that near smolensk, from 1940 there were German camps for Polish prisoners of war. he was adamant that Germans murdered the Poles

"By his account of the period between August and October of 1941, letters to polish prisoners of war ceased to arrive and be processed by the post office. Any letters that kept on coming ti the prisoners, the Germans gave the post office orders to destroy all these letters. Also, at this time, Mandyk recalls the Germans told everyone in smolensk that the Polish officers were relocated back to Polish territory.

"In the fall of 1952, Iw as transferred to Norilsk where in camp #4, I met Captain Vladislav Zak, who fell into Russian hands as a prisoner of war in September 1939. during the whole year that I lived in the barracks, I witnessed and heard discussions and arguments between Poles about the Katin question. Majority feeling concluded that it was the work of the germans. Zak stated himself that he would have been one of the victims in Katin if he was not transferred from smolensk to near Moscow. Here, he was accused of spying, sabotage and sentenced to 10 years loss of freedom.

"We must also remember that the Polish officers at that time were schooled into a reactionary force, fed propaganda by the Polish "government in exile" which fled to London, having refused the Red Army permission to go through Poland in order to stop the Germans...

"Amongst the many recollections which I read about Katin, there was a book by Stanislaw Svjanevich by the name of "in the Shadow of Katin", and also in the book by joseph Chapskov "Upon the Inhuman Earth". I learned that the Polish war prisoners were treated very well by the Russians...

"In July of 1952, together with a group of invalids, Iw as directed into the region of Irtkutsk to camp #233. Here, I got acquinted with Father Kozera, who showed great interest in the Katin massacre. During the eight years we were together in many camps, he accumulated many interesting materials, which brought him to the final conclusion that the Katin crime was perpetrated by the Germans.

"But from all the people that I met, the most significant was by the eyewitness Russian Major who was working before the war in the Commission of Forestry. After the invasion by Germany, working underground, he located himself by working on the railroad. This Russian major found out from his underground members that the Germans had encircled with barbed wire the town of Kozieh gor, an forbade everyone to cross this zone.

"...&#39;I was thinking that the Germans were building there some sort of a warehouse and other structures. I ordered my people to try and verify this fact. They found out from the population that they saw huge lorrys filled with Polish prisoners of war riding towards the Katin forest, the forbidden zone. I really thought that the Germans were building a POW camp.&#39;"

-- Ibid. pgs. 206-209

A bit of his own opinion based on experience... and showing which "bias" he is coming from (i.e. not &#39;pro-Stalin&#39; or even &#39;pro-Soviet&#39;...

"Altogether, I spent nine years in the Soviet Union - two years in exile and seven years in camps. During that time, I went through much, met thousands of interesting people, but I also know that if the Soviets had wanted to get rid of the Polish oficers, they would have sent them to the &#39;Novaya Zemlya&#39; to work, and thus, be productive.


"I am far from praising the Soviet system. I myself became an innocent victim. Others were not as lucky as I. I also do not pretend that I am not guilty of many things. There were people that got into the NKVD and the party who were real enemies of the system. They got rid of many dedicated people. but I cannot keep quiet on this Katin event...

"Even though I do not like the communist system, I must admit that this system has shown decency and follows the established law and order of the system. This cannot be said about fascism. If a person is condemned to be shot, the sentence is carried our in jail, but only after the approval or the Supreme court of the Supreme Soviet of USSR.

"This is why the findings of the "International Commission" that was established in the German occupation zone, must not be taken as truth almighty. This "Commission" was under the guidance of the German Gestapo. Professor Booktz from the Wroclaw University who took part in the exhuming of the grave knew the truth, because later, he was killed by the nazis.

"With all the documentation that I have in my hands, I state categorically that the accusations by the Polish government in London, Englad were made solely for poitical reasons. ..."

-- Ibid. pgs. 210-211

"... I checked Polish documents, diplomatic correspondence, Polish Archives at the Polish Institure in London as well are the British Archives. I confirmed that the answers given by the Soviets regarding the Katin massacre were hidden from the eyes of the press and from its own people."

-- Ibid. pg.212


Yes and people who worship or agree with Stalin are an insult to the 40+ years of oppression Eastern Europeans had because of the bastard.

That&#39;s your opinion, and not fact. The facts are Stalin liberated people from fascism and capitalism all over Europe, aided other parts of the world and built a superpower workers staqte in the name of socialism and international communism.

[Red Polak]

My god&#33; You&#39;re trying to deny Katyn?&#33; You fucking stalinists make me sick.

You know what? You deny Katyn, maybe Nazis deny the Holocaust&#33; yay&#33; let&#39;s all use dodgy historians and have some fun.

http://www.geocities.com/katyn.geo/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_Massacre

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/spotlight/
"It wasn&#39;t until 1990 that Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev admitted Soviet involvement in the Katyn forest massacre. Two years later, the Russian government handed over to Polish President Lech Walesa previously secret documents showing that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had directly ordered the killing of the Polish army officers."

Let me guess...those documents and the admission of doing it is all fake&#33;



"The facts are Stalin liberated people from fascism and capitalism all over Europe"

Liberated the Poles you say? Hmmm....from what? We got our country back after the war and then the "big 3" (Roosevelt, Churchill and stalin) decided to give it to Stalin. But thanks for "liberating" us from absolutely fucking nothing.

Oh thank you soviet saviours&#33; We couldn&#39;t possibly manage to rule ourselves after the war&#33; It&#39;s a good thing you took away our sovereignty for 40 years&#33;

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 2 2006, 04:12 PM
- both Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland
Hitler order Poland invaded, and hand plans to enslave it&#39;s people.

Stalin had Poland occupied in defense against fascism, and liberated the Poles from fascism.


- Stalin pretended to ally with us but really didn&#39;t give a shit

Evidence?


and basically just wanted the Germans to finish us off so he gained a nice bit of teritory after the war

What exactly did Stalin want with this "nice bit of territory"? And were did the resources come from to rebuild that territory after the war?


- both Hitler and Stalin wanted the land

Yes, but as I answered in your first question, the two contexts were completely different. If you are insinuating that Stalin had some "hidden" motive, then show some evidence.


- both Hitler and Stalin wanted to send Poles to Siberia (hell, Stalin actually did - my own grandmother was sent from her home to Siberia by Stalin&#39;s army)

Where is your proof that "Stalin wanted to send Poles to Siberia"? I though he just had them all killed at Katyn?&#33;? :huh:

Your grandmother&#39;s story, though may be tear jerking to some, is hardly something that we could hold up as an example in the face of what the fascists did. Let&#39;s not forget who started the war.

Also, we don&#39;t know anything about your grandmother or the circumstances at the time, so unless you can provide some further evidence (documents, etc.) we have to simply take your word for it that she was an innocent victim.

Even if this was the case, there was millions of innocent victims during WW II. Modern war is full of innocent victims, yea it sucks. But you ar enot proving your case with your grandmother example, that the Soviets had nothign better to do than target innocent vitims for execution and trips to Siberia well in the middle of fighting fascism.


- both Hitler and Stalin killed millions of Poles (I don&#39;t care whether it was in a gas chamber or with a bullet in the neck, they still both did it)

Your source?


- both Hitler and Stalin oppressed the nation horribly (Hitler for 4 or so years, Stalin&#39;s USSR for over 40)

Repressed from what? Fascism? Capitalism? Sounds fair.


Now, you say we should get along nicely?

I really don&#39;t care if you "want to get along nicely", but it seems interesting that you are more willing to vehemently attack a Marxist-Leninist, and someone who admires the man who helped play the largest role in defeating fascism in WW II, then you are the fascists.


I know the differences very well indeed and I don&#39;t give two hoots about either murdering bastard.

You don&#39;t seem to know the difference, and who cares what you think about Stalin and Hitler. They are both dead. If you are going to make public accusations though, you should provide a bit more evidence.


Look comrade, maybe you don&#39;t want to murder millions like your hero,

It all depends on what you consider "murder".


but then again maybe some nazis don&#39;t want to murder millions like their hero. :unsure:

We know what their ideology is about, their&#39;s a "master race" remember?


I just hope you want to stand in revolution alongside real communists rather than oppress and kill people like Stalin did.

Oh, it&#39;s very debatable who the real communists are&#33; :lol: The one&#39;s that back down from confronting fascists? The one&#39;s that are more interested in attacking Marxist-Leninists? The one&#39;s that sell newpapers to petty-bourgeois university students? The ones that want communism right after the revolution? The one&#39;s that attack every single revoution that has ever existed? The one&#39;s that support imperialism over the anti-imperialist socialist countries every time? The fencewalkers? The keyboard komrades and internet warriors? etc. etc. Are these your examples of "real communists"? Truly pathetic. :rolleyes:

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 07:27 PM
The facts are Stalin liberated people from fascism and capitalism all over Europe, aided other parts of the world and built a superpower workers staqte in the name of socialism and international communism.
Here&#39;s the problem:

On the Interweb, loonies can run around and tie up whole threads for days with these kind of absurdities.

In real life, somebody would have broken a table over this guy&#39;s face by now, and we could have already been talking about something that actually matters.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Malte+May 2 2006, 04:52 PM--> (Malte @ May 2 2006, 04:52 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 05:41 PM
Red Polak: Your arguments will fall flat if you really want to get down to it; I suggest you start a thread on Stalin...
As much as I disagree with Stalin-Hitler comparisons, I can hardly imagine anything which could justify Stalin&#39;s crimes done to the Poles. Except maybe, the usual, disgusting Leninist euphemisms such as "revolutionary necessity", or if you can&#39;t stand the overwhelming facts of the crimes of Stalin anymore "lies of bourgeois, Trotskyist and fascist historians". I guess Red Polak will appreciate to know that his grandma was send to Siberia (in "best Tsarist tradition" BTW) was either one of the above. ;)

Wake up, Marcel. [/b]
Malte, it&#39;s funny to hear Trots and anti-Leninist types like you talk about internationalism; but when Poland was liberated from fascism and pieced back together it&#39;s no good Stalinism&#33;

Well, red_polaks grandma really has you convinced, did you get to meet her? :rolleyes:

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:45 PM
On the Interweb, loonies can run around and tie up whole threads for days with these kind of absurdities.

In real life, somebody would have broken a table over this guy&#39;s face by now, and we could have already been talking about something that actually matters.
Hahaha, it&#39;s funny.


Again, it goes to show that these "arguments" against Stalin fall flat - as flat as a table&#33; :lol:

I didn&#39;t start this topic, and I haven&#39;t gotten any tables broken over my face at "leftist parties" yet (and they always start shit with me)... You can give it a try if you like, I love a good mass fight, especially one with tables and chairs involved. :D

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+May 2 2006, 07:45 PM--> (Comrade Marcel &#064; May 2 2006, 07:45 PM)
Red [email protected] 2 2006, 04:12 PM
- both Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland
Hitler order Poland invaded, and hand plans to enslave it&#39;s people.

Stalin had Poland occupied in defense against fascism, and liberated the Poles from fascism.


- Stalin pretended to ally with us but really didn&#39;t give a shit

Evidence?


and basically just wanted the Germans to finish us off so he gained a nice bit of teritory after the war

What exactly did Stalin want with this "nice bit of territory"? And were did the resources come from to rebuild that territory after the war?


- both Hitler and Stalin wanted the land

Yes, but as I answered in your first question, the two contexts were completely different. If you are insinuating that Stalin had some "hidden" motive, then show some evidence.


- both Hitler and Stalin wanted to send Poles to Siberia (hell, Stalin actually did - my own grandmother was sent from her home to Siberia by Stalin&#39;s army)

Where is your proof that "Stalin wanted to send Poles to Siberia"? I though he just had them all killed at Katyn?&#33;? :huh:

Your grandmother&#39;s story, though may be tear jerking to some, is hardly something that we could hold up as an example in the face of what the fascists did. Let&#39;s not forget who started the war.

Also, we don&#39;t know anything about your grandmother or the circumstances at the time, so unless you can provide some further evidence (documents, etc.) we have to simply take your word for it that she was an innocent victim.

Even if this was the case, there was millions of innocent victims during WW II. Modern war is full of innocent victims, yea it sucks. But you ar enot proving your case with your grandmother example, that the Soviets had nothign better to do than target innocent vitims for execution and trips to Siberia well in the middle of fighting fascism.


- both Hitler and Stalin killed millions of Poles (I don&#39;t care whether it was in a gas chamber or with a bullet in the neck, they still both did it)

Your source?


- both Hitler and Stalin oppressed the nation horribly (Hitler for 4 or so years, Stalin&#39;s USSR for over 40)

Repressed from what? Fascism? Capitalism? Sounds fair.


Now, you say we should get along nicely?

I really don&#39;t care if you "want to get along nicely", but it seems interesting that you are more willing to vehemently attack a Marxist-Leninist, and someone who admires the man who helped play the largest role in defeating fascism in WW II, then you are the fascists.


I know the differences very well indeed and I don&#39;t give two hoots about either murdering bastard.

You don&#39;t seem to know the difference, and who cares what you think about Stalin and Hitler. They are both dead. If you are going to make public accusations though, you should provide a bit more evidence.


Look comrade, maybe you don&#39;t want to murder millions like your hero,

It all depends on what you consider "murder".


but then again maybe some nazis don&#39;t want to murder millions like their hero. :unsure:

We know what their ideology is about, their&#39;s a "master race" remember?


I just hope you want to stand in revolution alongside real communists rather than oppress and kill people like Stalin did.

Oh, it&#39;s very debatable who the real communists are&#33; :lol: The one&#39;s that back down from confronting fascists? The one&#39;s that are more interested in attacking Marxist-Leninists? The one&#39;s that sell newpapers to petty-bourgeois university students? The ones that want communism right after the revolution? The one&#39;s that attack every single revoution that has ever existed? The one&#39;s that support imperialism over the anti-imperialist socialist countries every time? The fencewalkers? The keyboard komrades and internet warriors? etc. etc. Are these your examples of "real communists"? Truly pathetic. :rolleyes: [/b]
No problem - Warsaw uprising, August 1944. Stalin refused to allow British airplanes to take off from soviet held airports on Polish land to deliver aid to the Poles in the uprising.

Another thing - Stalin&#39;s army sat on the banks of the Wisla and watched. They could have stormed the city, killed the Germans? No, they did nothing instead allowing the Germans to slowly kill off the Polish resistance fighters.


The simple facts are stalin had Poles sent to Siberia (hell, he even had his "comrades" sent there earlier on, just like the Tzar). No, they were not all executed at Katyn - 26000 of the intelligentsia were - the population of Poland was 35m. He let the Germans attack because he wanted an easy victory after the war, he could have stopped it, he didn&#39;t.

"It all depends on what you consider "murder"."

I&#39;d consider rounding up doctors, lawyers, teachers etc, tying their hands behind their backs with barbed wire, leading them to a pit, getting them to kneel down and then putting a bullet in the back of their neck murder. Evidently you sick stalinist fucks do not though.


And yes I did get to meet my grandmother you fucking idiot - she was only 16 when the war broke out and is still alive now. I don&#39;t know though, obviously she&#39;s wrong and you great Stalinist are right. Obviously she&#39;s just lying about it all to make her saviours look bad. :rolleyes:

I wouldn&#39;t spit on you if you were on fire. :angry:

[chimx]

nice selective replying marcel. your better at dodging facts han bill o&#39;reilly.

[Edelweiss]

Oh, it&#39;s very debatable who the real communists are&#33; laugh.gif The one&#39;s that back down from confronting fascists?

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I do acknowledge the role of the glorious red army in defeating fascism, and the amount of blood it took. I even acknowledge Stalin&#39;s role on this matter. But keep in mind forget that Stalin really did have no other choice at that point to fight the Nazis as the USSR was attacked by the Nazis. Let&#39;s not forget the Stalin-Hitler pact which from day to another wiped out the whole anti-fascist line of the USSR, all anti-fascist literature was banned from public libraries after that. (don&#39;t dare to reply with "source?" or "evidence?", you know it&#39;s true). The same phony anti-fascism can be assisted when it was about supporting the anti-fascist brigades during the Spanish civil war. The truth is, Stalin&#39;s anti-fascism was hypocritical, he was a cowardly bastard when it was about confronting fascists. He was the one who did back down. He didn&#39;t care about anti-fascism. He didn&#39;t care about internationalism. He didn&#39;t care about foreign communists. International solidarity was a foreign word for him. It&#39;s time to face that truth Marcel, and finally dump your whole stupid Stalin baggage&#33; Because if you let those baggage aside, you seem to be a great comrade.

Stalin did kill more communists than Hitler - a Soviet embassador to the DDR

[YSR]

Originally posted by Marcel
The one&#39;s that back down from confronting fascists?

I&#39;d like to think that supporting murderous regimes in the name of "communism" and fighting fascism are two different things, Marcel.


The ones that want communism right after the revolution?

Yes. We are "real communists".

[Wiesty]

Thanks Malte. And aside from Katyn, there are even more mass grave sites from Stalin&#39;s Regime. Another big site is in the Bukovynian Forest, in South West Ukraine.
The facts is that the death toll from Stalins Regime, is higher than the entire death toll of world war 2.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+May 2 2006, 07:45 PM--> (Comrade Marcel &#064; May 2 2006, 07:45 PM)
Red [email protected] 2 2006, 04:12 PM
- both Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland
Hitler order Poland invaded, and hand plans to enslave it&#39;s people.

Stalin had Poland occupied in defense against fascism, and liberated the Poles from fascism.


- Stalin pretended to ally with us but really didn&#39;t give a shit

Evidence?


and basically just wanted the Germans to finish us off so he gained a nice bit of teritory after the war

What exactly did Stalin want with this "nice bit of territory"? And were did the resources come from to rebuild that territory after the war?


- both Hitler and Stalin wanted the land

Yes, but as I answered in your first question, the two contexts were completely different. If you are insinuating that Stalin had some "hidden" motive, then show some evidence.


- both Hitler and Stalin wanted to send Poles to Siberia (hell, Stalin actually did - my own grandmother was sent from her home to Siberia by Stalin&#39;s army)

Where is your proof that "Stalin wanted to send Poles to Siberia"? I though he just had them all killed at Katyn?&#33;? :huh:

Your grandmother&#39;s story, though may be tear jerking to some, is hardly something that we could hold up as an example in the face of what the fascists did. Let&#39;s not forget who started the war.

Also, we don&#39;t know anything about your grandmother or the circumstances at the time, so unless you can provide some further evidence (documents, etc.) we have to simply take your word for it that she was an innocent victim.

Even if this was the case, there was millions of innocent victims during WW II. Modern war is full of innocent victims, yea it sucks. But you ar enot proving your case with your grandmother example, that the Soviets had nothign better to do than target innocent vitims for execution and trips to Siberia well in the middle of fighting fascism.


- both Hitler and Stalin killed millions of Poles (I don&#39;t care whether it was in a gas chamber or with a bullet in the neck, they still both did it)

Your source?


- both Hitler and Stalin oppressed the nation horribly (Hitler for 4 or so years, Stalin&#39;s USSR for over 40)

Repressed from what? Fascism? Capitalism? Sounds fair.


Now, you say we should get along nicely?

I really don&#39;t care if you "want to get along nicely", but it seems interesting that you are more willing to vehemently attack a Marxist-Leninist, and someone who admires the man who helped play the largest role in defeating fascism in WW II, then you are the fascists.


I know the differences very well indeed and I don&#39;t give two hoots about either murdering bastard.

You don&#39;t seem to know the difference, and who cares what you think about Stalin and Hitler. They are both dead. If you are going to make public accusations though, you should provide a bit more evidence.


Look comrade, maybe you don&#39;t want to murder millions like your hero,

It all depends on what you consider "murder".


but then again maybe some nazis don&#39;t want to murder millions like their hero. :unsure:

We know what their ideology is about, their&#39;s a "master race" remember?


I just hope you want to stand in revolution alongside real communists rather than oppress and kill people like Stalin did.

Oh, it&#39;s very debatable who the real communists are&#33; :lol: The one&#39;s that back down from confronting fascists? The one&#39;s that are more interested in attacking Marxist-Leninists? The one&#39;s that sell newpapers to petty-bourgeois university students? The ones that want communism right after the revolution? The one&#39;s that attack every single revoution that has ever existed? The one&#39;s that support imperialism over the anti-imperialist socialist countries every time? The fencewalkers? The keyboard komrades and internet warriors? etc. etc. Are these your examples of "real communists"? Truly pathetic. :rolleyes: [/b]
What exactly makes "fascism" fascism? A highly militaristic one-party state? You&#39;ve got that under Stalinist Russia. Massacres abound? Yep. The repression of "capitalism" isn&#39;t worth the destruction of social freedom for a level economic playing field. It&#39;s hypocritical really.

You&#39;re right, it is very debatable who the real communists are. The one who side with a degenerated worker&#39;s state that sacrificed most vestiges of freedom? I don&#39;t know many of the left who have historically or in present times backed down from fighting fascism. Why else would they be interested in attacking Marxist Leninists. Trying to convince people to join the left is bad? Wanting communism right away, which has proven more fruitful than letting the revolution stagnate under the Vanguard. That they attack every revolution that&#39;s ever existed is because every revolution has failed to produce a long-lasting communism that&#39;s genuinely beneficial and free. I don&#39;t know many that support imperialism, either. I&#39;d much rather prefer them to those that would subject other&#39;s forcefully to their will.

[Xiao Banfa]

It may be of no use to deliberate over whether Stalin or Hitler was worse.
But Hitler, who started the second world war, did cause more deaths.

Soviet historians have put the figure around 25 million, which is for a country under threat from fascism and imperialism and for one being the first to attempt such a radical transformation of it&#39;s system of production.

One has to realise that centralisation of the kind that existed in the soviet union meant that mistakes concerning production had big consequences and by the time they could be rectified it would be too late.

Hitler on the other hand was a racist maniac who had an all the phobias.

He was genocidal

He also caused a war that killed 50 million people and killed 10 million jews and others (such as communists)

Stalin was obviously a prick but Hitler was a worse prick.

Stalin was a big, cuddly loveable rogue.

[Vladislav]

Stalin was a big, cuddly loveable rogue.

let me finish that for you.

Stalin was a big, cuddly loveable rogue with a sexy moustache.

[Xiao Banfa]

Stalin was a big, cuddly loveable rogue with a sexy moustache.

Finally we are getting to the real issues

[Maksym]

- both Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland

False. The USSR reincorporated Western Ukraine, Lithuanian and Belarus into the respected republics. The USSR moved into these areas a day after (September 17th) the Polish gentry fled to Romania, with all the loot they could carry. I’m sure Ignacy Mościcki enjoyed championing the Polish cause from his comfortable residence in Switzerland.


- Stalin pretended to ally with us but really didn&#39;t give a shit and basically just wanted the Germans to finish us off so he gained a nice bit of teritory after the war

When did the USSR become an ally of the Polish gentry?


- both Hitler and Stalin wanted the land

Irrelevant, already explained above.


- both Hitler and Stalin wanted to send Poles to Siberia (hell, Stalin actually did - my own grandmother was sent from her home to Siberia by Stalin&#39;s army)

As you stated later on, your family had their farm destroyed. To the casual observer this should strike a chord, how many Poles actually were landowners? You have admitted, unknowingly of course, your family was targeted for being landowners in a conquered territory since 1919, depriving Ukrainians of their rights and were members of the upper classes. The Soviet Union targeted Poles because of their class and the benefits they received from the inter-war dictatorship. This was not genocide, as chauvinistic and reactionary Poles want us to believe, but simply class warfare.


- both Hitler and Stalin killed millions of Poles (I don&#39;t care whether it was in a gas chamber or with a bullet in the neck, they still both did it)

The USSR killed thousands of Polish officers, gentry and bourgeoisie. The Germans killed millions of Jews and ordinary Poles for living space.


26000 Poles dead in a pit, an admission of this by the Russians - I think that is proof enough.

Nope, 4000 Poles dead in the vicinity of Katyn forest and 22000, according to Nazi sources, throughout the rest of the USSR.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:09 PM
Thanks Malte. And aside from Katyn, there are even more mass grave sites from Stalin&#39;s Regime. Another big site is in the Bukovynian Forest, in South West Ukraine.
The facts is that the death toll from Stalins Regime, is higher than the entire death toll of world war 2.
Really, where are these "facts" of yours?

[Comrade Marcel]

What a disgusting, cold and entirely cynical statement.

Malte: Science is often disgusting, cold and entirely cynical. If we want to look into Katyn - and the whole Stalin question - scientifically then we should do so without the uneccessary emotion.

After all, what did Red_Polak&#39;s grandmother example prove? As RP said: "she is still alive" and if anything that proves decent treatment. Was she arrested unecessarily? Maybe, but WW II was full of havoc?

I don&#39;t like to get persynal, but was she tortured, raped, abused? Then compare how many under capitalism face this treatment in prison. As a matter of fact, how many wimmin are simply just raped under capitalism?

My point being if we are going to get persynal examples as proof, then it&#39;s under scrutiny. If we are going to talk about emotions, well these are abstract persynal feelings and since we can&#39;t feel others feelings we can only compare them with examples... get my point?


"Stalin did kill more communists than Hitler"

Malte, do you care give source that quote, or like every other opinion in this thread, should we just "believe" and let idealism and emotions overwhelm our movement instead of cold hard facts? :huh:

[Edelweiss]

Malte, do you care give source that quote, or like every other opinion in this thread, should we just "believe" and let idealism and emotions overwhelm our movement instead of cold hard facts?

That is a quote from an TV interview I saw last week on German public TV. Maybe, with some reasearch I&#39;ll be able to provide a name. I forgot the name of the ambessedor, but I remember he was Soviet ambessedor in the DDR sometimes during the 70s.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:52 PM

Malte, do you care give source that quote, or like every other opinion in this thread, should we just "believe" and let idealism and emotions overwhelm our movement instead of cold hard facts?

That is a quote from an TV interview I saw last week on German public TV. Maybe, with some reasearch I&#39;ll be able to provide a name. I forgot the name of the ambessedor, but I remember he was Soviet ambessedor in the DDR sometimes during the 70s.
So, in other words he was under no Soviet authority at the time of saying this? Again, even if he did say this, why do you think it is true? The guy was around in the 70s, living in Germany. What makes him an expert in the Stalin era?

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:03 PM
Comrade Marcel, your posts are making me think that we should start beating down Authoritarians like you as well.

You absolutely slay me&#33; You hate Gandhi because he was still supporting the caste system but then you call Stalin a comrade. What the hell?

I mean as much as I hate capitalism, I would rather live in a capitalist society then a Stalinist society. At least you have somewhat of a fighting chance in a capitalist society where as stalinism simply be reduced to absolute slavery.
*whistle whistle* :rolleyes: :D

And to Marcel: it&#39;s cute and everything that you work with Trots and anarcho-communists in ARA. But antifa work, while being a dire necessity, is not building revolutions as much as it is building oppositional force to fascism. It is known as a fact, with no disputes, that as soon as you Lennies come to power, you&#39;re the ones rounding us up in gulags and executing us. Isn&#39;t historical materialism not repeating the same dumb shit over and over? How many times should we be tricked into believing you authoritarian fucks are somehow "leftist" and "on our side"?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by barista.marxista+May 4 2006, 03:26 AM--> (barista.marxista @ May 4 2006, 03:26 AM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 07:03 PM
Comrade Marcel, your posts are making me think that we should start beating down Authoritarians like you as well.

You absolutely slay me&#33; You hate Gandhi because he was still supporting the caste system but then you call Stalin a comrade. What the hell?

I mean as much as I hate capitalism, I would rather live in a capitalist society then a Stalinist society. At least you have somewhat of a fighting chance in a capitalist society where as stalinism simply be reduced to absolute slavery.
*whistle whistle* :rolleyes: :D

And to Marcel: it&#39;s cute and everything that you work with Trots and anarcho-communists in ARA. But antifa work, while being a dire necessity, is not building revolutions as much as it is building oppositional force to fascism. It is known as a fact, with no disputes, that as soon as you Lennies come to power, you&#39;re the ones rounding us up in gulags and executing us. Isn&#39;t historical materialism not repeating the same dumb shit over and over? How many times should we be tricked into believing you authoritarian fucks are somehow "leftist" and "on our side"? [/b]
urm, the Leninists are "tricking" people?

I think the problem - for you - is the masses are just to smart to follow utopianism, and they follow Leninism because it works&#33; :o

What&#39;s the name of your party or mass organization? That&#39;s what I thought&#33; :lol:

[Brownfist]

I really think a moratorium on Stalin is in order. I mean both sides of this debate are firmly entrenched in their own respective camps and neither side is budging. I think both sides are using historical materials that the opposing side would find suspect. So Com. Marcel will utilize documents compiled by Northstar Compass, a group that calls for the re-establishment of the Soviet Union, and is heavily grounded in the reaffirmation of Stalin&#39;s role. Whilst other people will utilize sources from less pro-Stalin academics and popular forms of mass media. Furthermore, both sides are ideologically driven and located in different political tendencies and are to some level hostile to one another. So I really think moderators should just ensure that for a determined period no more threads on Stalin should be allowed. It&#39;s getting old and fast.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:22 PM
False. The USSR reincorporated Western Ukraine, Lithuanian and Belarus into the respected republics. The USSR moved into these areas a day after (September 17th) the Polish gentry fled to Romania, with all the loot they could carry. I’m sure Ignacy Mościcki enjoyed championing the Polish cause from his comfortable residence in Switzerland.

So the Soviet invasion on September 17th 1939 never happened? Oh, that&#39;s where we Poles have been wrong all these years then&#33; You see, we thought, what with Stalin and Hitler being allies and all, that he was attacking us&#33; :unsure:


When did the USSR become an ally of the Polish gentry?

Never if we follow Sikorski&#39;s wishes. Though when Stalin allied with Britain and America he was pretty much automatically allied to us through Britain. Sikorski, rightly, refused to deal with the murdering bastard. Once Stalin had *disposed* of Sikorski though of course we were forced to ally.


Irrelevant, already explained above.

Not at all. Methinks someone was a little pissed off after his nation had been defeated in 1920 by Sikorski and Pilsudski.


As you stated later on, your family had their farm destroyed. To the casual observer this should strike a chord, how many Poles actually were landowners? You have admitted, unknowingly of course, your family was targeted for being landowners in a conquered territory since 1919, depriving Ukrainians of their rights and were members of the upper classes. The Soviet Union targeted Poles because of their class and the benefits they received from the inter-war dictatorship. This was not genocide, as chauvinistic and reactionary Poles want us to believe, but simply class warfare.

You suggesting that my family was rich and so therefore it was quite ok to send them off? fuck you you bloody idiot, you clearly know nothing about the situation in Poland at the time (I&#39;ll give you a clue - it was very different to in England) . Over on the Eastern border quite a few people held small farms. A tiny farm in the middle of nowhere, no workers - just a family providing for themselves. I&#39;m sorry, obviously that&#39;s not allowed.

I&#39;m not quite sure what Ukranians have to do with this though - my family&#39;s farm was nowhere near Ukraine, and certainly wasn&#39;t on "stolen land" (mainly because the Polish eastern border used to extend quite a bit more, though also because my family is from nearer the north east (bordering Belarus I believe)).

The soviet union targetted us because of the land, because they were pissed off that we beat them back in the 20&#39;s and because Stalin wanted a bit more control over a few more million people (hell, it&#39;s to be expected from a dictator).


The USSR killed thousands of Polish officers, gentry and bourgeoisie. The Germans killed millions of Jews and ordinary Poles for living space.

You stalinists make me sick - it&#39;s ok to kill people because they&#39;re not poor peasants? You know what it sounds like to me? Kill off all the officers, doctors, teachers, lawyers - what are we left with? The poor people. And then takeover is simple.

Hell, it&#39;s exactly what the Nazis were doing on the west of the country&#33;


Nope, 4000 Poles dead in the vicinity of Katyn forest and 22000, according to Nazi sources, throughout the rest of the USSR.

No, not just according to Nazi sources - according to the bloody soviet union itself. (though it took them nearly 50 years to admit to it).

[Mesijs]

Marcel, I think Stalin was reincarnating slavery rather than Marxism-Leninism. Everything you post, is pro-Stalin. You are just so blind. Let me ask you some questions. Just ONLY answer with yes or no, please. Thanks.

Do you believe there were at least 1 million killed during Stalin&#39;s reign, ordered by the regime?

Do you believed there where at least 1 million people imprisoned in force labour camps or prison camps during his reign?

Do you believe there were show trials, were victims confessed because they had been tortured during his reign?

Do you believe that there were at least 100.000 innocent people killed during the so called Great Terror?

Do you believe the Soviet Union was a democratic country during Stalin&#39;s reign?

Do you think Stalin loved his people?

Do you think there was a personal cultus around Stalin?

Do you think Stalin stirred up nationalism?

Do you think people were sent to force labour camps for crimes such as keeping a piece of food for themself or insulting the leader, or just because somebody said they were wrong?

Do you think there was forced labour in the USSR during Stalin?

Do you think Stalin had a big datsja for himself and lived in luxury?

So, if you just answer these questions with yes or no, it&#39;s ok to me to view your standpoint. Just interpret it however you want.

And I&#39;m also sick and tired of your selective answering. Besides, you don&#39;t believe ANY source, except if it exactly says what you want. So if there are historical documents from the Soviet Union, or surveys, they&#39;re all &#39;lies&#39;.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mesijs, don&#39;t expect any sensible answers from Marcel; hell he still thinks the masses still follow us Leninists&#33;

[Maksym]

So the Soviet invasion on September 17th 1939 never happened? Oh, that&#39;s where we Poles have been wrong all these years then&#33; You see, we thought, what with Stalin and Hitler being allies and all, that he was attacking us&#33;

When did I deny the liberation of Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania?


Not at all. Methinks someone was a little pissed off after his nation had been defeated in 1920 by Sikorski and Pilsudski.

Resorting to pathetic nationalism, very telling.



I&#39;m not quite sure what Ukranians have to do with this though - my family&#39;s farm was nowhere near Ukraine, and certainly wasn&#39;t on "stolen land" (mainly because the Polish eastern border used to extend quite a bit more, though also because my family is from nearer the north east (bordering Belarus I believe)).

Actually, according to an earlier post you stated your farm was located in Kresy. This is either the case or you have been caught in a lie. How else could the Soviets expropriate your farm if it was not located on conquered territory? The quote I’m referring to is, my grandmother was sent there after the Russians invaded, destroyed her family&#39;s farm and basically trashed the place (Eastern border)


The soviet union targetted us because of the land, because they were pissed off that we beat them back in the 20&#39;s and because Stalin wanted a bit more control over a few more million people (hell, it&#39;s to be expected from a dictator).

The USSR targeted criminal elements that were settled in conquered territory after WW1. A total of 125,000 Poles were given land in the conquered territories for being loyal anti-communists and saving “Europe from the Bolshevik hordes.” It is really surprising a Polish nationalist, having a fondness for Pilsudski’s dictatorship and landowner hates the Soviet Union?


You stalinists make me sick - it&#39;s ok to kill people because they&#39;re not poor peasants? You know what it sounds like to me? Kill off all the officers, doctors, teachers, lawyers - what are we left with? The poor people. And then takeover is simple.

Only criminal elements that benefited from oppressing minorities, leftists and pillars of Poland’s bourgeois dictatorship were targeted. They were criminals, reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries, nothing more.



No, not just according to Nazi sources - according to the bloody soviet union itself. (though it took them nearly 50 years to admit to it).

Your interpretation of events comes from the Nazis.

[Edelweiss]

This thread is another conformation that it makes absolutely no sense at all to discuss with Stalinists about history. Truely pathetic.

[Hiero]

I mean as much as I hate capitalism, I would rather live in a capitalist society then a Stalinist society. At least you have somewhat of a fighting chance in a capitalist society where as stalinism simply be reduced to absolute slavery.

Of course you would. Living in the imperialist countries gives many benifits to workers. If you live in a country that has a effective welfare this makes things a alot easy as well. You can talk all the anti-capitalist rhetoric, yet still indulge in some of it&#39;s luxuries.

What you want is not a good judgement. It is what the proletariat and the working class want that is important. In pre Stalin era the workers and peasants wanted to live in a Stalin society. It is so naive to assume that they hated the vast improvements to their lives that occured under Stalin&#39;s leadership. Do you think you would despise Stalin society while you are attending new schools, or working at a new industrialised factory, or your farm is updated with the latest technology paid for by the state, or you able to get basic medicines.

It is ridiculous to say that you would leave a imperialist nation for a 2nd world socialist nation and think it means anything.

[Comrade Marcel]

On the Katyn massacre...

The wikipedia source doesn&#39;t even have a steady number on the deaths:

"Estimates of the number of Polish citizens executed at three mass-murder sites in the spring of 1940 range from some 1,803 through 14,540, and through 21,857 to 27,700"

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_Massacre

The other links Red_Polak gave us give the area of Katyn itself 4,000, which seems to be the general consensus (from the reactionary sources).

So for the meantime, let&#39;s agree that Katyn itself is around 4,000 MAX. The other areas that are often lumped in is another question.

Firstly, I have never "denied" Katyn. I simply have asked for proof, and this is an important distinction to make.

There are generally three sources accussing the Soviets; that is the Nazis, the Polish government in London and the contemporary historians trying to draw proof from soviet archives.

The following spreads doubt on the nazi Polish exile government claims:

"All the evidence I secured showed that the Polish group in London
was more interested in doing something against Russia than in doing
anything for Poland. This made it easy to understand why they accepted
and spread the Goebbels story about the murder of 10,000 Poles in
Smolensk. Their unhesitating acceptance of this Nazi propaganda caused
the Soviet government to sever relations with the Polish
government-in-exile in 1943. It will be remembered that the Germans
captured Smolensk on the night of July 15th 1941. Almost two years
later Goebbels broadcast to the world that the Russians had killed
10,000 Polish prisoners there, and that their bodies had been found in
the Katyn Forest. The Polish government-in-exile immediately gave
credence to the Nazi allegation by asking the international Red Cross to
investigate. It seemed a preposterous charge. If the Russians had
really killed the Poles it would have been known by the people of
Smolensk and the Germans would certainly have found out about it almost
immediately. It was not the sort of thing that the Germans would have
kept quiet about for two years. The Red Army retook Smolensk on
September 25, 1943, and the Soviet government immediately instituted an
investigation of a massacre.

"I visited the Katyn Forest with American, British, Chinese, and French
correspondents. Dr. Victor Prozorovsky, Director of the Moscow
Institute of Criminal Medical Research, showed me about. The 10,000
bodies had been dug up, and the Russians were systematically examining
everything found on them as well as performing autopsies. Eleven
doctors were working continuously. I watched some of the autopsies,
which were very thorough. The bodies, including the internal organs,
were remarkably well preserved. The doctor said that this alone was
sufficient to prove the falsity of the charge.

"The Russians found letters on the bodies dated after the Germans
occupied the city, thus proving that the victims could not had been
killed at the time alleged. We talked with a Russian priest whose
parish was in the Katyn Forest. He had been driven out of this church
by the Germans, and then the building had been surrounded by barbed wire
and SS men. The priest declared that the Germans had killed the Poles
there. A Russian who had served under the Germans testified that the
German authorities had ordered the death of the Polish prisoners. The
diary of the Mayor who fled with the Germans contained clear evidence
that the Germans had committed the murders. However, the fact which
impressed me as much as any other, was that the corpses still had their
fine leather boots. I had seen, traveling at the front, that it was
general Russian practice to remove the boots of the dead. It seemed
unlikely that they would have made an exception in this case, and left
10,000 pairs of good boots behind. Every correspondent who visited
Katyn Forest came away convinced that it was another Nazi atrocity."

-- Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The
Readers&#39; Press, Inc., c1946, p. 99

"Each one of them [Polish officers] had been shot in the back of
the neck with a German bullet."

-- Nekrich and Heller. Utopia in Power. New York: Summit Books,
c1986, p. 404


KATYN DETECTIVE
by Y.I.Mukhin
(1995)

The Katyn story must begin with the character of the Polish elitist
officer corp. Poland was created as an independent country from the
ruins of the Germanic, Austrian and Russian empires. The new Polish
ruling elite was arrogant and opportunistic. As part of the all out
imperialist assault against Soviet Russia, the newly created Polish
state launched an unprovoked invasion into its neighboring countries in
1920. The new Soviet Russia was powerless against the Polish invaders,
operating in conjunction with a dozen more imperialist countries.
Poland annexed a large part of Ukraine, Byelorussia and Lithuania, even
taking away its present capital, Vilnius. Some 20 million non-Poles
were placed under the rule of the Polish landlords and gentry. Assured
the support of England and France, Poland become the gangster of Eastern
Europe. It took a fiercely anti-Soviet attitude, becoming an active
base for all sorts of anti-Soviet political and terrorist groups that
conducted raids and inserted agents into the USSR.

When Germany marched into the Sudatenland in 1938, Poland followed
suit, annexing parts of Czechoslovakia for itself.

On September 17 1939, following the escape of the Polish government
into Romania, the Red Army marched into the territory Poland stole in
1920. The Red Army was welcomed as liberators by the local population,
who were only too happy to see the rule of the Polish gentry broken.
Even the Polish soldiers themselves welcomed the Red Army, which met
virtually no resistance. The territory that was stolen from Ukraine and
Byelorussia was restored to them and become part of the USSR. The
territory of Lithuania was restored to it, including its capital,
Vilnius.

In the Soviet intervention into Poland, the USSR detained between
250-300 thousand Polish soldiers and officers. Most were released from
detention centers. However, some 130,242 persons were maintained in
detention camps of the NKVD, before their situation changed.
In November 1939, the Polish government in exile, as arrogant and
bullish as ever, declared war on the USSR, supposedly in reply to the
Soviet-Finish War. The Poles went as far as creating a special brigade
to be sent to fight the Red Army in Finland. By this act of war, the
Polish government changed the status of the Polish soldiers still
detained in the USSR. They now become automatically prisoners of war,
and thus those still remaining in NKVD camps could not be released.

After the official inclusion of the territory captured by Poland in
1920 into the USSR, the Polish prisoners of war automatically become
citizens of the USSR. By decision of court, it was named illegal for
the NKVD to detain and force these soldiers to work. Therefore, most
soldiers and petty officers were all released into civilian life as
citizens of the USSR. However, there was a group of people that could
not be released. These were those charged with crimes against the
non-Polish and Polish population in the newly liberated areas as well as
for war crimes against the USSR. This group comprised members of
Poland&#39;s military and governmental elite, gentry, landlord and
manufacturers. There were plenty of war crimes committed by these
people, such as the mass execution of Soviet prisoners of war in 1920
and active support for diversionary and terrorist groups against the
USSR. It was decided to keep these individuals, numbering more than
20,000, in detention camps of the NKVD until a Special Commission of the
NKVD examined their cases and decided upon a sentence for them.

The Decision of the Special Commission of the NKVD

The action of sentencing these foreign officers to war crimes was
against international laws of the time. It was also not the time for
the USSR to take such steps. War would soon come, and to publicly
announce that some of the Polish officers were being considered as war
criminals, could not help the USSR. Foreign imperialists, who were only
looking for an opportunity to attack the USSR, would see this as an
opportunity. Therefore, it was decided to keep this as secret as
possible. A Special Commission of the NKVD was organized to
individually investigate each case of the persons accused of crimes
against the people or war crimes. Starting from December 1939, the
administration of each camp in which the prisoners were being detained,
started selecting those prisoners to be investigated by the Special
Commission of the NKVD. On December 31, 1939 L. Beria sent the order
for the camps to deliver the names of the suspected officers. By
February 20, 1940 the order was issued to release from camps all those
individuals who were sick, invalid or representatives of the working
intelligentsia. After a lengthy review by the members of the Special
Commission, a decision was reached. The first time the conclusion of
the NKVD was made publicly available in its entirety was in September
1993
in the "Military-Historical Magazine." This document was found in the
Archives of the USSR. The decision of the Special Commission of the
People&#39;s Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD) was the following:

1. To give the status of war criminal to the persons considered socially
dangerous; to exile for the period of up to 5 years under public
supervision in the districts specified by the NKVD; to sentence them for
the period of 5 years under public supervision with the prohibition of
residing in the capitals, large cities and industrial centers of the
USSR; to imprison in correctional-working camps and isolate in the camps
for a period of up to 5 years, and to sent outside the limits of the
USSR foreign citizens considered socially dangerous.

2. To give the status of war criminal to the persons convicted of
espionage, sabotage, diversion and terrorist activity and to imprison
for the period from 5 to 8 years.

Starting from March 16 1940, individual cases were reviewed by the
Special Commission of the NKVD and sentences were established for them.
Some individuals were found not guilty of wrong doing and were returned
to the prisoner of war status or were released. It was decided by the
Special Commission that the privilege of correspondence be removed from
the prisoners that were sentenced. The reason for this was that they
were no longer prisoners of war, but war criminals, and thus the Soviet
authorities were under no obligation to allow this privilege.

Furthermore, the fact that the Polish officer elite had been sentenced
as war criminals could not be released publicly. Releasing such
information to the world would have been damaging to the USSR,
especially in this time when allies, even half-hearted ones, were
necessary. However, not all the detained prisoners were sentenced.
Those that were not, were placed in prisoners of war camps from where
they could freely correspond. Furthermore, the Special Commission of
the NKVD issued orders to the Starobelsk prisoners of war camp, where
the Polish officers were previously held, to destroy the documentation
regarding their prisoner of war status. An order was issued from L.
Beria on September 10, 1940 to the commander of the camp to destroy the
stock-taking documents of the prisoners of war. This order from Beria
had no security clearance, and therefore could be viewed by anyone. The
existence of this order has been seen by the western "historians" as
evidence that the officers had been executed and that the Soviets were
trying to cover their tracks. This is not the case. In the order of
Beria and in following orders to the Starobelsk camp, the camp
administration is asked to make copies of the prisoner&#39;s photographs and
some other additional files which were to be sent to the Kharakov
UNKVD. The reality of this order is that the status of the officers had
changed, from prisoners of war to war criminals. They had moved from
the jurisdiction of the NKVD to that of the UNKVD, which dealt with such
cases. Documents about their prisoner of war status could be destroyed,
since they served no more purpose. But the pictures of the prisoners
were
sent to the UNKVD, where new criminal files were opened for the
prisoners.

With this, the work and jurisdiction of the Special Commission of the
NKVD was finished. The prisoners were moved from the Starobelsk camp to
three separate camps near the Smolenks area. These camps were specially
set up by the UNKVD for the Polish officers.

Since 1943, the USSR was forced to publicly admit that the Polish
officers and other individuals were sentenced to imprisonment in
correctional and working-camps for the period of 5 to 8 years without
the right of correspondence. Since that time, the USSR has been accused
of lying. Indeed, it was concluded by the Nazis and the western
imperialists that the USSR had sentenced these individuals to death
instead of imprisonment. However, the discovery of the actual decision
of the Special Commission of the NKVD, has proved beyond a doubt that
the USSR was not lying. The prisoners were indeed sentenced to terms of
imprisonment, or as in the case of foreign nationals, to exile. The
decision of the Special Commission of the NKVD should never have been
doubted because in 1941 several individuals of foreign nationality were
exiled outside the USSR. Among them was a Polish officer of German
origins, R.Shtiller, who was deported to Germany and
revealed information about the sentencing. Furthermore, those Polish
officers found not guilty were returned to their prisoner of war camps,
from where they could freely correspond. The entire investigation of
the NKVD begs the question, that if the intention was to kill the
prisoners, why carry out such a lengthy investigation of individual
cases and release persons found not guilty? If the intention was to
execute them, none of this would have been done. However, as with most
truthful evidence on Katyn, this information is rejected and kept hidden
as much as possible by the western and Russian revisionist historians.
Instead, these "historians" and the Gorbachievite gang, resorted to
forgeries and lies on the decision of the NKVD.

On June 22 1941, Germany launched its invasion of the USSR. At the
time, Poland still held its declaration of war against the USSR. It
wasn&#39;t until after the war had started, that the Polish government in
exile retreated its declaration. In July 30 1941, the government of
Sikorsky entered into negotiation with the USSR about the release of the
remaining Polish
prisoners and about the organization of a Polish Army from these. By
early August 1941, it was decided to create a Polish Army in the USSR
under the command of Polish General Anders (who was one of the
prisoners), called the Anders Army. Sikorsky promised Stalin that the
Anders Army would remain in the USSR and fight against the Germans. All
he wanted in return was that 25,000 Polish soldiers be sent to the
Middle East to join the British Army. Stalin agreed, and in 1941 the
Anders Army was created and armed. Sikorsky also asked Stalin about the
fate of the missing Polish officers. Stalin avoided the question,
giving the answer that he did not know (while the Soviet press made up
imaginative theories of what happened). But the truth was that Stalin
indeed did not know what had happened. By that time the Germans had
taken Smolensk and the Polish camps and the Soviets did not know what
happened to them. Also, this was not a priority for the Soviet Union.
In any case, Stalin organized a committee to find out what happened to
the Polish officers. They could not find out what happened to them,
except that they had been captured by the Germans. On this, we shall
talk about later.

Anders, being of the Polish military elite and as arrogant as usual,
had a deep hatred for the USSR. The USSR was sacrificing much by arming
these Polish soldiers. At a time when weapons had to be taken out of
museums to arm the defenders of Moscow, the Anders Army was being armed
with the best weapons. In an act of treachery, which was second nature
for the elite Polish officers, Anders led his army of 114,000 into
Iran. He abandoned the Red Army and abandoned the fight for his
homeland to ran away to Iran to join the British. This was indeed a
great blow to Polish-Soviet relations. Never again would Stalin trust
the Polish government in exile, and proved once more their treacherous
and cowardly nature. Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of Polish
soldiers and officers still remained in the USSR. these were organized
into the Polish People&#39;s Army, under the command of the PKKA. This was
created in October 1941 and fought alongside the Red Army until the end
of the war. By the Battle of Berlin, the Polish People&#39;s Army numbered
400,000. They were the only Polish troops to participate in the
liberation of their country from the Nazis.

First, lets begin with the "proofs" of the Nazis. Following the
liberation of Smolenks from the Germans in September 1943, a Special
Commission was established, headed by Academician N.N. Burdenko.
Following a lengthy investigation of the area, questioning of witnesses
and the excavation and study of 925 bodies, the Burdenko Commission
wrote a 56 page report. This report was made public in 1944. Since
then, the revisionist historians have accused the report of being simply
a propaganda document with no truth in it. However, this assessment
does not hold. In 1990, a "Top Secret" version of the Burdenko report
was discovered. This "Top Secret" document was sent by Burdenko to the
heads of the Soviet government.

The Burdenko Commission refuted all the points of the German and
International investigation, except for the fact that there were 12,000
bodies. First to be examined was the location of the burial itself.
The Germans claimed that the Katyn forest was an isolated area which had
served as an execution ground for many years. In reality, Katyn was a
popular area of vacationing. The NKVD vacation home was located only
700m away from the burial places. There resided the wives and children
of the NKVD officers on vacation there. The city and surrounding
population frequented the Katyn forest as a place of vacationing.
Villagers came to the forest for picking mushrooms or for pasturing
their animals. The area was not closed off the public in any way.
Furthermore, the burial was only 200m from the Smolensk-Vitebsk
highway. This was a heavily traveled road, with thousands of people
crossing it every day. Could this be an area where executions were
carried out for many years? Could this be the area where for months,
12,000 people were buried? It was not possible for the Soviets to carry
out this act in such a place. Surely the NKVD could have found an area
which was far more secure than this, an area where the only witnesses
would have been bears. Most importantly, this revelation about Katyn
proves the Germans were lying. According to the findings of the
Burdenko Commission, it wasn&#39;t until the Germans occupied the area that
the woods were closed to the population. Signs were put up, warning
anyone who entered that they would be shot. A German military unit was
stationed on the grounds of the Katyn forest, closing off the area.

And about the cabin found by the Germans directly next to the graves
(where the Germans said the executions had been carried out). It was in
actuality a cabin for the Pioneers&#33; It appears, that the exact area of
the burials was a favorite ground for the Pioneers to set up their
summer camp. Therefore, a permanent cabin was build on that area for
housing materials for their use (while the Pioneers themselves slept in
tents).

The Burbenko Commission also answered the question of what had happened
to the Polish prisoners after their camps were overrun by the Germans.
The directors of the prisoner camps were located and questioned. The
director of camp 1ON, Major of Security V.M. Vetoschinikov, testified
about what happened. According to him, he received orders about the
evacuation of the prisoners from the camp. However, he had not recieved
any instructions on how to carry this out, since phone connections had
been cut off. He and some employees of the camp drove to Smolensk to
clarify the situation. He meet with Engineer S.V. Ivanov, head of
transportation on the western stretch of the Smolensk railway.
Vetoschinikov asked Ivanon for a few train cars to transport the
prisoners. However, at the time the evacuation of the city population
was being carried out. Therefore, Ivanon told him not to expect any
train cars since none were available. Vetoschinikov tried to contact
Moscow about permission to evacuate of foot, but could not contact
them. By that time, the 1ON camp was cut off from Smolensk and the
director had no idea what had happened to the prisoners or their guards.

Officer Ljubodzetsk witnessed what occurred in the 1ON camp after
Vetoschinikov did not return. According to him, the evacuation of the
camp started to be carried out by foot. However, the Polish officers
rebelled. They said they wanted to wait for the Germans and surrender
to them. At least the Germans, they thought, would treat them in
accordance to international norms. The majority of the prisoners
decided to remain in the camp and wait for the Germans. Only a few of
the prisoners agreed to the evacuation - those of Jewish origin.
Therefoore, it has been proven that the Polish officers were alive and
in the camps by the time the Germans captured them. The Burdenko
Commission gathered testimonies from a number of other eyewitnesses from
the neighboring villages. According to several of them, they had seen
Polish prisoners in the area near Smolensk as late as September 1941.

The Burdenko Commission went on to investigate if anyone had actually
seen the process of execution of the Polish officers by the Germans.
They found three women, the cooks of the NKVD vacation house, A.M.
Aleksejava, O.A. Michailova, and S.P. Konachovskaja. At the time, the
house was the base for a German military unit. According to the women,
this was the Staff building for a Construction Battalion No.537-1.
There were 30 persons stationed at this place, according to the cooks.
They could not remember the names of all of them, except for a few. The
commander of the battalion was Lt. Colonel Arnes. Others were Lt.
Colonel Rekst, Lt. Hott, Sgt.Luemert and few others whom the women could
remember. They witnessed the entire procedures of the Germans. Though
they never witnessed an execution, they were aware of what was going
on. According to all three women, several trucks regularly arrived at
the residence starting from September 1941. They would not come
directly to the residence at first. Coming off the main highway, the
trucks would stop somewhere between the highway and the residence. The
officers of the 537th would go into the woods. About half an hour
later, individual shots in succession begun to be heard. About 1 hour
after the trucks had stopped, they reached the building and all would
disembark. They would go into the house and wash themselves in the
bathroom. They would then proceed to drink heavily. The women were not
allowed out of the kitchen when the drivers and the other members of the
convoy arrived. They were kept in the kitchen, cooking meals for them.
On several occasions, the women noticed fresh blood stains on the
uniforms of at least two officers. The cooks usually left their work in
the evening. According to them, the officers had the unusual habit of
sleeping until 12 o&#39;clock. They suspected that they conducted the same
business during the night. They also saw Polish officers on at least
two occasions. In one occasion, one of the women was allowed to go home
after her usual hours, in the evening. Walking on the road, she noticed
a group of 30 prisoners. She recognized them as Polish because she had
seen their uniforms before, while they were conducting construction work
for the Soviets. On another occasion, two of the women accidentally saw
two Polish officers inside the residence, surrounded by German
officers. The women were chased back into the kitchen and there was a
large fuss around the officers. A few minutes later, the women heard
two shots. They had been warned several times to be careful about what
they saw and not to tell anyone. As punishment for their intrusion, one
of the women was locked in the basement of the building for 8 days while
the other two for 3 days. After they realized what was going on, they
quit their jobs on various excuses.

The conclusion that can be drawn from the testimonies of these three
women is that the Polish officers were being executed by the Germans in
the autumn of 1941. Apparently, several trucks were carrying groups of
30 or so prisoners to the Katyn woods. Stopping "between the highway
and the residence", or approximately 200m from the highway, the
prisoners were unloaded. There awaited them the 30 members of the 537th
in addition to the drivers and escorting soldiers. The prisoners were
individually executed directly above their burial grounds and were
thrown into their graves. This is a scene which can be seen many times
in German footage of executions, where a German officer stands behind a
kneeling prisoner, shoots him in the back of the head and throws him
into an open grave. Following their work, all the German officers,
soldiers and drivers went into the residence to clean off the blood or
dirt and to celebrate with drinks. Now it was finally proven what had
happened to the Polish officers.

The Burdenko Commission started excavation of the burial grounds in
Katyn on January 16, 1944. The Commission dug up 925 bodies from those
which had not already been examined by the Germans. There was a
multitude of physical evidence on the bodies themselves. An obvious
feature of the bodies was the heavy gray overcoat of the Polish
officers. The question must then be asked, if the Polish officers were
shot in the spring of 1940, as the Germans claim, why were they wearing
coats? The only explanation for this is that they were not killed in
the spring, but in a cold season, perhaps in autumn.

The hands of some Polish officers had been tied using a white braided
cord. At the time, the USSR was the largest producer of hemp rope. In
fact, the only kind of rope produced in the USSR in the pre-war years
was hemp rope. Smolensk was one of the main centers of production.
Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that this was not rope produced
in the USSR, but in some other foreign country.

The most obvious forensic evidence to look for in a murder case is the
bullet and the bullet case. It was determined by the investigation on
the 925 bodies, that most bullets had made an exit whole in the front of
the head or in the face. In 27 cases, the bullet had remained inside
the head. It was determined, the kills were made with low-velocity
pistols. Many bullet cases were found in the graves. These were
primarily of a 7.65mm caliber, but there were also a few 6.35mm caliber
and even fewer 9mm bullets. The inscription on the 7.65mm bullets were
"Genshov and K", a German producer of cartridges known also as "Geko".
So the bullets were produced in Germany&#33; The question must then be
asked, did the USSR make use of such weapons? Perhaps there was some
export of 7.65mm cartridges to the USSR from Germany? The truth is the
USSR made no use of any kind of gun with a 7.65mm caliber. The standard
bullet size for Soviet pistols, including the TT, was 7.62mm. The USSR
did make use of several types of guns with a 6.35mm caliber, but Germany
also produced 59 types of pistols with a 6.35mm caliber. Also, USSR did
not have a 9mm pistol until after the war, the Makarov pistol.
Therefore, it is proven beyond a doubt that the executions were carried
out with bullets produced in Germany and with
guns which the Soviet Union did not posses. The only explanation is of
course that these were carried out by the Germans. As for the German
claim of having found bullet cases with Soviet inscriptions on them,
this can only be propaganda since no producer, caliber or type of case
was mentioned (on all Soviet cartridges the name of the factory of
production is mentioned).

The bodies were searched for documentation of any sort. Many documents
and papers were recovered. Among them, were at least 9 documents with
dates from 12 November 1940 to 20 June 1941. These included 2 letters,
one received and another not sent out, one icon and a number of camp
receipts. The existence of these papers is proof that the prisoners
were still alive until at least the German invasion started.

And what about those leaves the Germans supposedly found in the
graves? If these leaves had fallen into the graves, and 3 years later
(the Germans claimed the Poles were killed in 1940) they were still
distinguishable to be birch leaves, then they must have been dry at the
time of their fall. A fresh leaf would decompose very quickly and there
would be nothing left of it. A dry leaf, especially birch leaves, can
maintain their form for a long time if buried. But even they, cannot
maintain their shape after 3 years. So there must be a different
explanation. If the murders happened in the spring of 1940, then there
would have been no dry leaves. And as is known leaves fall from the
trees in the fall. Perhaps in the fall of 1941, or one and a half years
before they were exhumed.

Investigation of the PKK and International Commission

Even more physical evidence about the bodies in Katyn comes from the
investigators of the International Commission itself, who examined the
bodies in 1943 under German supervision. Two members of the forensic
team of the International Commission, Czechoslovakian Professor of
forensic medicine F.Gaek and Bulgarian forensic scientist Marko Marks,
were
questioned on the matter. Marks was arrested in 1944 by the Bulgarian
People&#39;s Government and accused of lying on his Katyn investigation.
Instead, Marks told them he did not lie, but that his real report was
never made public by the Germans (thus Marks was freed). According to
his experience, on May 1 1943, the team was flown from Katyn to Berlin.
On the way to Berlin, their plane landed in an isolated military
airfield. There, the members of the commission ate dinner. They were
then given a prepared report on what they saw, which they had to sign.
According to Marks, the report the Germans made public was only signed
by the members of the commission, but not written by them. Instead, as
Marks accounts, the members wrote individual reports which the Germans
did not make public. In these reports, the conclusion of the commission
was that the bodies in Katyn were too well preserved to have been buried
3 years earlier. Instead the commission concluded the bodies had been
killed one to one and a half year earlier, in late 1941 or early 1942.

The findings of the Polish Red Cross (PKK) were also the same. On the
death certificates they made for the victims at Katyn, they specified no
date of death. According to its members, who testified after the war,
they could not agree on a conclusion. Most thought the killings had
been carried out one to one and a half years earlier and not 3 years as
the Germans claimed. However, they could not write such a thing.
Therefore it was decided to leave the time of death simply blank.

The PKK and the International Commission, as well as experts invited
from other countries, examined in detail the bodies the Germans had laid
out for them. The way in which these examinations were carried out was
bizarre. The PKK members were present in the exhuming of the 4143
bodies they examined. The Germans had rounded up people from the
neighboring villages to dig out the bodies. Once the bodies were out,
the peasants were forced to search their uniforms for documents and
papers of any kind. Once these were found, they were placed in
individual folders with a number. The same number was placed on the
body with a metal tag. The documents found in the bodies were not given
to the PKK. By order from Berlin, all diaries, letters, receipts and
orders were to be sent to Germany immediately for translation into
German. The PKK members were given only the passports and other
identification papers of the prisoners. Now it becomes obvious why the
investigators found no documents with dates after the spring of 1940.
Any document which would have contained a date was taken to Germany for
"translation", and only then made public. The PKK and other commissions
were given only documents which did not contain any dates or hints of
when they were killed.

The examination of the bodies themselves was even more revealing as to
their time of death. According to the pathologist and forensic experts,
the bodies were in a good condition. The tissue on the bodies was still
attached. The skin on the hands, face and neck had turned gray, and in
some cases greenish brown. There was no complete decomposition of the
bodies and no putrefaction. In the bodies, muscles and tendons were
still visible. Limbs were also still attached. When the bodies were
carried out by the peasants, no parts of the bodies came apart. The
uniforms of the bodies was still in good condition and held together
well. The metallic parts of their uniforms, such as belts, buttons and
nails, was still metallic and shiny in some areas. They were not rusted
completely.

Bodies decompose faster in the warm seasons of the year, spring and
summer. In winter bodies decompose very little and are as if in
refrigeration. If the German version of the story were true, and the
officers were killed in the spring of 1940, then there would have been 3
summer seasons between that time and April 1943. However, if the bodies
had been killed in the autumn and winter of 1941, as the Soviet version
of events goes, then there would have been only 1 summer season between
that time and April 1943. In 3 summer seasons, the bodies would have
been in a far more advanced stage of decomposition than the commissions
found. For this reason the conclusion of both PKK and International
forensic experts was that the bodies were killed one to one and a half
years earlier, during the German occupation of the area. However, such
a conclusion could not be made public by Germany.

The decomposition of the bodies was also the reason for the German
delay in excavating the area. According to them, the location of the
graves was discovered in March 1942. Excavation of the bodies started
more than 1 year later. The Germans knew that since the bodies had been
buried in the autumn and winter of 1941, they were still not decomposing
by March 1942. Therefore, it was necessary to wait at least one summer
for the bodies to decompose, and then excavate them in the spring of
1943.

Now, beginning with the rest of the same article, we will get to the "new" "evidence" supposedly released by Gorby, Yeltsin, et al (contemporary Russia)...


Revisionist Evidence Refuted

The two eyewitnesses presented by the Gorbachevites are indeed lying
about what really occurred. But it is not them who are to be blamed.
They had no other choice. Soprunenko refused to admit that he received
such an order for several months. The daughter, fearing for her and her
fathers safety, said it was true that her father had seen an order from
Stalin to kill the prisoners. The old man denied it, until after months
of intimidation and threats was forced to tell them what they wanted to
hear. But the Gorbechevite inspectors had not taken into consideration
one detail. Soprunenko had already been asked the question of what
happened to the Polish officers. He was asked this by the Committee
that Stalin organized in the fall of 1941 to find out what happened to
the Polish officers (on behalf of Sikorsky). The documentation the
general-major received and sent on this matter was found in the Archives
of the USSR as "Top Secret" documents. The truth, that Soprunenko had
said in the fall of 1941, was finally found out and shattered the lies
of the revisionists. One of the first persons questioned in 1941 on
what happened to the Polish officers was precisely General-Major
Soprunenko. Soprunenko wrote several documents under the title "Top
Secret". In these documents Soprunenko says the UNKVD "is at a loss"
about what happened to the Polish officers. It did not know&#33; He also
wrote a document about the release of prisoners of German origin to
Germany in a prisoner exchange program. But his reply to the Commission
was that the UNKVD did not know. If the general-major had indeed been
ordered by Beria to execute the Polish officers, he would have replied
"on the indication of Comrade Beria, the Polish officers were shot."
Remember that the documents were "Top Secret". No one would have seen
them, except for people who would have sent such on order themselves&#33;
Why hide an order of Stalin and Beria...from Stalin and Beria? Yet
Soprunenko made no such comment. He never received or saw such an
order. He placed the responsibility for the disappearance of the
prisoners on himself and on the UNKVD. So the truth of what the old man
knew become known in the "Top Secret" documents, and the testimony he
was forced to give to the
Gorbachevite inspectors was proven to be false.

The testimony of Tokarev was false as well. He knew the Gorbachev
inspectors would not quit until they heard what they wanted to hear. So
Tokarev, being smarter than these revisionists, told them exactly what
they wanted to hear, and at the same time hinted in his testimony he was
only pulling their tail. The whole story of how the executions were
carried out
makes absolutely no sense. Even according to the German investigation,
the pistols used in executing the Poles were low-velocity pistols.
Tokarev says the executioners used TT pistols. TT pistols are very
high-velocity guns, with a muzzle velocity of 420m/s. It is very
powerful, and at a point blank range, it would not have produced a
simple entry and exit wound. At that range, it would have carried away
with it half the head&#33; To give an impression of its power, even today
the only hand guns that compare to its power are magnum revolvers.
Furthermore, when shooting indoors against brick or cement walls, it
ricochets off the walls and hits the executioners themselves&#33;
Therefore, TT pistols are never used for executions at close range and
inside buildings. TT pistols also have a caliber of 7.62mm. No such
bullets were found in the Katyn graves. Of course, Tokarev was aware of
this, but his questioners were not.

The most obvious aspect of Tokarev&#39;s false testimonial is his
description of the execution process. Tokarev says the executions were
carried out in the UNKVD buidling in the middle of Smolensk. How can
executions of 300 prisoners per day be kept secret in a large prison in
the middle of a city? It cannot. The executions, if they were 6000 per
month, went on for 2 months. If the executions were to be carried out
in absolute secrecy, the building had to be emptied of personnel for 2
months. All the other prisoners, the guards, the office personnel, the
telephone operators, the janitors, the cooks and storekeepers of the
complex had to be sent home for 2 months and operations of the UNKVD had
to be shut down for that
period. Guards would have to be placed outside the building, indeed a
long way out of the building, to keep people from coming near enough to
hear the shooting. Could all this have been carried out in secret in
the middle of a city? Of course not. It makes no sense, and Tokarev
knew this. Furthermore, is it possible for 10 guards to execute 300-200
prisoners every day? According to Tokarev, they were executed in groups
of 10-40 people. The entire process, according to Tokarev, was to take
them out of their cells, take them to an office room to be identified
and to complete necessary documentation, take them to special room to be
executed. Afterwards, they were loaded into trucks from the back door
of the building and taken to their burial sites. This entire process
would have taken a very long time, especially for a small group of 10
guards. The prisoners would have been less then cooperative. It is
hard to drag 10-40 men who know that they are going to be executed. So
the time elapsed in this process is even longer. If there are 10 hours
of daylight in April, and Tokarev said the executions were carried out
during the daylight hours, then there was a 2 minute time period for the
execution of every person in order to kill 300 persons per day. This is
the time if the guards take no breaks and eat nothing during this
process. Furthermore, if the prisoners were killed in the UNKVD
building in the middle of the city, why were there bullet cases in the
graves of the Polish officers? It is simply impossible. The Burdenko
Commission already showed how the Germans, who were master executioners,
carried out their actions.

Forged Documents

As a final chapter to the Katyn drama, the Gorbachevite "historians"
announced in 1992 the discovery of three documents, undeniably proving
Soviet guilt in Katyn. The first document was a request by Beria to the
Political Bureau, to give the order to execute the Polish officers. The
second document, is the protocol of the Political Bureau for its Session
No.13, where the request of Beria is noted. The third document is a
letter from Shepelin to Khrushchev dated March 3 1959, informing him
that all documentation on Katyn would be destroyed.

All three of these documents are false, and this article shall prove
so. The letter of Beria to the Politburo is of most importance. It is
also the most obvious fake. In the letter dated March 5 1940, Beria
says he thinks it necessary that "the NKVD" propose to "the NKVD" to
transfer the cases for 14,700 prisoners of war and 11,000 arrested
people. It asks the Politburo in request I, to order "the application
to them of the highest measure of punishment - execution". In request
II, it asks that the sentences for the persons be carried out without
their presence and without representation for them. In request III, it
asks the Politburo to appoint this matter to a "troika" made up of
Kabulov, Merkulov and Bashtakov. This letter is under the title "Top
Secret". On the first page of the document, it is signed by Stalin,
Molotov, Mikoyan, Voroshilov. The names of Kaganovich and Kalinin are
added under these, where they express "after".

The mistakes and inconsistencies in this letter are many. To start,
the letter is "Top Secret". Standard procedure for a "Top Secret"
letter were to write on the letter the name of the person who typed it,
the names of all the persons who have seen the document, the names of
all persons to whom this letter is to be sent, the number of copies made
of this letter, the carbon paper used to make a copy of it and finally
the tape of the typewriter used to make this paper. For the "Beria
document", none of these exist. Without these precautions, it is not a
"Top Secret" letter. The forger of this
document either was not aware of the requirements of a "Top Secret"
paper, or such requirements could not be forged by them. Either way,
this paper immediately looses its value, and furthermore shows it is a
forgery.

But the mistakes do not stop here. The signatures of the members of
the Politburo go against the form. In this letter, 4 members of the
Politburo have simply signed their names. By this act, they have
rejected the request of Beria. You see, if the members of the Politburo
agreed to send out an order or to carry out a request, it was necessary
of them to sign the
document, and to write next to their signatures "agreed" or "after". In
order for the request to be agreed and the order to be sent out, the
members had to express their agreement to the request or their agreement
to an order being sent. If they simply signed the paper, it meant that
the members had read the document, but had not agreed to it and had not
sent out any orders. The forger was obviously not aware of this and has
made the mistake. Even if this request is authentic, which it is not,
it was not accepted by the Politburo.

On the first page of the document, along with the four signatures of
Stalin, Molotov, Mikoyan and Voroshilov, the forger added the names of
Kaganovich and Kalinin underneath these. What the forger was not aware
of, is that both Kaganovich and Kalinin were absent from the 13th
Session of the Politburo in March 1940. They could not have placed
their signatures
on this document.

Beria&#39;s requests contain even more proof that it is a forgery. Beria&#39;s
requests that he finds it necessary for the NKVD to propose to the NKVD,
makes no sense. Why would Beria find it necessary to propose to Beria?
This is a mistake which the forger accidentally made. Why he made this
mistake shall be discussed below.

In Beria&#39;s third request, he asks for the creation of a "troika" of
three individuals mentioned by name. This entire request makes no
sense. When a troika is created, its members are never mentioned by
name. They are mentioned by their post. What was to happen if one of
the members died or was removed from his post? Was the troika destroyed
or was this person, who was no longer in position, still in the troika?
It could not have been done in this way. For an example, the reader
should refer to the above decision of the Special Commission of the
NKVD, where its members are identified only by their post. It is not
important who the individuals are. The individuals in the posts may
change, but the troika still stands.

Furthermore, this document gives no indication as to who should receive
or should be informed of the decision of the Politburo. The only person
mentioned is L. Beria. But in a document such as this, the names of the
persons to receive it are also included. Otherwise, how is Kabulov to
know he is a member of the "troika"? This document is "Top Secret". It
is given to him only by the Politburo. Furthermore, the persons in
charge of carrying out the orders of the Politburo, in this case the
people or organs to carry out the executions, must also be named.
Otherwise, if it is simply announced to them by a second or third party,
it is no longer a "Top Secret" decision, but something for the whole
world to know. This document contains no such names.

The request for execution to the Politburo is a further mistake of the
forger. Such a request would never have been made. The Politburo did
not have the authority to make such an order. The only body capable of
issuing an order for execution was the Supreme Soviet of the USSR,
specifically the Supreme Court of the USSR. Only by decision of the
Supreme Court could an execution be carried out. The Court also
established special "troikas", which by authority of the Court had the
power to sentence to execution. In this document, Beria is asking the
Politburo to create a "troika" to sentence people to death. It was
impossible&#33; Only a decision of the Supreme Court could have created
such a "troika". An example of how such a process was carried out,
happened in 1941. The German advance was threatening to capture the
prison at Orel, where important members of anti-Soviet groups were being
held. It could not be allowed for them to fall into the hands of the
Germans, who would use them against the USSR. Therefore, a meeting of
the Supreme Court was called where it issued an order for execution, and
only then were the prisoners executed. Even in the most pressing of
times,
1941, the rule of Soviet law was not broken. So why was Beria asking
the Politburo for such a decision?

The question must be asked, why did the forger make such mistakes? The
reason for them is that the forger used an original document from Beria
to the Politburo. The forger needed an original document to have a
document number and to keep the same characteristic style of Beria. He
did not change the first page, except for adding the names of Kaganovich
and Kalinin (which the forger thought should have been there). However,
the forger changed the second page, Beria&#39;s requests. So in the
original document of Beria it read "...the NKVD finds it necessary to
propose to the Special Commission of the NKVD..." Then it would make
sense. The forger however, removed the Special Commission, since its
decision was to sentence the officers to a maximum of 5 years of
imprisonment. Therefore, in the original document, Beria&#39;s request was
not to execute the prisoners, and thus disagree with the conclusion of
the Special Commission. It was in agreement with the Special
Commission. Instead of ordering an execution, the original document
should have read " with the application to them of the sentence of 5-8
years of imprisonment as specified by the Special Commission of the
NKVD". Also, in the original there was no request for the creation of a
troika. Only then would this document make sense. It was only asking
the members of the Politburo to agree to allow the NKVD to propose to
the Special Commission of the NKVD the transfer of files to them and to
allow the NKVD to propose to the Special Commission to carry out its
investigation of individuals without their presence and without the
presence of their representation. This original request of the document
is supported in the fact that on March 16, 1940, the Special Commission
started receiving personal information on the prisoners and began its
individual sentencing. This is the exact request of Beria&#39;s original
letter to the Politburo.

If the original document had read as such, then the signatures on the
first page are transformed into an agreement. This is not bizarre, but
if the Politburo was not asked to carry out an order or to take any
action, but only to agree, then a simple signature would have sufficed.
If there were no orders or actions to be carried out, then none had to
be specified next to the names. So by changing the requests of Beria,
the forger also changed the decision of the Politburo. Nevertheless,
this document so proudly displayed by the revisionists is no doubt a
fake.

The second document is the protocol of the Politburo on the request of
Beria. It confirms all the requests of Beria, the execution of the
prisoners and the creation of the "troika" with the members Beria
mentioned. This is the letter that is taken from the logs of the
Politburo and sent to the persons specified in Beria&#39;s request are to
receive it. However, since no such persons were indicated on the letter
of Beria, to whom was this protocol sent to? Furthermore, since by
their simple signatures, the members of the Politburo did not agree to
Beria&#39;s request, why was a protocol of the Politburo made for it? Also,
it does not contain the signature of the Secretary of the Politburo.
Without the signature, it means nothing. This second document is simply
a continuation of the first one, an attempt of the forgers to show the
Politburo agreed and sent out an order. Just as the forger changed the
original Beria document to suggest execution, so was
changed the original protocol of the Politburo.

The third document is very poorly made and seems to have the purpose of
telling all other historians not to search documents on Katyn any more,
Khrushchev has destroyed them all&#33; On this letter of Shepelin to
Khrushchev, there is no number at all and there is no signature. It
follows no form. Nevertheless, in this letter Shepelin tells Khrushchev
that all
documents on Katyn will be destroyed since they have no "historical
value" to anyone. How did Shepelin think that documents on executions
of thousands of foreign nationals, had no value to anyone? Among the
documents Shepelin
mentions, are the stock-taking documents of the prisoners of war from
their camps, mentioned among them is Starobelsk camp. As we have
already seen, an order was sent from Beria to the commander of
Starobelsk in September 1940, to destroy the stock-taking documents of
the prisoners of war since criminal cases for them would be opened. How
did these stock-taking documents reappear in 1959 for Shepelin to
destroy? For the prisoners of war sentenced to prison by the Special
Commission of the NKVD, criminal cases were opened and there existed no
more documents of their prisoner of war status. Also, in this document,
the protocol to execute the Poles is said to have come from the
Politburo of the CPSU. Shepelin simply refers "to the protocol of the
Politburo of the CPSU to execute..." The problem with this is that the
CPSU did not exist until 1952. In 1940, there was no such government
body&#33; In 1940, it was called the Politburo of the AUCP(B) (All Union
Communist Party - Bolshevik). Also, Shepelin cannot simply refer to
such a "Top Secret" document without quoting it or without including a
copy of it for Khrushchev. Otherwise, how would Khrushchev know what
Shepelin was talking about. Yet all these simple mistakes are made by
the forger.

All three documents are forgeries. There are only a few authentic
documents recovered on Katyn (the resolution of the Special Commission,
the orders to Starobelsk ext.) Any additional documents on Katyn, such
as the criminal cases of the prisoners, were located in the Smolensk
Archives. Unfortunately, the Smolensk Archives were captured by the
Germans during WW2 and later by the Americans. If these documents exist
anymore, they are in the hands of the Americans, and will thus never be
revealed. Nevertheless, it is important to show that the revisionists
have no documents implicating the USSR, but instead resort to forgeries
and lies.

Conclusion

What conclusion can be drawn from the evidence, counter-evidence,
documents, forgeries and heaps of propaganda on Katyn? For 60 years the
anti-communist forces of the world have told us Katyn was a Soviet
responsibility. The Nazis proclaimed this as a crime of the Jewish
communists. They used it as one of the many pretexts for placing into
concentration camps and slaughtering tens of millions of Soviet citizens
and Jews. The western imperialists used the Nazi pretext in the 1950s,
to place on trial communists. They used it to launch a crusade against
communism, to protect their empires and colonies, slaughtering more
millions. The anti-communists and scoundrels ruling the USSR in the 80s
and 90s used Katyn as a pretext for destroying the USSR and throwing the
Soviet people into the brutal exploitation of capitalist and Mafiosi
gangsters. Millions more died. Today, the modern revisionist
"historians" would like to exonerate the Nazis of any responsibility.
Today they use Katyn as yet another pretext to show how the Soviets
"fabricated" the Holocaust and how they "fabricated" Auschwitz and all
the other unimaginable crimes of the Nazis. Katyn has always been used
as a weapon of the fascists and imperialists for justifying their
murderous campaigns. The truth on Katyn however is far from what these
Nazi sympathizers and scoundrels would like us to believe. Katyn was
the work of the Nazis. It is they who killed the Polish officers after
capturing them from Soviet camps. The conclusion one should draw simply
from the heaps of lies, propaganda and forgeries the imperialists and
Nazi-sympathizers, is that Katyn is their responsibility. Otherwise,
there would have been no reason for the Nazis to conduct their
"international" investigation as they did and for the Gorbachevite
revisionists to create fake documents. But beyond their lies and
forgeries, one should look at the truth on Katyn. The truth stands that
the Polish officers were sentenced to terms of prison for their various
war crimes. To tell the truth, no one should feel sorry for these
Polish officers. They were traitors and cowards in the face of their
country and people. However, they did not deserve a German bullet in
the back of their head. Only a Polish bullet would have sufficed for
their crimes against the Polish people.

I think the last part is very fitting, though this certainly doesn&#39;t mean that we shouldn&#39;t be interested in the truth about who really was responsible for Katyn.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:53 PM
Marcel, I think Stalin was reincarnating slavery rather than Marxism-Leninism.
Really, is that what you think? Well you can certainly offer up some arguments to support your "thoughts" if you want anyone to believe you. I really don&#39;t see how guaranteed health, employment, education, etc. etc. amounts to slavery, but hey I would love to read your arguments. The shit I hear on here get&#39;s more and more stupid every time, and well... EmmaMcKewl even likes imperialism better&#33; Some "leftist&#33;


Everything you post, is pro-Stalin.

Sorry, but click on my username, then "find all posts by user" and I think you will find that&#39;s absolutely not the case, and most times when I&#39;m discussing Stalin it&#39;s in the defence of that era and of the Soviet people, in response to sladerous attacks posted towards them, rather then initiated by me.


You are just so blind.

Really? I wonder how I&#39;ve managed. I must have seen everything so clearly when I was a Trot&#33; I threw bleach in my own eyes, booo hoo hoo&#33; Oh the pain&#33; :rolleyes:


Let me ask you some questions. Just ONLY answer with yes or no, please. Thanks.

No.


And I&#39;m also sick and tired of your selective answering.

No one is forcing you to read, and no one is stoping you from giving us the answers&#33;

Much of the questions are irrelevant, like your shameless dogma of "yes or no" above. Why would I bother? Most comrades are smart enough to see if I left out something important or if I left behind bullshit. You are a great example of bullshit.

Since you are so observant and worried about it, why not point out exactly what I "selectively" neglected?


Besides, you don&#39;t believe ANY source, except if it exactly says what you want.

What subject are you talking about, the Katyn massacre? If that&#39;s the case then I never actually said I believed any source. I simply pointed out that I didn&#39;t believe the nazi / Polish exile sources, and that I am not convinced the Soviets did it. I don&#39;t even see a clear motive of why the Soviets would have done it...


So if there are historical documents from the Soviet Union,

On what, Katyn? Then they would have to be authenticated. Same with anything else. Sure they could be faked. Besides, the bourgeois "scholars", "historians" and "Sovietologists" take this attitude all the time, though it&#39;s generally accepted when they do it. You see, if it&#39;s a Soviet source that sheds some "bad" light on the USSR, Stalin, etc. then it&#39;s fine. If something contradicts their speculations (such as the number of "millions" executed), then they simply reason that it was faked, false information filed, covered up, etc. When "Stalinists" do it, it&#39;s abhorrent.


or surveys,

Surveys? What, did the USSR come up with those pesky phone surveys? If so then there really is blame to put on Stalin after all&#33; :lol:


they&#39;re all &#39;lies&#39;.

Are you reckoning that you are &#39;quoting&#39; me there, fool? That&#39;s pretty funny, why don&#39;t you quote the number of times I referred to anything or anyone on here as a "liar" or as "lies".

Don&#39;t shove words done my mouth you fucking dogmatic false propagandist&#33; :P

[KC]

So for the meantime, let&#39;s agree that Katyn itself is around 4,000 MAX. The other areas that are often lumped in is another question.

4,000 isn&#39;t so bad... :rolleyes:

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 5 2006, 07:31 AM


So for the meantime, let&#39;s agree that Katyn itself is around 4,000 MAX. The other areas that are often lumped in is another question.

4,000 isn&#39;t so bad... :rolleyes:
Who is arguing "good" or "bad" or "evil" here. What does "how bad" it may or may not be have to do with it?

I was simply noting the established MAXIMUM, again I repeat MAXIMUM of the Katyn forest ALONE (not the other places lumped in) is 4,000. If the Soviets did it or not has nothing to do with the body count (which itself is very contraversial and inconsistent).

Anyways, another jackass posts pointlessly... <_<

[Comrade Marcel]

From a comrade of mine...

More on the contemporary "evidence" and documents that supposedly proves Soviet responsibility:


Dear listmembers:

Mikhail R. asked about this, and here&#39;s what I wrote not long ago. Don&#39;t
take offense if you disagree -- that&#39;s fine. I could be wrong, believe
me it has happened&#33;

First, the red-baiting post on our local discussion list that got me to
reply. Hold your nose&#33; I get baited like this quite a lot...

* * * * *

Subj: Non-Controversial Discuss Topic: The Katyn Forest Massacre

01.First of All: God Bless America.
02.Second: in the spirit of good will I am entering here for discussion
a non-controversial topic of factual data about which there is no
disagreement. I just want to elicit your feelings, your reactions.
03.Indeed, I am choosing a topic that even Prof. Grover Furr does not
disagree with me about:
04.The Katyn Forest Massacre of April 1940, when nearly 22,000 Polish
prisoners were rounded up, transported to Katyn by Stalin&#39;s troops &, on
his direct order, executed.
5.Sort of a Polish genocide, you might say.
06.Later, when the Nazis were at war with Russia, they discovered the
graves & used the affair as propaganda against Stalin, calling the
matter a Jewishj/Communist atrocity, even though 900 or so Jews were
among the dead.
07.I know that even Dr.Furr would not contend that this Goebbels&#39;
propaganda does not change the nature of the Stalin atrocity. It&#39;s
sometimes called Stalin&#39;s Killing Field.
08.Anyone of Polish background reading this who&#39;d like to remark on
her/his feelings about Stalin in this matter?
09.I&#39;m really, colleagues, not at all expert about the various details,
of which there is a giant literature. Can you add some?
10.I just know what everyone seems to know: that Stalin in very cold
blood ordered the murder of all these Poles.
12.Sorry, colleagues, that not even some Stalin Fascist would contradict
all this.

* * * * *

Well, I had to write something, and this (below) was it.

* * * * *

Dear Ted:

You say you know the Soviets killed the Polish officers who are buried
at Katyn.

But you do not know that. You _believe_ that.

Belief is not the same thing as knowledge.

I&#39;ve looked into this a good deal. In my view, nobody _knows_.

There is, in fact, widespread disagreement with the thesis that the
Soviets killed the Polish officers buried at Katyn

Take a look at this New York Times article from June 29, 1945:

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/res...katyn062945.pdf (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/nytonkatyn062945.pdf)

It states that Walter Schellenberg, head of Hitler&#39;s SS intelligence
service, told Allied interrogators that the Nazis had fabricated the
whole issue, and that this account was independently corroborated by a
Norwegian prisoner.

Records of this interrogation of Schellenberg have disappeared from the
National Archives. Interesting&#33;

* * * * *

After this, the Cold War obscures everything.

In 1993 or 1994 Eltsin finally produced some documents that, if genuine,
would prove Soviet guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the genuineness of these documents is in serious dispute.

I have studied the documents in question. There is a very good argument
to be made that they are forgeries. (I&#39;m being very, very brief here).
But it is not certain that they were -- again, IMO.

It&#39;s actually fascinating&#33; The "Soviets-did-it" camp simply ignore all
the evidence that the Soviets did NOT do it, plus the evidence that the
"smoking gun" Eltsin-era "documents" may be faked.

* * * * *

Because of the irrationality that goes with the Cold-War, anti-communist
side, many people automatically assume that, if you do not "accept" --
or better, "believe," that&#39;s the word -- the "Soviets-did-it" evidence
"valid", then you are _denying_ that the Soviets did it.

That is nonsense, of course. Even if these documents turn out to have
been forgeries, that would not mean the Soviets didn&#39;t do it. It would
simply mean that the evidence doesn&#39;t prove they did.

Maybe the Soviets did it&#33; After all, either the Soviets killed the
Polish officers, or the Nazis did, so maybe the Soviets did.

But the evidence is not there.

* * * * *

Here is the bottom line problem with the Eltsin "documents" -- there is
no "chain of evidence."

* They were _announced_ five years before they were published.

* Furthermore, when they were first published (I have all this stuff),
they were DIFFERENT FROM WHEN THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY PUBLISHED.

Yes, that&#39;s right -- different. Amazing&#33;

* * * * *

OK, what&#39;s the problem? Here is what I think:

NOBODY CARES what happened to the Polish officers&#33; Nobody, including the
Poles.

Furthermore, nobody EVER cared, even at the time&#33;

The Polish government-in-exile, during the war, while the Nazis were
slaughtering Poles in huge numbers, chose to _believe the Nazi account_&#33;
They never interrogated this Nazi story. They just accepted it. If they
really cared about these men, why would they do this?

IMO, they did it because they were far more hostile to the Soviets than
they ever were to the Germans. The Polish gov&#39;t were fascists themselves.

And since then, the "Katyn massacre" has been a bully stick to beat the
Soviets with. It still is -- more "evidence" that "communism is bad."

So the "consensus" historians have never troubled to look at the
evidence in an objective fashion. And they are not going to do so.

That&#39;s why we don&#39;t know.

* * * * *

Meanwhile, there are some very good books -- in Russian, of course --
arguing the case that the Nazis, not the Russians, did it.

I spent part of my vacation last summer going over a translation into
English of one of them, by a Swedish guy (in Sweden). A valiant attempt
(I had read the book in Russian many times). Let&#39;s hope he finishes it,
but he hasn&#39;t yet. His knowledge of English is very good, though far
from perfect, and his knowledge of Russian is less good, but he has me
to help him.

Still, it&#39;s not out yet, and this Russian book is already more than a
decade old (1995). Meanwhile, there&#39;s lots more, newer, better stuff.

* * * * *

For you Russian-readers out there, here are the two main sites, each
with a ton of documents:

"The Soviets Did It, Those Dirty Commies" -- http://katyn.codis.ru

"We Doubt That the Soviets Did It -- We Search for Truth" -
http://www.katyn.ru/

That&#39;ll keep you busy for awhile, even if you speed-read Russian&#33;

There are some interesting books, too, of BOTH schools. Again, if you
want to know, email me. I&#39;ve got, and have read, all of &#39;em.

* * * * *

I have been asked to get into this -- that is, to write about it. After
all, it&#39;s a &#39;great mystery&#39; -- right?

But I have refused, and am going to refuse forever. Here&#39;s why: NOBODY
is really interested in the truth (almost, virtually no one).

Therefore, you simply cannot have an intelligent, calm, academic
conversation about this.

No matter how objective you try to be, how long and hard you work, you
will be called a lousy, dishonest propagandist WHATEVER you conclude, by
those whose preconceived opinions you have failed to support.

Of course, you&#39;ll also be _praised_ -- by the others, whose
preconceived opinions you DO happen to support.

But who wants that kind of praise? Not me&#33;

I am already called a dirty Stalin lover because I insist on evidence,
not on bowing at the shrine of dishonest anti-communist historians whose
works are a disgrace to the historical profession.

Well, I&#39;m already in that soup, and have no choice but to swim in it&#33;
But I don&#39;t have to jump into ANOTHER soup just as bad or worse&#33;

* * * * *

So here is my last thought, for now: SO WHAT?

I&#39;m serious. I do not think it matters to very many people, and maybe to
nobody.

"The Katyn Massacre" is not an historical question -- it is a WEAPON, a
CUDGEL. You use it to make war on "the other side", and that&#39;s it.

Those who say "the Soviets did it" are NEVER going to accept that they
did not, no matter what the evidence.

If they did accept that, that would not change their minds about the USSR.

Those who say and / or hope: "The Soviets did NOT do it" are NEVER going
to shed their respect and admiration for the USSR, EVEN IF you managed
to convince them that the Soviets did it. And I do not think that&#39;s
going to happen either&#33;

It&#39;s like convincing a Christian that Jesus never existed. That is, it&#39;s
no longer history, it&#39;s religion.

Good luck&#33;

* * * * *

So it is interesting. But at this point I confine myself to (a) reading
about it; and (b) reminding those who "know" (= are _sure_ they know,
and do not want to hear otherwise) of their bad faith.

You can imagine how popular THAT makes me&#33; But being unpopular in this
way is something I&#39;m very content to be.

I hope this has been interesting, maybe even helpful. Believe me, there
is so much more to say that you do not even want to know&#33;

Sincerely,

Grover Furr, English Dept.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by maksym+May 4 2006, 11:22 PM--> (maksym &#064; May 4 2006, 11:22 PM)
So the Soviet invasion on September 17th 1939 never happened? Oh, that&#39;s where we Poles have been wrong all these years then&#33; You see, we thought, what with Stalin and Hitler being allies and all, that he was attacking us&#33;

When did I deny the liberation of Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania?[/b]

you didn&#39;t, nor did I suggest you did.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:22 PM

Not at all. Methinks someone was a little pissed off after his nation had been defeated in 1920 by Sikorski and Pilsudski.

Resorting to pathetic nationalism, very telling.

Yes well, Stalin was pathetic and understandably annoyed.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:22 PM


I&#39;m not quite sure what Ukranians have to do with this though - my family&#39;s farm was nowhere near Ukraine, and certainly wasn&#39;t on "stolen land" (mainly because the Polish eastern border used to extend quite a bit more, though also because my family is from nearer the north east (bordering Belarus I believe)).

Actually, according to an earlier post you stated your farm was located in Kresy. This is either the case or you have been caught in a lie. How else could the Soviets expropriate your farm if it was not located on conquered territory? The quote I’m referring to is, my grandmother was sent there after the Russians invaded, destroyed her family&#39;s farm and basically trashed the place (Eastern border)

I said it was on the Eastern border, I did not specify whether north-eastern, south-eastern or even in the middle. I have not been "caught in a lie" at all.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:22 PM

The soviet union targetted us because of the land, because they were pissed off that we beat them back in the 20&#39;s and because Stalin wanted a bit more control over a few more million people (hell, it&#39;s to be expected from a dictator).

The USSR targeted criminal elements that were settled in conquered territory after WW1. A total of 125,000 Poles were given land in the conquered territories for being loyal anti-communists and saving “Europe from the Bolshevik hordes.” It is really surprising a Polish nationalist, having a fondness for Pilsudski’s dictatorship and landowner hates the Soviet Union?

Yeah, but we did actually save Europe.

"landowner" - yes it&#39;s true my family owned land, but I think the kind of people "landowner"conjures up are certainly not small farm holders in the middle of nowhere.


[email protected] 4 2006, 11:22 PM

You stalinists make me sick - it&#39;s ok to kill people because they&#39;re not poor peasants? You know what it sounds like to me? Kill off all the officers, doctors, teachers, lawyers - what are we left with? The poor people. And then takeover is simple.

Only criminal elements that benefited from oppressing minorities, leftists and pillars of Poland’s bourgeois dictatorship were targeted. They were criminals, reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries, nothing more.

Typical stalinist attitude -> kill &#39;em




No, not just according to Nazi sources - according to the bloody soviet union itself. (though it took them nearly 50 years to admit to it).

Your interpretation of events comes from the Nazis.

No, my interpretation comes from the Soviets actually admitting they did it (shit, is that the 4th or 5th time I&#39;ve pointed that out?).






Comrade Marcel: bullshit.

1) I use "Katyn massacre" to refer to the multiple massacres of Polish citizens at the hands of the Soviets in various forests on Soviet land. Katyn forest being the site of one of the largest.

2) if they did not do it, why did they admit to it?

3) oh right, of course, the Poles committed "war crimes". Don&#39;t be so fucking stupid. For one thing Poles were hardly in a position to commit such war crimes (hell, we weren&#39;t the ones with gulags).

4) I could answer most, if not all, of the lies in documents you posted. I am not going to however because a) it would take some time, and b) because you deluded stalinists would probably just deny it all anyways (just like Holocaust revisionists).

5) you&#39;re going to post crap like that? So will I, enjoy:

look look look, the Holocaust apparently didn&#39;t happen either&#33;

[Comrade Marcel]

WOW, RP. A new level of stupidness.

Since you can&#39;t seem to come up with "proof" that Katyn was a Soviet atrocity, you decide you just simply say it&#39;s like Holocaust denial. This is like what Prof. Furr said, you can&#39;t really have an intelligent convesation about this. Especially with "comrades" like RP who bring nothing but emotional and nationalistic jargon to the table...

So, RP... if I tell you that those Polish officers executed at Katyn were massacring communists and Jews, and you said "not true" I can just simply accuse you of Holocaust denial as well? Even if something is not true, or there is no proof of it? This has been a convienient way of dodging any accountability of slander and the part of anti-Stalin, anti-Soviet and anti-communists alike. It&#39;s very telling how empty your arguments are.

I find that to be quite insulting, considering that I had almost lost my left eye standing against neo-nazi who were supporting holocaust denial Ernst Zundel. But like I said before, it&#39;s comrades like you that seem more interested in creating enemies than doing any productive work against real enemies, that are worthless to the antifa-movement. Don&#39;t make millions of dead Jews and communists who died in the Holocaust the scapegoat for your bourgeois inspired dogma&#33;

As for your assertion that the Soviets "admitted" it, we have yet to see that evidence. They are still discussing the documents as of 2005&#33; Read prof. Grover Furr&#39;s comments&#33;

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2006, 11:30 PM
WOW, RP. A new level of stupidness.

Since you can&#39;t seem to come up with "proof" that Katyn was a Soviet atrocity, you decide you just simply say it&#39;s like Holocaust denial. This is like what Prof. Furr said, you can&#39;t really have an intelligent convesation about this. Especially with "comrades" like RP who bring nothing but emotional and nationalistic jargon to the table...

So, RP... if I tell you that those Polish officers executed at Katyn were massacring communists and Jews, and you said "not true" I can just simply accuse you of Holocaust denial as well? Even if something is not true, or there is no proof of it? This has been a convienient way of dodging any accountability of slander and the part of anti-Stalin, anti-Soviet and anti-communists alike. It&#39;s very telling how empty your arguments are.

I find that to be quite insulting, considering that I had almost lost my left eye standing against neo-nazi who were supporting holocaust denial Ernst Zundel. But like I said before, it&#39;s comrades like you that seem more interested in creating enemies than doing any productive work against real enemies, that are worthless to the antifa-movement. Don&#39;t make millions of dead Jews and communists who died in the Holocaust the scapegoat for your bourgeois inspired dogma&#33;

As for your assertion that the Soviets "admitted" it, we have yet to see that evidence. They are still discussing the documents as of 2005&#33; Read prof. Grover Furr&#39;s comments&#33;


No, the Polish government has admitted and apologized for Jedwabne because it happened. The Russian government has admitted Katyn, I assume because that also happened (bit stupid to admit to something they didn&#39;t do).

"prof." Grover Furr&#39;s comments were ridiculous. I scan-read them. No doubt the Katyn-equivalent of David Irving.


And lol, just saw this delightful (and totally ignorant) comment by him:

"It&#39;s like convincing a Christian that Jesus never existed."

Simple fact, Jesus as a historical figure definitely did exist (Tacitus&#39; Annals prove it). Jesus as son of God is debateable however.
(yes, I realize that&#39;s quite irrelecvant to the matter at hand, but just thought I&#39;d point out that blatant error)



Memorandum on NKVD letterhead from L. Beria to "Comrade Stalin" proposing to hoot 25,700 Poles from Kozelsk, Ostashkov, and Starobels camps, and from certain prisons of Western Ukraine and Belarus. Stalin&#39;s handwritten signature appears on top, followed by signatures of Politburo members K. Voroshilov, V. Molotov, and A. Mikoyan. Signatures in left margin are M. Kalinin and L. Kaganovich, both favoring execution:
http://katyn.codis.ru/fberia.htm



EDIT: "millions of dead jews and communists"

Oh I love that - I&#39;m so glad absolutely no Poles, other Slavs, gays or gypsies were killed by the nazis.

[Raul]

I agree with Comrade Marcel. Say all you want about Stalin and the USSR, but you still use the symbol of the sickle and hammer as a symbol of what you believe in. You may try to ignore it and look at other places that the sickle and hammer have been used, just to cover the fact that you are using it. Stalin, Lenin, and the USSR made that symbol famous and it is recognized all over the world. If you hate the USSR and Stalin so much, stop using that symbol. There are a lot of Che Guevara supporters out there, but if it wasn&#39;t for Stalin, there wouldn&#39;t be a Che. Stalin did a lot to help spread COMMUNISM, like it or not, and he is loved by the people even though you don&#39;t want to accept the fact. He fought against the capitalists and because of him, other nations aswell were able to fight the capitalists.


In the 80s that bastard Ronald Reagan paid right-wing soldiers to kill innocent people. You claim that the Soviets were bad, but where were you? You weren&#39;t there helping out the peasants. You know who was? The USSR. They help the people get rid of the yankee imperialist. The USSR helped the third world more than any other nation in the world. I rather live in a Stalinist society than be living in El Salvador or Nicaragua where there were death squads killing people in broad daylight for fun.

[Dyst]

I agree with Comrade Marcel. Say all you want about Stalin and the USSR, but you still use the symbol of the sickle and hammer as a symbol of what you believe in. You may try to ignore it and look at other places that the sickle and hammer have been used, just to cover the fact that you are using it. Stalin, Lenin, and the USSR made that symbol famous and it is recognized all over the world. If you hate the USSR and Stalin so much, stop using that symbol. There are a lot of Che Guevara supporters out there, but if it wasn&#39;t for Stalin, there wouldn&#39;t be a Che. Stalin did a lot to help spread COMMUNISM, like it or not, and he is loved by the people even though you don&#39;t want to accept the fact. He fought against the capitalists and because of him, other nations aswell were able to fight the capitalists.

Please state why many use the hammer and sickle symbol has any meaning to anything at all. They use it because it is a symbol for working class power. Whoever made it famous is not important.

Please state exactly why Soviet was communist and how he managed to spread communism.

[Nachie]

Arguing (verbally) with a Stalinist is like trying to teach calculus to a brick. Please everyone, just let this thread die the quiet death it so rightly deserves. Please?

Oh and by the way the "hammer and sickle" was being used in Austria at least a year before the Bolshevik coup.

Also, fuck Lenin.

Thank you and goodnight.

[Shiroryuu]

in my opinion, Stalin gave Socialism and Communism a bad name here in the west. Lenin didn&#39;t trust him and before he died, he warned members of the government to be careful of Stalin. He thought that Stalin&#39;s views were too extreme and violent. but then again, we may not have won WWII if it weren&#39;t for him.

[Wanted Man]

The way this topic is going is very silly, but not surprising in the least. A nice little summary:

Some guy: You Stalinists are like Holocaust deniers, you just can&#39;t accept the hard facts&#33;

Marcel: What facts?

Some guy: ...

Polish nationalist: They imprisoned my grandmother&#33;&#33;&#33;

Marcel: What circumstances? What&#39;s your point? This is just emotionalism, what matters is cold, hard facts.

Malte: OMG&#33; You Stalinists are so cold and cynical&#33;

Everyone with some common sense: :lol: @ Malte

[Edelweiss]

Actually I told Marcel cold and cynical for desribing RP&#39;s grandmother being send to Seberia a "family anectode", which is by definion a cynical statement. But again it&#39;s obvious that Stalin kiddies like Matthijs are not really interested in facts.

[Wanted Man]

Stalin kiddies... heh, this must be about the fourth time you&#39;ve made bullshit assumptions about me, Malte, and every time I proved you wrong and you failed to respond anymore. How lame.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:42 AM
The way this topic is going is very silly, but not surprising in the least. A nice little summary:

Some guy: You Stalinists are like Holocaust deniers, you just can&#39;t accept the hard facts&#33;

Marcel: What facts?

Some guy: ...

Polish nationalist: They imprisoned my grandmother&#33;&#33;&#33;

Marcel: What circumstances? What&#39;s your point? This is just emotionalism, what matters is cold, hard facts.

Malte: OMG&#33; You Stalinists are so cold and cynical&#33;

Everyone with some common sense: :lol: @ Malte
Yes, very selective, very funny. I named facts ALL the time, but Marcel is trying to ignore it. Look in the Soviet archives ok. There was an excellent source posted, about signature of Stalin etc. What about ALL the witnesses, in documentaries, in books, on tv documentaries. Let me guess, they&#39;re all indoctrinated, bourgeois propagandists?

And the Polish guy TOLD about the circumstances.

I think the Stalinists on this forum are some cold blooded idiots. We&#39;re talking about a family member deported to Siberia and you are making fun of it.

And Marcel, please STOP calling anybody that is against Stalin capitalists, anti-communists, fascist, Trotskyists etc. The most well-thinking people here are against a bloody dictator that murders his own people, do you understand that?

And I think that during the Roman Empire and the Greek Empire, health care also improved... for the slave owners, just like during Stalin&#39;s repression. What do you think was the life expectancy of people in the gulag? Oh wait, did the gulag exist in your opinion, or was it all western bourgeois propaganda?

And the fact that you won&#39;t answer the yes/no questions I asked, points to the fact that you&#39;re a coward. If you got an opionion, just express it fully, and let us know where you stand. You&#39;re just trying to hide, when you don&#39;t answer my questions. Yes, it&#39;s your choice, but you&#39;re a coward then.

@ Raul: that&#39;s really, really, really stupid. First, you are linking the USSR and Stalin together, like they&#39;re almost synonymous, and then you&#39;re linking communism to them&#33; The hammer and sickle are symbols of the fight against exploitation, and I do support that fight ideologically. That&#39;s something completely different that supporting Stalin.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Mattjhis+--> (Mattjhis)Some guy: You Stalinists are like Holocaust deniers[/b]


Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+--> (Comrade Marcel)Are you accusing comrade Stalin of genocide? If so, you are in league with only the most reactionary bourgeois "scholars" and "Sovietologist" you fling this charge against Stalin. The accusation usually goes nowhere past speculation and a few anecdotes.[/b]


Originally posted by Holocaust Denier
There have been thousands of investigations of alleged Nazi war criminals, hundreds of trials, yet not one person was ever accused of being involved with actual gassings&#33; No reliable witness on either side has ever come forward who saw a single person gassed-AND THERE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN OVER 10,000 MASS GASSINGS&#33;

Source (http://christianparty.net/holocaust.htm)


Originally posted by Mattjhis
you just can&#39;t accept the hard facts&#33;


Red [email protected]
1989 Soviets admit Stalin ordered execution of Poles

Fact: Source (http://www.historyguide.org/europe/lecture16.html)

Also, as concerns the gulags:


Wiki
The total documentable deaths in the system of corrective-labor camps and colonies from 1930 to 1956 amount to 1,606,748, including political and common prisoners; note that this number does not include more than 800,000 executions of "counterrevolutionaries" during the period of the "Great Terror", since they were mostly conducted outside the camp system and were accounted for separately. From 1932 to 1940, at least 390,000 peasants died in places of labor settlements. One may also assume that many of the survivors suffered permanent physical and psychological damage. Deaths at some camps are documented more thoroughly than those at others.

Despite your arguments to the contrary the evidence on Wikipedia is not provided purely from an "anti-Soviet" stance (check sources at bottom of page) and if Stalinists cannot clarify how many died in the Gulags then this is yet another indicment of Stalin and the beurocratic ruling class of the USSR

Yes, the average citizen had better living standards in the degenerated worker&#39;s state that was the USSR than they do now in the capitalist Russian federation but the repression and soviet-imperialism of Stalin&#39;s regime cannot be ignored

[Raul]

Why don&#39;t you guys call this forum "How much you hate Stalin?" because that is all you are doing. All you talk about is how much you know about the crimes of Stalin and try to justify it by saying that you are only saying that to not repeat the past. Try living in a third world country in Latin America, then you too will be preaching Stalin. So what if Stalin killed people? Fuck them. They are all bunch of capitalist. Put me on that spot, and hell, I will fucking make Stalin look like a little boy with all the murders I commit. Fuck the capitalist. I don&#39;t sympathize with them and I don&#39;t respect them. I don&#39;t see them as humans. If three billion were to die, fuck them. I wouldn&#39;t care. Hell, I would celebrate. The thing is all you are doing is talking shit and not going into the real world and doing something to change the corrupt capitalist system. What? Are you going to say how much you hate the fact when someone tells you that you are not contributing nothing to communism by pretending to read a couple of books and being in your grandmother&#39;s basement? The thing is, if you support any communist countries, then at some point in time they were influence by Stalin. If not, cut the crap with all this leftist liberal bullshit. It&#39;s getting old. You have not done anything, so don&#39;t criticize Stalin. I know you get pissed when someone tells you that to your face, but it&#39;s true. I&#39;m not going to take this from some rich boys who went to college in the United States and talk about oppression. It&#39;s a bunch of bull. Go join your pro gay parades and pro feminism because that is the way you justify to yourself that you are doing something productive. All I am seeing is a bunch of spoiled kids, just like in the 60s, who preach about bullshit and never experience it. I take Stalinist Russia any day of the week over some third world nation that has been destroyed by the fucking Americans.

[Brownfist]

Ok, Raul, as someone also from the Third World I ask you the following question: Are you against feminism and queer rights movements? I mean besides your rants about killing half of the world population so that you can create your "communist" (I dont think that is communism) paradise I find that statement very odd. Please explain. Also, I would hardly say that everyone Stalin killed was a capitalist, some of them just disagreed with the Stalinist line. I mean what do you make of Mao&#39;s arguement that Stalin was 70% right and 30% wrong. I think that we can all agree that there should be debate within the party and not necessarily agree with the line of an individual in the party, whether it be Marx/Lenin/Stalin etc. Under democratic centralism dissent is acceptable, however, once something is democratically decided it will be followed by all.

[Intelligitimate]

I must say, the anti-Stalin people in this thread should be embarrassed. The best &#39;evidence&#39; they can come up with is a stupid anecdote from a Polish nationalist who openly admits her family&#39;s anti-communism and support for bourgeois dictatorship. Oh, and &#39;admissions&#39; of &#39;guilt&#39; from the Yeltsin government who destroyed the USSR. Yeltsin wouldn&#39;t have reason to make the USSR and Stalin look bad, would he? Fucking morons.


Oh, it&#39;s very debatable who the real communists are&#33; The one&#39;s that back down from confronting fascists? The one&#39;s that are more interested in attacking Marxist-Leninists? The one&#39;s that sell newpapers to petty-bourgeois university students? The ones that want communism right after the revolution? The one&#39;s that attack every single revoution that has ever existed? The one&#39;s that support imperialism over the anti-imperialist socialist countries every time? The fencewalkers? The keyboard komrades and internet warriors? etc. etc. Are these your examples of "real communists"? Truly pathetic.

Yes, what is even more pathetic about these dumbass little anarchist/Trots is their total commitment to slavishly believe and repeat, without the slightest bit of investigation, any and all anti-communist slanders ever said. I&#39;m surprised they don&#39;t claim the Bolsheviks ate babies, since this lie was actually proclaimed in the West.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:03 PM
I mean as much as I hate capitalism, I would rather live in a capitalist society then a Stalinist society.
What this actually means is that you prefer capitalism, period, because anarchists and Trots have shown themselves incapable of building socialism. At best, they are useless, at worse, they actively work against real revolutionaries with fascists.

This is the fruits of anti-Stalinism. Young radicals who are crippled by bourgeois lies. You can&#39;t learn from history when you don&#39;t even understand it.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:44 PM
Why don&#39;t you guys call this forum "How much you hate Stalin?" because that is all you are doing. All you talk about is how much you know about the crimes of Stalin and try to justify it by saying that you are only saying that to not repeat the past. Try living in a third world country in Latin America, then you too will be preaching Stalin. So what if Stalin killed people? Fuck them. They are all bunch of capitalist. Put me on that spot, and hell, I will fucking make Stalin look like a little boy with all the murders I commit. Fuck the capitalist. I don&#39;t sympathize with them and I don&#39;t respect them. I don&#39;t see them as humans. If three billion were to die, fuck them. I wouldn&#39;t care. Hell, I would celebrate. The thing is all you are doing is talking shit and not going into the real world and doing something to change the corrupt capitalist system. What? Are you going to say how much you hate the fact when someone tells you that you are not contributing nothing to communism by pretending to read a couple of books and being in your grandmother&#39;s basement? The thing is, if you support any communist countries, then at some point in time they were influence by Stalin. If not, cut the crap with all this leftist liberal bullshit. It&#39;s getting old. You have not done anything, so don&#39;t criticize Stalin. I know you get pissed when someone tells you that to your face, but it&#39;s true. I&#39;m not going to take this from some rich boys who went to college in the United States and talk about oppression. It&#39;s a bunch of bull. Go join your pro gay parades and pro feminism because that is the way you justify to yourself that you are doing something productive. All I am seeing is a bunch of spoiled kids, just like in the 60s, who preach about bullshit and never experience it. I take Stalinist Russia any day of the week over some third world nation that has been destroyed by the fucking Americans.
Excuse me, but you&#39;re just a complete moron. You are seriously saying that you would slay half of the world... Really, what is the aim of a communist? To create solidarity, to create a utopian workers paradise. You&#39;re totally losing your goal. What better are you than Hitler, the Red Khmer and all other genocidal dictators? Please, stop calling yourself communist, you&#39;re making the real communists look really, really bad.

And Intelligetimate, who&#39;s really producing untruths here. You stalinist guys are just totally deaf and blind. I&#39;ve read about Stalin, I&#39;ve seen documentaries, and I&#39;ve seen, read and heared all sorts of evidence, which I&#39;ve repeatedly posted in this forum, that Stalin IS actually a bloodthirsty exploiting mass-murderer.

And please STOP calling anti-Stalinists anarchists, trotskyists, capitalists etc etc. Most people with a well functioning logic just oppose any kind of bloody dictator.

Understanding history? Stalinists are the ones that don&#39;t understand history, just like neo-nazi&#39;s. And stop calling any evidence bourgeois lies. Just study the evidence without labeling it some dumb-ass dogma.

[Intelligitimate]

And Intelligetimate, who&#39;s really producing untruths here. You stalinist guys are just totally deaf and blind. I&#39;ve read about Stalin, I&#39;ve seen documentaries, and I&#39;ve seen, read and heared all sorts of evidence, which I&#39;ve repeatedly posted in this forum, that Stalin IS actually a bloodthirsty exploiting mass-murderer.

I haven&#39;t seen your evidence, but no doubt it comes from the &#39;scholarship&#39; of the old generation of anti-Communists like Conquest, Solzhenitsyn, Medvedev, etc. That&#39;s assuming you are actually serious about the scholarly side of this debate, unlike the Polish nationalist who started this thread.


And please STOP calling anti-Stalinists anarchists, trotskyists, capitalists etc etc.

That&#39;s what most of you are. You hate actually-existing socialism with a passion that can only come from a right-wing anti-communist, and that&#39;s exactly where you get your history from.


Most people with a well functioning logic just oppose any kind of bloody dictator.

Anyone with any Marxist understanding at all would realize all governments have a class character. There has never been any such thing as a dictatorship where one person ruled without regard to a social class. One need only look at all the right-wing dictatorships that have existed to see the capitalist class had overwhelming influence in them.

Of course, that is beside the point, as the idea Stalin had absolute control in the USSR is an unfalsiable axiom of anti-communism. Even when policies Stalin supported got out-voted, that&#39;s just the evil Stalin trying to trick his enemies.

You should try reading this: Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform Part 1 (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:SGHgtzU9yLUJ:eserver.org/clogic/2005/furr.html+Stalin+democratic+reform&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1), Part 2 (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:LcMvh1ZEJGYJ:eserver.org/clogic/2005/furr2.html+Stalin+democratic+reform&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2).


Understanding history? Stalinists are the ones that don&#39;t understand history, just like neo-nazi&#39;s.

That&#39;s total bullshit. Any "Stalinist" (basically nothing but a term of abuse) I&#39;ve talked to uses the most up to date Western sources for their interpretation of the USSR. Do you even know who Getty, Thurston, Manning, etc, are? They are the new generation of Western historians of the USSR, and their scholarship reveals something quite different than the 70s Cold War &#39;scholarship&#39; you no doubt prefer.


And stop calling any evidence bourgeois lies.

You haven&#39;t brought any evidence yet.


Just study the evidence without labeling it some dumb-ass dogma.

I have, something I seriously doubt you have.

[Wanted Man]

Mesijs is actually a staunch anti-communist and liberal, I know this for a fact.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:28 PM
Mesijs is actually a staunch anti-communist and liberal, I know this for a fact.
Wouldn&#39;t surprise me. There are a lot of liberals who are a little too left for the Democratic Party, but try to look more respectable by flaunting their anti-communism. They are the idiotic "Anyone but Bush" types usually.

[Brownfist]

Do you even know who Getty, Thurston, Manning, etc, are? They are the new generation of Western historians of the USSR, and their scholarship reveals something quite different than the 70s Cold War &#39;scholarship&#39; you no doubt prefer.

Intelligitimate I am genuinely interested in this topic so can you please provide the full names of these individuals and others. Also, please tell me what books they have written. I would be most interested in reading them. I assume that since these people are serious scholars they have been published by reputable academic sources like academic journals and published by reputable history publication presses. One of the consistent problems on this discussion forum especially in Stalin-related threads is the sourcing of materials. So Comrade Marcel has consistently provided sources that I find highly suspect. I mean citing a publication that is produced by the folks at Northstar Compass is hardly an academic source. If you can provide sources by good academics I am more than happy to read and learn.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:43 PM
Intelligitimate I am genuinely interested in this topic so can you please provide the full names of these individuals and others. Also, please tell me what books they have written. I would be most interested in reading them. I assume that since these people are serious scholars they have been published by reputable academic sources like academic journals and published by reputable history publication presses.
You can rest assured the people I named have academic credentials that are impeccable. They are leading authorities in the field of Russian history today.

Some introductory works I would recommend are:

J. Arch Getty&#39;s Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered. This was Getty&#39;s PhD thesis, and was one of the first works to explicity attack the old Cold War history of the USSR. For example, the previous giant of the field, Robert Conquest, a notorious anti-communist who once actually worked with the British government to produce black-propaganda against the USSR, once stated that "basically the best, though not infallible, source is rumor." To this absurd statement, Getty says the obvious: "Such statements would be astonishing in any other field of history. Of course, historians do not accept hearsay and rumor as evidence."

Robert Thurston: Life and Terror in Stalin&#39;s Russia. Basically like Getty&#39;s book. In fact, it would be cheaper to get Thurston&#39;s book, since Getty&#39;s old book is out of print.

Getty and Roberta Manning: Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives. This one is really good because it actually contains articles written by many respectable academics.

The only problem I have with these historians is that they are not Marxists. While this actually helps to make it impossible for anti-communists to simply dismiss their work, they don&#39;t make a class analysis and that doesn&#39;t help radicals draw the correct political conclusions from their research. For that, I would recommend reading the work of people like Anna Louise Strong. Anything by her is really good. Also, even though it is pro-Stalin to a fault, I would recommend reading Ludo Martens Another View of Stalin (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html). Martens relies heavily on the previously mentioned scholars, which makes him very useful.

I&#39;ll see if I can come up with a more complete list later.

[Intelligitimate]

This list was created by a friend of mine, who has been published in Leftist magazines like Counter Punch and Zmag. Years ago, I showed him Ludo Martens book and he dismissed it without much thought. About two years later, after giving the issue some thought, he was won over from his anti-Stalinist views by the work of the new historians. He has a degree in history, and is very active politically.

----------------

Originally posted by FustinJelux
Something interesting can be learned by reading just about any book about the Soviet Union, even the ones that are total frauds. You just have to learn how to read between the lines and comb through their footnotes. For example, Ronald Radosh&#39;s Spain Betrayed is a bunch of anti-communist nonsense, but if you read the actual source documents printed with the book, a completely different picture of the Soviet effort during the Spanish Civil War emerges that is actually very enlightening. Radosh&#39;s commentary on the documents, however, is revealed to be total bunk.

Another example: Robert Weinberg&#39;s Stalin&#39;s Forgotten Zion is one of several books that attempt to portray Stalin as a vicious anti-Semite. In it he speaks of Stalin&#39;s "murderous campaign to destroy all Jewish intellectual and cultural activity in the Soviet Union" -- but one will try in vain to find a single murder mentioned in the book, because there weren&#39;t any&#33; At least, I have never seen any evidence of any. But hey, it&#39;s Stalin, so we can disregard any kind of normal standards of evidence and claim he slaughtered people, regardless of whether or not he actually did. Hell, we can even accuse him of slaughtering people who didn&#39;t even exist in the first place&#33; I mean, how else are we supposed to account for the non-existence of so many people?

Reading sources like this can be instructive. You end up learning more about the religion of anti-communism than you do about the communism itself, but you still learn something. That being said, here is what I consider a list of good sources. By listing them I am not fully endorsing everything said in any of them -- I&#39;m just saying I learned a lot from them. A lot of these books are rare, and thus they tend to be expensive. Access to a good library helps. I will try to provide links to ones that are available online.

Good books by anti-communists:

Life and Terror in Stalin&#39;s Russia by Robert W. Thurston
The Origins of the Great Purges by J. Arch Getty
How the Soviet Union is Governed by Jerry F. Hough
Stalin: Man of History by Ian Grey
The Bolsheviks Come to Power by Alexander Rabinowitch
The History of the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-hrr/index.htm) by Leon Trotsky
My Life (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-lif/index.htm) by Leon Trotsky
The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm) by Leon Trotsky
Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives Edited by Arch Getty and Roberta Manning
Challenging Traditional Views of Russian History Edited by Stephen G. Wheatcroft
The Stalinist Dictatorship Edited by Chris Ward
The Soviet Impact on the Western World by E. H. Carr
Soviet Economic Development from Lenin to Khrushchev by R. W. Davies and Maurice Kirby
The Years of Hunger : Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 by R. W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft
Soviet State and Society between Revolutions, 1918-1929 by Lewis H. Siegelbaum and Mary McAuley
Russia&#39;s Heroes by Albert Axell
Russia at War by Alexander Werth

Here are some books by communists and socialists. I actually prefer these, because the scholarly stuff, through its anti-communism and its efforts to be "objective," refuses to draw any political conclusions from the facts that they expound upon.

The Stalin Era (http://www.plp.org/books/strong_stalin_era.pdf) by Anna Louise Strong
Another View of Stalin (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html) by Ludo Martens
Behind the Urals: An American Worker in Russia&#39;s City of Steel by John Scott
The Soviets Expected It by Anna Louise Strong
Blackshirts and Reds (http://www.michaelparenti.org/BlackShirts.html) by Michael Parenti
Twenty Years in Underground Russia (http://www.plp.org/books/bobrovskaya.pdf) by Cecilia Bobrovskaya
The Resotration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/hoxha/bland/index.html) by W. B. Bland
Ten Days that Shook the World (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/index.htm) by John Reed
Six Months in Red Russia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bryant/works/russia/index.htm) by Louise Bryant
The Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm) by Rosa Luxemburg
The Foundations of Leninism (http://ptb.sunhost.be/marx2mao/Stalin/FL24.html) by Joseph Stalin
Trotskyism or Leninism? (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm) by J. V. Stalin
Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm) by J. V. Stalin
The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/12.htm) by J. V. Stalin
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/index.htm) by V. I. Lenin
Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm) by V. I. Lenin
The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm) by V. I. Lenin
Molotov Remembers by V. M. Molotov
Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm) by Douglas Tottle
Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan
Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation? by Sidney and Beatrice Webb
Stalin and Yhezov: An Extra-Paradigmatic View (http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/jsny.html) by Philip E. Panaggio

Archive of Stalin&#39;s writings (http://www.marx2mao.com)

Here is a list of interesting articles that appear in scholarly journals. As far as I know, all of these people are anti-communists, with maybe one or two exceptions like Parenti. If you have access to a database like JSTOR you can check these out. If not, send me a PM and I will send you whichever ones you are interested in reading (this goes for anyone reading this thread). I think the most interesting of these articles are the ones written in the 1930s. This was a time when Western Europe and America were mired in the Great Depression. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was undergoing the most fantastic economic expansion in human history. The convergence of these two realities prompted Western scholars to take off their anti-communist blinders for a few years.

"Education Under Communism Contrasted with that Under Capitalism" by Davis
"Testing the Social Attitudes of Children in the Government Schools in Russia" by Davis
"A Sociological Interpretation of the Russian Revolution" by Davis
"Capitalism and Communism" by Davis
"Fear and Belief in the USSR&#39;s &#39;Great Terror&#39;" by Thurston
"The Soviet Family During the Great Terror, 1935-1941" by Thurston
"On Desk-Bound Parochialism, Commonsense Perspectives, and Lousy Evidence" by Thurston (responding to Conquest)
"Natural Disasters and Human Actions" by Tauger
"Soviet Women Workers and Menstruation" by Ilic
"Marxist Experiments in Destratificiation" by Lenski
"Technology, Work, and Sociology in the USSR" by Lieberstein
"Public Health in the USSR" by Winslow
"Social Sciences in the Soviet Union" by Kazakevich
"Soviet News in the New York Times" by Kriesberg
"Property in the Soviet Union" by Kucherov
"The Crisis of Proletarian Identity in the Soviet Factory, 1928-1929" by Kuromiya
"Stalinist Terror in the Donbas" by Kuromiya
"Edinonachalie and the Soviet Industrial Manager, 1928-1937" by Kuromiya
"Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years" by Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov
"The Soviet Military-Economic Effort during the Second World War" by Davies and Harrison
"The Great Leap Upwards" by Wheatcroft
"The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45" by Wheatcroft
"American Travelers to the Soviet Union 1917-32: The Formation of a Component of New Deal Ideology" by Feuer
"Demographic Analysis and Population Catastrophes in the USSR" by Anderson and Silver
"Tautologies in the Study of Excess Mortality in the USSR in the 1930s" by Anderson and Silver
"The Dynamic Efficiency of the Soviet Economy" by Balassa
"Women in Managerial and Professional Positions: The United States and the Soviet Union" by Bartol
"Juvenile Delinquency, the Family, and the Court in the Soviet Union" by Berman
"The Revival of Nationalities in the Soviet Union" by Broda
"The Rate of Growth in hte Soviet Union" by Canniff
"Soviet Russia&#39;s Contribution to Peace" by Carter
"A Word about the Soviet Teacher" by Counts
"Education and the Five-Year Plan of Soviet Russia" by Counts
"Some Soviet Economic Controllers," Part I and II by Davies
"Social Insurance in the Soviet Union" by Duncan
"Desegregation as a Cold War Imperative" by Dudziak
"The Soviet Union and African Countries" by Fedorenko
"Women in Russia and the Soviet Union" by Engel
"Social Services for the Family in the Soviet Union" by Field
"Soviet Policy in Asia Since Stalin" by Fisher
"Soviet Policy in Latin America" by Dinerstein
"New Perspectives on Stalinism" by Fitzpatrick (this article prompted about 11 replies, all worth reading)
"State and Society Under Stalin: Constitutions and Elections in the 1930s" by Getty
"Party and Purge in Smolensk 1933-37" by Getty
"Soviet Law of Inheritance" by Griffin
"Law Does not Wither Away in the Soviet Union" by Guins
"The Cities of the Soviet Union" by Harris
"Abortion, Contraception, and Population Policy in the Soviet Union" by Heer
"Some Economic and Social Consequences of Russian Communism" by Hoover
"Worker Participation in Socialist Systems: The Soviet Case" by Slider
"Political Participation in the Soviet Union" by Hough
"The &#39;Dark Forces,&#39; the Totalitarian Model, and Soviet History" by Hough
"The Evolving Soviet Debate on Latin America" by Hough
"Soviet Agriculture with and without Collectivization, 1928-1940" by Hunter
"Soviet Industrial Growth: The Early Plan Period" by Hunter
"Planned Social Solidarity in the Soviet Union" by Lynd
"Contributions and Problems of Soviet Welfare Institutions" by Madison
"Social Services for Families and Children in the Soviet Union Since 1967" by Madison
"State and Society in Stalinist Russia" by Manning
"Child Care in the Soviet Union" by Maurer
"The Soviet Union, the Comintern and World Revolution" by McKenzie
"Religious Developments in the Soviet Union" by Melish
"Housing in the Soviet Union" by Morton
"How Many Victims in the 1930s" Parts 1 and 2 by Nove
"Income Distribution in hte USSR" by Nove
"Socialism, Capitalism, and Militarism" by Parenti
"Rejoinder to Dye and Zeigler" by Parenti
"&#39;Revolutionary Bolshevik Work&#39;: Stakhanovism in Retail Trade" by Randall
"Social Security, Incentives, and Controls in the U.S. and U.S.S.R." by Rimlinger
"The Trade Union in Soviet Social Insurance" by Rimlinger
"Moscow and the Marshall Plan" by Roberts
"The Unknown Lenin" by Rabinowitch
"The Prosecution of Soviet History" Parts 1 and 2 by Kenez
"Influences on the Congressional Decision to Pass the Marshall Plan" by Hitchens
"Soviet Socialized Medicine and the Right to Health Care in a Changing Soviet Union" by Schecter
"The Soviet Challenge in Central America" by Shearman
"The Stakhanovite Movement" by Shlapentokh
"The Soviet Union&#39;s Relations with South Africa" by Shubin
"&#39;Dear Comrade, You Ask What We Need&#39;" by Siegelbaum
"Production Collectives and Communes and the &#39;Imperatives&#39; of Soviet Industrialization, 1929-1931" by SiegelBaum
"Robert V. Daniels and the Longue Duree of Soviet History" by Siegelbaum
"The Effect of the Cold War on African American Civil Rights" by Skrentny
"The New Constitution of the Soviet Union" by Starr
"The CIA in Afghanistan" by Stork
"The Soviet Union and the Arab World" by Swanson
"The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933" by Tauger
"Letters" (An exchange between Mark Tauger and Robert Conquest in Vol 51, No. 1 of Slavic Review)
"Progress in Medical Training and Research in the U.S.S.R." by Troyanovsky
"The Political Economy of Cuban Dependence on the Soviet Union" by Tsokhas
"Political Participation in the USSR" by Unger
"Soviet Mass-Political Work in Residential Areas" by Unger
"No Taylorism in the Soviet Union" by Van Atta
"The Outlook in the U.S.S.R." by Werth
"Toward an Objective Evaluation of the Complexities of Soviet Social Reality under Stalin" by Wheatcroft
"The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45" by Wheatcroft
"Collectiziation Deaths" (exchange between Wheatcroft, Cohen, and Conquest)
"Debate" (exchange between Wheatcroft, Conquest, Anderson, and Silver)
"New Demographic Evidence on Excess Collectivization Deaths" by Wheatcroft
"Steven Rosefielde&#39;s Kliukva" by Wheatcroft
"Further Thoughts on the First Soviet Five-Year Plan" by Wheatcroft and Davies
"Soviet Industrialization Reconsidered" by Wheatcroft, Davies, and Cooper
"Stalin, Grain Stocks, and the Famine of 1932" by Wheatcroft, Tauger, and Davies

Lastly, here is a list of articles written by outright communists. Again, I think these are the best sources to read because they actually draw political conclusions from the facts, rather than pretending to be "objective." Most of them are available online, even if I don&#39;t provide a link. With the title and author it should be easy to find any of these on Google.

"Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform Part 1" (http://eserver.org/clogic/2005/furr.html) by Grover Furr
"Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform Part 2" (http://eserver.org/clogic/2005/furr2.html) by Grover Furr
"On Applying Physical Pressure to Prisoners" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/01/10.htm) by J. V. Stalin
"To You Beloved Comrade" (http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9804/robeson.htm) by Paul Robeson (Eulogy for Stalin)
"On Stalin" (http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25443&sid=208d15613aeb10cccfc33174a7789f78) by W. E. B. Du Bois (Eulogy for Stalin)
"Is Stalin a Dictator?" (http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/webb1.htm) by Sidney and Beatrice Webb
"Stalin in the Distorted Mirror of History Falsifiers" (http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/aucpb.htm) by the All Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks
"Why We Fought to Defend the Soviet Union" (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2003/USSR-809.htm) by the Spartacist League
"The Bankruptcy of &#39;New Class&#39; Theories" (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/archives/oldsite/NEWCLASS.HTM) by the Spartacist League
"Taliban: Bitter Fruit of U.S. Imperialism’s Anti-Soviet War" (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2001/Afghan.htm) by the Spartacist League
"Afghanistan and the Left: The Russian Question Point Blank" (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/archives/oldsite/Pointblk.htm) by the Spartacist League
"Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union" (http://www.mariosousa.se/LiesconcerningthehistoryoftheSovietUnion.html) by Mario Sousa
"The Class Struggle During the Thirties in the Soviet Union" (http://www.mariosousa.se/TheclassstruggleduringthethirtiesintheSovietUnion0 50801.html) by Mario Sousa
"&#39;Stalingrad&#39; by Anthony Beevor - A Piece of Nazi War Propaganda" (http://www.mariosousa.se/ReviewBeevorStalingrad050729.html) by Mario Sousa
The Maoist Internationalist Movement&#39;s Stalin FAQ (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/stalin.html)
"Stalin Did It Right" (http://www.geocities.com/[email protected]/StalinDiditRight.html) by Dennis McKinsey
"Stalinism" (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/stalin.html) by Bill Bland
"Stalin and Khruschev: A Dialectical Contrast" (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/hist03R.html) by Professor K. Majid
"Stalin&#39;s Antibureaucrat Scenario" (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/antib.html) by Tony Clark
"The Truth about Stalin" (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/wilftas.html) by Wilf Dixon
"Soviet POWs" (http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/pows.html) by Philip E. Panaggio
"At Last He Saw Clearly&#33;" (http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/dissident.html) (a noted anti-communist changes his tune) from Burevestnik Newspaper
"On Lavrenty Beria" (http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/beria.html) by Philip E. Panaggio
by Philip E. Panaggio
[url=http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/mo-trial.html]"The Moscow Trial Was Fair" (]"About Kirov and Nikolaev"[/url) by D. N. Pritt and Pat Sloan
Index of Dennis McKinsey&#39;s writings (http://www.geocities.com/[email protected]/)
"Khrushchev&#39;s Un-Secret Speech" (http://www.mltranslations.org/US/TP/tp2.htm) by Turning Point
"Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Khrushchev" (In Defense of Stalin) (http://www.mltranslations.org/US/TP/tp1.htm) by Turning Point
"A Lethal Form of Lying: Notes on Anti-Semitism and Cold War Scholarship" (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/furrlethal84.pdf) by Grover Furr
"New Light On Old Stories About Marshal Tukhachevskii : Some Documents Reconsidered" (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/tukh.html) by Grover Furr
"Using History to Fight Anti-Communism: A Review of Robert Thurston" (http://eserver.org/clogic/1-2/furr.html) by Grover Furr
"Fraudulent Anti-Communist Scholarship From A "Respectable" Conservative Source: Prof. Paul Johnson" (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pauljohnsonfraud.html) by Grover Furr
"Anatomy of a Fraudulent Scholarly Work: Ronald Radosh&#39;s Spain Betrayed" (http://eserver.org/clogic/2003/furr.html) by Grover Furr
"Molotov Believed Tukhachevskii Was Guilty" (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/molotov.html) by Grover Furr
"A Review of The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal by Clement Libovitz" (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/leibovitzrev.html) by F. H. Knelman, Ph. D.
"Global Rollback: After Communism" (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Parenti/Global_Rollback_Parenti.html) by Michael Parenti
"The Khrushchevites Yesterday and Today " (http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/krm2.htm) by Red Youth
"Re-Examining the Purges" (http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/purges.html) by the PLP
"Good Articles about The &#39;Purges&#39;" (http://www.plp.org/books/biblio.html) by the PLP
"The Hoax of the Man-Made Ukraine Famine of 1932-33" (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam1.html) by the PLP
"Conquest Book Lies About 1932-33 Ukraine Famine" (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam2.html) by the PLP
"Anti-Communist Ukrainian Nationalists Joined Nazis" (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam3.html) by the PLP
"The Lie that Stalin Was Worse than Hitler" (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam4.html) by the PLP
"What Really Happened in the Ukrainian Countryside?: The Bolshevik&#39;s Error of Not Winning the Peasants to Communism" (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam5.html) by the PLP
"How Revolutionaries Learn from the Stalin Period" (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam6.html) by the PLP
"In Search of a Soviet Holocaust" (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html) by Jeff Coplon
"In Defense of the Russian Revolution: A Reply to the Post-Soviet School of Historical Falsification" (http://www.wsws.org/history/1995/apr1995/idrr.shtml) by David North
"An Exchange on Bolshevism and Revolutionary Violence" (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/exch-d271.shtml) by Peter Daniels
"PBS Anti-Stalinism Is Based On Nazis Lies" (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/pbsstal1.html) by the PLP
"Anti-Communists Use Big Lie to Slander Fight for Social Equality" (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/pbsstal2.html) by the PLP
"Bosses Still Don&#39;t Understand Why Red Army Defeated the Nazis" (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/pbsstal3.html) by the PLP
"Never Believe What the Bosses Say About Communism" (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/pbsstal4.html) by the PLP
MIM on Solzhenitsyn&#39;s fall from grace (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/countries/russia/stalin12212004.html)
"A Letter and Reply on the Kronstadt Rebellion" (http://www.wsws.org/history/1998/sep1998/bak-s16.shtml) by Fred Mazelis
"Lessons of People&#39;s War in Spain 1936-1939" (http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/pws.html) by the PLP
MIM on Bukharin (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/bookstore/books/ussr/larina.html)
MIM&#39;s campaign to correct the lies told in The Black Book of Communism (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/agitation/blackbook/index.html)
"Exaggerations Against Stalin" (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/stalindeaths.html) by MIM
"The Structure of the Soviet State" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/state.htm) by John Reed
"Soviet Russia Now" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1921/01/russianow.htm) by John Reed
"The Origins of Worker Control of Industry in Russia" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/origins.htm) by John Reed
"Reagan Pays Tribute to Dead Nazis - PLP Honors the Red Army" (http://www.plp.org/misc/ww2cd851.html) by the PLP
"Red Army Blew Away Hitler’s Wehrmacht" (http://www.plp.org/misc/ww2cd852.html) by the PLP
"Stalin Was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1942" (http://www.plp.org/misc/timemagstalin.html) by the PLP
Lies Concerning World War II (http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/cd4.html#RTFToC1) by the PLP
"Bush Insults the Millions who Died Fighting the Nazis" (http://www.plp.org/misc/memoirsww2vet.html) by the PLP
"Red Army Smashed the Nazis" (http://www.plp.org/misc/barbarossa01.html) by the PLP
"On Democratic Centralism" (http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/democent.html) by the PLP
"Road to Revolution III: The Continuing Struggle Against Revisionism" (http://www.plp.org/rr3/rr3.html) by the PLP
"Stalin - Why World&#39;s Bosses Are Still Fighting a Dead Man" (http://www.plp.org/misc/st.html) by the PLP

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 07:54 AM
I must say, the anti-Stalin people in this thread should be embarrassed. The best &#39;evidence&#39; they can come up with is a stupid anecdote from a Polish nationalist who openly admits her family&#39;s anti-communism and support for bourgeois dictatorship. Oh, and &#39;admissions&#39; of &#39;guilt&#39; from the Yeltsin government who destroyed the USSR. Yeltsin wouldn&#39;t have reason to make the USSR and Stalin look bad, would he? Fucking morons.


Yes, what is even more pathetic about these dumbass little anarchist/Trots is their total commitment to slavishly believe and repeat, without the slightest bit of investigation, any and all anti-communist slanders ever said. I&#39;m surprised they don&#39;t claim the Bolsheviks ate babies, since this lie was actually proclaimed in the West.
I can give you hundreds of stories from many Poles who suffered at the hands of Stalin&#39;s regime.


"stupid anecdote"?

Fuck you, hell why don&#39;t you go wank over some pictures of starving prisoners in gulags put there by your great hero?

I have never "admitted" my family&#39;s anti-communism, quite simply they&#39;re not - they just hate Stalinists too.


Obviously you&#39;re fucking stupid so I&#39;ll try to explain this in simple terms:

Why would Yeltsin confess that Stalin murdered millions if he didn&#39;t? It&#39;s really not going to do a lot for modern international relations is it?

Where did the bodies come from (the date they were murdered the land was in Soviet hands) - maybe the Germans sneaked behind th Soviets with truckloads of prisoners and then shot them in the night? Then the sneaked over to Stalin&#39;s house and got him to sign an order for it? Then, here&#39;s the clever bit&#33; they blamed it on Stalin&#33; :unsure:


Raul: you&#39;re a fucking idiot too - most of the millions killed by Stalin weren&#39;t capitalists, most were poor Russian peasants who just got in his way. He and his bourgeois pals lived in lovely houses, had lovely feasts and lived like kings. Communist my arse.


Intelligitimate: I did not start this thread - the admin of the board made it after a debate in another thread. Posts were moved here.

I&#39;m more than willing to see evidence. I gave you a fucking death warrent signed by the murderous bastard himself. I see no one has yet commented on it (though I&#39;m willing to bet you&#39;ll just dismiss it as "false").

[Wanted Man]

Intelligitimate, thanks for the list, I&#39;ll be copying those names and track them down, although I was already aware of some of them. Looks pretty good. :)

[Intelligitimate]

I can give you hundreds of stories from many Poles who suffered at the hands of Stalin&#39;s regime.

Like I give a shit about stories from reactionary nationalist trash like yourself.


I have never "admitted" my family&#39;s anti-communism, quite simply they&#39;re not - they just hate Stalinists too.


Originally posted by maksym
As you stated later on, your family had their farm destroyed. To the casual observer this should strike a chord, how many Poles actually were landowners? You have admitted, unknowingly of course, your family was targeted for being landowners in a conquered territory since 1919, depriving Ukrainians of their rights and were members of the upper classes. The Soviet Union targeted Poles because of their class and the benefits they received from the inter-war dictatorship. This was not genocide, as chauvinistic and reactionary Poles want us to believe, but simply class warfare.


Obviously you&#39;re fucking stupid so I&#39;ll try to explain this in simple terms:

Why would Yeltsin confess that Stalin murdered millions if he didn&#39;t? It&#39;s really not going to do a lot for modern international relations is it?

Because Yeltsin hated communism and wanted to restore capitalism? Are you that fucking stupid? I guess you are, considering the racist trash you&#39;ve spewed elsewhere on this forum.


Where did the bodies come from (the date they were murdered the land was in Soviet hands) - maybe the Germans sneaked behind th Soviets with truckloads of prisoners and then shot them in the night? Then the sneaked over to Stalin&#39;s house and got him to sign an order for it? Then, here&#39;s the clever bit&#33; they blamed it on Stalin&#33;

That you prefer to believe Nazi lies is very telling. The Nazis had a habit of fabrication. This should be especially clear to a Polish person like yourself, because the Nazis fabricated the Polish invasion of Germany in order to justify their own invasion of Poland.

But don&#39;t let facts like that stop you from believing Nazis. Obviously you hate socialism more than fascism.


I&#39;m more than willing to see evidence. I gave you a fucking death warrent signed by the murderous bastard himself.

A death warrent for who?

[Red Polak]

You think I give a shit what a Stalinist like yourself thinks about me? Hell with you guys in power you&#39;d probably be shipping off Poles to Siberia again. I actually hate you guys more than the nazis - you know why? Nazis came and went you lot came, destroyed the country, enslaved the people for 40 years before finally being kicked the fuck out. You ruin the name of communism.

Haha, lectured about racism by a Stalinist - you do realise how racist his regime was right?


No, I prefer to believe the dead bodies, the death warrants, the confessions and what my fellow Poles have told me about what they suffered.

True, I hate Stalinism more than Fascism. One knows where they stand with Fascists, whereas the Stalinists pretend to be Communists but really, they&#39;re just genocidal authoritarians.

[Intelligitimate]

Hell with you guys in power you&#39;d probably be shipping off Poles to Siberia again.

No, we&#39;d be building socialism, while reactionary trash like yourself would probably be doing everything to stop it.


I actually hate you guys more than the nazis - you know why? Nazis came and went

Funny how you leave out the fact that they murdered millions of Jews. But Jews aren&#39;t real Poles, are they?


you lot came, destroyed the country, enslaved the people for 40 years before finally being kicked the fuck out. You ruin the name of communism.

The more you post, the more you expose yourself as nothing but a reactionary nationalist moron. This is what Red Polak thinks of actually-existing socialism, people.


Haha, lectured about racism by a Stalinist - you do realise how racist his regime was right?

More bullshit lies.


True, I hate Stalinism more than Fascism.

Translation: I hate socialism more than I hate Nazi rule.

Worthless fascist fuck.


One knows where they stand with Fascists

Yeah, they only defeated the fascists in the largest war in history, you stupid shit.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:27 PM
No, we&#39;d be building socialism, while reactionary trash like yourself would probably be doing everything to stop it.

No you&#39;d probably be building yourselves another little empire.


Funny how you leave out the fact that they murdered millions of Jews. But Jews aren&#39;t real Poles, are they?

For fucks sake - they also murdered millions of Poles, other Slavs, gypsies, homosexuals and communists which I didn&#39;t include in a list (nice attempt to try and make me seem anti-semetic though).


yThe more you post, the more you expose yourself as nothing but a reactionary nationalist moron. This is what Red Polak thinks of actually-existing socialism, people.

Simple fact mate; Stalinism was not socialism, it was not communism - it was authoritarian rubbish. As I already said Stalin and his pals had huge mansions, lavish feasts and were rolling in money. The rest of the country was poor, starving, oppressed and frightened of being killed. So no, I don&#39;t agree with that if that&#39;s your idea of Socialism.


More bullshit lies.

Not at all.


Translation: I hate socialism more than I hate Nazi rule.

Worthless fascist fuck.

you seem to have messed up your "translation" - I hate Stalinists, I don&#39;t hate real Communists or Socialists.

Worthless Stalinist fuck.


Yeah, they only defeated fascist in the largest war in history, you stupid shit.

Who, the Russians?

Yes that&#39;s true, though they did originally ally with Hitler (and then invade a country together and partition it between themselves)

[Red Polak]

Oh and Nazism is not the same thing as Fascism (as you seem to be suggesting they are). Please learn the difference.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:44 PM
Why don&#39;t you guys call this forum "How much you hate Stalin?" because that is all you are doing. All you talk about is how much you know about the crimes of Stalin and try to justify it by saying that you are only saying that to not repeat the past. Try living in a third world country in Latin America, then you too will be preaching Stalin. So what if Stalin killed people? Fuck them. They are all bunch of capitalist. Put me on that spot, and hell, I will fucking make Stalin look like a little boy with all the murders I commit. Fuck the capitalist. I don&#39;t sympathize with them and I don&#39;t respect them. I don&#39;t see them as humans. If three billion were to die, fuck them. I wouldn&#39;t care. Hell, I would celebrate. The thing is all you are doing is talking shit and not going into the real world and doing something to change the corrupt capitalist system. What? Are you going to say how much you hate the fact when someone tells you that you are not contributing nothing to communism by pretending to read a couple of books and being in your grandmother&#39;s basement? The thing is, if you support any communist countries, then at some point in time they were influence by Stalin. If not, cut the crap with all this leftist liberal bullshit. It&#39;s getting old. You have not done anything, so don&#39;t criticize Stalin. I know you get pissed when someone tells you that to your face, but it&#39;s true. I&#39;m not going to take this from some rich boys who went to college in the United States and talk about oppression. It&#39;s a bunch of bull. Go join your pro gay parades and pro feminism because that is the way you justify to yourself that you are doing something productive. All I am seeing is a bunch of spoiled kids, just like in the 60s, who preach about bullshit and never experience it. I take Stalinist Russia any day of the week over some third world nation that has been destroyed by the fucking Americans.
Right... Because you don&#39;t agree with a persons economic policy you think they don&#39;t deserve to live? I can see why you&#39;re so found of the Stalster. Going into the real world to change the corrupt system doesn&#39;t mean being an authoritarian dickhead, or recklessly killing anyone who has an opinion different from yours. The thing is, you can claim to support communist countries all you want but you&#39;ll hardly find an authentic communist country in the course of human history. That the so-called communist countries were influenced by Stalin means shit all. "...Haven&#39;t done anything, so don&#39;t criticize Stalin?" How about what I&#39;ve not done, such as run a despotic state, and clamp down upon any freedom, whilst murdering any dissidents within the Party and without. I&#39;m no rich boy in the United States, I&#39;m poor-boy struggling to make ends meet. And what&#39;s wrong with being pro-gay and pro-feminist?

[Intelligitimate]

There is little point in trading insults with Red Polak. Red Polak makes up the most outrageous lies out of thin air. Take this for instance:


As I already said Stalin and his pals had huge mansions, lavish feasts and were rolling in money. The rest of the country was poor, starving, oppressed and frightened of being killed.

This is just pure garbage, without even the pretext of trying to substantiate it with evidence. This is because Red Polak isn&#39;t concerned with history, as most anti-communists aren&#39;t.

Red Polak is like the anti-Castro Cubans in Florida. They hate Castro because they were the losers in the revolution. Red Polak&#39;s hatred has already been exposed as such by maksym. She adopts the line of the most reactionary anti-communists possible, above and beyond even what your typical Trotskyist does. She probably is too stupid to even know Trotsky&#39;s line on the Polish-Soviet war, otherwise she undoubtedly would hate Trotsky just as fiercely, because her true sympathies lie with Polish nationalism and not socialism. Ever read Trotsky&#39;s Death To The Polish Bourgeoisie (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1920-mil/ch18.htm), Red Polak? Yeah, I thought not.

Unless Red Polak wants to actually engage in some real historical discussion in a civilized and scholarly way, I will not be responding to any more of her baiting attempts.

[Vasili Blucher]

both Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland

Hitler invaded Poland, but Comrade Stalin did not. Rather, two and one-half weeks after Germany&#39;s invasion, the Red Army heroically marched in to liberate territory hijacked by aggressionist scoundrel Pidulski in 1921. With Poland on the verge of collapse and with the absence of a potent government in Poland, the non-aggression treaty signed between Poland and USSR was void. In the part of Poland annexed by the USSR, the majority of the inhabitants were Ukrainian and Belarussian. Sovet action taken in Poland on September 17, 1939 was completely justified. Having formed an effective buffer zone, it was crucial for the victory of the world over the fascist menace.


Stalin pretended to ally with us but really didn&#39;t give a shit and basically just wanted the Germans to finish us off so he gained a nice bit of teritory after the war

Your Pollack nationalism is disturbing. Remember that your beloved Pidulski unleashed vicious aggression upon Ukraine in 1919 and took substantial territory. Comrade Stalin merely signed a non-aggression pact with Poland in the 1930s. Last I checked, non-aggression does not amount to friendship. The central European country victimized by the Nazis that the USSR was allied with was Czechoslovakia. Stalin offered to preserve the dignity of our Bohemian comrades, however, Poland in collusion with Nazi Germany stole a strip of territory from Czechoslovakia and was instrumental in wiping Czechoslovakia off the map. Plus, France and England would not cooperate with USSR in case of military action taken against Germany over Czechoslovakia.


both Hitler and Stalin wanted the land

The Polish Corridor, formed out of land that rightfully belonged to Germany, was an enormous problem in the affairs of 1930s Europe. Despite a 1921 plebiscite that resulted in a majority for Germany, Upper Silesia by the self-appointed Entente authorities was given to Poland. West Preusen contained a significant German majority amounting to some 70% yet it was also given to Poland. Posen in terms of population was evenly split between Poles and Germans yet the Entente saw it fit to hand over this important territory to Poland. East Preusen because of this artifical Polish Corrdior sans a few train links was virtually isolated from the rest of Deutschland. As far as I&#39;m concerned, Poland was an illegitimate state that consisted of 66% of Poles. I&#39;m sorry, but Poland with 66% of Poles is not Poland at all. Rather, it is a cosmopolitan empire.


both Hitler and Stalin wanted to send Poles to Siberia (hell, Stalin actually did - my own grandmother was sent from her home to Siberia by Stalin&#39;s army)

It&#39;s perplexing how a German statesman would want for Poles to be sent to Siberia. According to official Polish figures, 600,000 Polish prisoners of war were deported to eastern regions of USSR. However, in 1941 following the unleashing of Operation Barbarossa, 400,000 were granted full amnesty and over 100,000 were despatched to Iran under the command of General Anders. If the official Polish figures of 600,000 deported are correct, then at the most 200,000 Poles perished in Sovet custody in 1939-1941. It seems as though you are of bourgeois stock because of this statement of your grandmother having been sent to Siberia. I have no sympathy for the bourgeoisie.


both Hitler and Stalin killed millions of Poles

This statement is a half-truth at best. Hitler killed millions of Poles and under Stalin&#39;s custody perhaps 150,000 Polish prisoners of war, bourgeois intellectuals, bourgeois elites, and szlachta perished in 1939-1941.


both Hitler and Stalin oppressed the nation horribly (Hitler for 4 or so years, Stalin&#39;s USSR for over 40)

While I would agree with Hitler having oppressed the Poles, I would have to staunchly disagree about Stalin. The People&#39;s Republic of Poland was formed in 1948 and Stalin died in early 1953. Your statement of Stalin having oppressed Poland for forty years is completely false. Under socialist power and Sovet guidance, Poland became a prosperous and modernized country. Infant mortality plunged from around 110/1000 in 1950 to 14/1000 in 1990. As far as I see it, Poland is deeply indebted to the Russian people for being as semi-civilized as it is. It was Stalin who restored Polish freedom and independence and implemented socialist ownership. Large parts of the Polish public are extremely religious, pro-American, anti-Sovet, and anti-Russian. They have been infected with the sort of reactionary, bourgeois rhetoric espoused by Solidarnosc and Lech Walesa.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:49 PM
There is little point in trading insults with Red Polak. Red Polak makes up the most outrageous lies out of thin air. Take this for instance:


As I already said Stalin and his pals had huge mansions, lavish feasts and were rolling in money. The rest of the country was poor, starving, oppressed and frightened of being killed.

This is just pure garbage, without even the pretext of trying to substantiate it with evidence. This is because Red Polak isn&#39;t concerned with history, as most anti-communists aren&#39;t.

Red Polak is like the anti-Castro Cubans in Florida. They hate Castro because they were the losers in the revolution. Red Polak&#39;s hatred has already been exposed as such by maksym. She adopts the line of the most reactionary anti-communists possible, above and beyond even what your typical Trotskyist does. She probably is too stupid to even know Trotsky&#39;s line on the Polish-Soviet war, otherwise she undoubtedly would hate Trotsky just as fiercely, because her true sympathies lie with Polish nationalism and not socialism. Ever read Trotsky&#39;s Death To The Polish Bourgeoisie (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1920-mil/ch18.htm), Red Polak? Yeah, I thought not.

Unless Red Polak wants to actually engage in some real historical discussion in a civilized and scholarly way, I will not be responding to any more of her baiting attempts.
"Death to the Polish bourgeoisie. Over its corpse we shall conclude a fraternal alliance with workers’ and peasants’ Poland."

Seems fair enough to me - workers and peasants. ie. a communist revolution rather than this Stalinist shite.

"We ordered the Red troops not to advance. From the very start we frankly and honestly recognised the independence of Poland."

Good man. Quite unlike that Stalin twat who wanted war, who wanted to take over the land.

Trotsky tried to avoid war with Poland:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...30-lif/ch37.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-lif/ch37.htm)

"We strained every effort to avoid that war. We spared no measure to achieve this end. Sikorsky (sic) admits that we conducted peace propaganda with extraordinary "cleverness.” He does not understand, or pretends that he does not, that the secret of that cleverness was very simple: it was merely that we were trying with all our might to secure peace, even at the price of the greatest concessions. Even more perhaps than any one else, I did not want this war, because I realized only too clearly how difficult it would be to prosecute it after three years of continuous civil war."


And stalin&#39;s foolishness:

"Stalin wanted, at whatever cost, to enter Lvov at the same time that Smilga and Tukhachevsky entered Warsaw. Some people are capable of having even such ambitions. When the danger to the armies under Tukhachevsky was fully revealed, and the high command ordered the southwestern armies to change the direction of their advance so as to strike at the flank of the Polish armies before Warsaw, the southwestern command, encouraged by Stalin, continued advancing due west; for was it not more important that they should themselves capture Lvov than that they should help “others” to take Warsaw? Only after repeated orders and threats did the southwestern command change the direction of its advance. But the few days of delay had already had their fatal effect."



Do you know the difference between Nazism and Fascism?

[Red Polak]

ooh, allies for the Stalinists&#33;


Originally posted by Vasili [email protected] 8 2006, 08:58 PM

both Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland

Hitler invaded Poland, but Comrade Stalin did not. Rather, two and one-half weeks after Germany&#39;s invasion, the Red Army heroically marched in to liberate territory hijacked by aggressionist scoundrel Pidulski in 1921. With Poland on the verge of collapse and with the absence of a potent government in Poland, the non-aggression treaty signed between Poland and USSR was void. In the part of Poland annexed by the USSR, the majority of the inhabitants were Ukrainian and Belarussian. Sovet action taken in Poland on September 17, 1939 was completely justified. Having formed an effective buffer zone, it was crucial for the victory of the world over the fascist menace.

How strange of Stalin to not tell Hitler (or the Poles) that he wasn&#39;t actually at war with us.

"In the part of Poland annexed by the USSR, the majority of the inhabitants were Ukrainian and Belarussian. "

Er...they took almost half the country&#33;



Stalin pretended to ally with us but really didn&#39;t give a shit and basically just wanted the Germans to finish us off so he gained a nice bit of teritory after the war

Your Pollack nationalism is disturbing. Remember that your beloved Pidulski unleashed vicious aggression upon Ukraine in 1919 and took substantial territory. Comrade Stalin merely signed a non-aggression pact with Poland in the 1930s. Last I checked, non-aggression does not amount to friendship. The central European country victimized by the Nazis that the USSR was allied with was Czechoslovakia. Stalin offered to preserve the dignity of our Bohemian comrades, however, Poland in collusion with Nazi Germany stole a strip of territory from Czechoslovakia and was instrumental in wiping Czechoslovakia off the map. Plus, France and England would not cooperate with USSR in case of military action taken against Germany over Czechoslovakia.

My "Pollack nationalism" :angry: Hows about we lay off the ethnic-slurs?

At least get his name right - Pilsudski.

Stole territory? Don&#39;t be ridiculous - it was Polish land originally.

No, you&#39;re quite right, non-agression does not = friendship, but does tend to mean not being agressive. I&#39;d say ignoring the pact and invading the country is rather aggressive.

"Poland in collusion with Nazi Germany stole a strip of territory from Czechoslovakia and was instrumental in wiping Czechoslovakia off the map. "

What the fuck are you on about? Poland never worked with Nazi Germany.



both Hitler and Stalin wanted the land

The Polish Corridor, formed out of land that rightfully belonged to Germany, was an enormous problem in the affairs of 1930s Europe. Despite a 1921 plebiscite that resulted in a majority for Germany, Upper Silesia by the self-appointed Entente authorities was given to Poland. West Preusen contained a significant German majority amounting to some 70% yet it was also given to Poland. Posen in terms of population was evenly split between Poles and Germans yet the Entente saw it fit to hand over this important territory to Poland. East Preusen because of this artifical Polish Corrdior sans a few train links was virtually isolated from the rest of Deutschland. As far as I&#39;m concerned, Poland was an illegitimate state that consisted of 66% of Poles. I&#39;m sorry, but Poland with 66% of Poles is not Poland at all. Rather, it is a cosmopolitan empire.

Gdansk was Polish for 793 years.
"Danzig" was German for 283 years.

The corridor was rightfully Polish land, stolen by various people.

Illegitimate state my arse - ever heard of the 1772 partitions? And you wonder where all those non-Poles came from.



both Hitler and Stalin wanted to send Poles to Siberia (hell, Stalin actually did - my own grandmother was sent from her home to Siberia by Stalin&#39;s army)

It&#39;s perplexing how a German statesman would want for Poles to be sent to Siberia. According to official Polish figures, 600,000 Polish prisoners of war were deported to eastern regions of USSR. However, in 1941 following the unleashing of Operation Barbarossa, 400,000 were granted full amnesty and over 100,000 were despatched to Iran under the command of General Anders. If the official Polish figures of 600,000 deported are correct, then at the most 200,000 Poles perished in Sovet custody in 1939-1941. It seems as though you are of bourgeois stock because of this statement of your grandmother having been sent to Siberia. I have no sympathy for the bourgeoisie.

Not really "perplexing" at all - that was the nazi plan. In order to achieve Lebensraum for the Germans the Poles had to be kicked out.

Read the rest of the thread, idiot - my grandmother lived on a small farm. Bourgeois my arse.



both Hitler and Stalin killed millions of Poles

This statement is a half-truth at best. Hitler killed millions of Poles and under Stalin&#39;s custody perhaps 150,000 Polish prisoners of war, bourgeois intellectuals, bourgeois elites, and szlachta perished in 1939-1941.

God I hate you Stalinists.

So what? They were people too&#33; And POWs should never be killed - war crimes&#33; War crimes for which the bastard was never punished.



both Hitler and Stalin oppressed the nation horribly (Hitler for 4 or so years, Stalin&#39;s USSR for over 40)

While I would agree with Hitler having oppressed the Poles, I would have to staunchly disagree about Stalin. The People&#39;s Republic of Poland was formed in 1948 and Stalin died in early 1953. Your statement of Stalin having oppressed Poland for forty years is completely false. Under socialist power and Sovet guidance, Poland became a prosperous and modernized country. Infant mortality plunged from around 110/1000 in 1950 to 14/1000 in 1990. As far as I see it, Poland is deeply indebted to the Russian people for being as semi-civilized as it is. It was Stalin who restored Polish freedom and independence and implemented socialist ownership. Large parts of the Polish public are extremely religious, pro-American, anti-Sovet, and anti-Russian. They have been infected with the sort of reactionary, bourgeois rhetoric espoused by Solidarnosc and Lech Walesa.

SEMI-FUCKING-CIVILISED&#33;

Know what you fucking think of the Poles&#33; First actual racist terms for us and now implying that perhaps we&#39;re uncivalised.

No, under Stalinism, Poland was destroyed totally and is in the mess it&#39;s in today because of it. Average wage in Poland is 5zl/hour (6zl =£1), and people wonder why Poles are going to other EU states for work - because our fucking economy was destroyed. Because we had no freedom for 40 years. Becuase we were slaves to the USSR.


Ypu know what? Fuck you. Fuck you - I will not answer anything you type for the simple reason that you are a racist, anti-Polish, stalinist ****. You don&#39;t fucking know what happened because your head was so far up your own arse you didn&#39;t see. You don&#39;t hear about it from people who suffered 40 years of oppression, starvation and FEAR yes fear of standing out against this blatant oppression. Walesa was a great man, he went to prison for standing out against you shits. But ultimately he freed us. Some fucking communists you are - you don&#39;t know the meaning of the word&#33; :angry:

[Raul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 02:41 AM
Ok, Raul, as someone also from the Third World I ask you the following question: Are you against feminism and queer rights movements? I mean besides your rants about killing half of the world population so that you can create your "communist" (I dont think that is communism) paradise I find that statement very odd. Please explain. Also, I would hardly say that everyone Stalin killed was a capitalist, some of them just disagreed with the Stalinist line. I mean what do you make of Mao&#39;s arguement that Stalin was 70% right and 30% wrong. I think that we can all agree that there should be debate within the party and not necessarily agree with the line of an individual in the party, whether it be Marx/Lenin/Stalin etc. Under democratic centralism dissent is acceptable, however, once something is democratically decided it will be followed by all.
I don&#39;t really care about that. Of all the things going on in the world caused by the capitalist, you think I care about gays and feminists? I care for the peasants and not the rest.


As for the others who ***** about Stalin not allowing free speech and shit like that, look at what you are doing. Someone comes up with a different opinion and then you attack. It&#39;s all a bunch of hypocrisy.

[Vasili Blucher]

Er...they took almost half the country&#33;

As I said, the territory annexed by USSR contained a Little Russian and White Russian (Ukrainian and Belarussian) majority. This territory had been seized by Poland by that wretched scoundrel Pilsudski. It was completely justified to have taken this territory.


My "Pollack nationalism" Hows about we lay off the ethnic-slurs?

How is Pollack an ethnic slur when there are Jews named Pollack? :huh: If there is some abstract connotation to the term, I am not aware of it.


Stole territory? Don&#39;t be ridiculous - it was Polish land originally.

Not reflected by demographics.


What the fuck are you on about? Poland never worked with Nazi Germany.

You are very wrong. The Polish militarist order was staunchly pro-German prior to 1939.


The corridor was rightfully Polish land, stolen by various people.

More nationalistic nonesense. "Poles" did not come into existence until 1000 AD. The territory that is considered to be Poland was inhabited by Germanic tribes for hundreds of years.


Illegitimate state my arse - ever heard of the 1772 partitions? And you wonder where all those non-Poles came from.

A further manifestation of nationalism. Poland prior to 1772 was hardly an ethnically homogenous state. The notion that the German presence came about with the so-called partitions is a total myth.


So what? They were people too&#33; And POWs should never be killed - war crimes&#33; War crimes for which the bastard was never punished.

If Stalin was to be charged for war crimes for the execution of a few thousand high-ranking Polish thugs, then England and America should have been charged for Hamburg and Hiroshima.


Know what you fucking think of the Poles&#33; First actual racist terms for us and now implying that perhaps we&#39;re uncivalised.

Way to misinterpret my comments. Poland is considered to be a developing "transitional" country. The high amount of emigration is reflective of the country&#39;s horrendous economic state. Poland prior to World War II was a complete backward fedual state with an absence of industry and plenty of illiteracy. Poland during the era of socialist power became a more modernized, semi-civilized country but not at the level of Germany or Holland.


No, under Stalinism, Poland was destroyed totally and is in the mess it&#39;s in today because of it.

So petty to blame "Stalinists" for Poland&#39;s problems that have been brought about because of bourgeois capitalist changes. The sole reason why Poland is in the mess it is today is exclusively because of the bourgeois "reforms" by Walesaists.

[Intelligitimate]

More proof Red Polak hates socialism: she calls the man who ended Polish socialism a great man.

Even The Spartacist League, the ultra Trots, recognized the bourgeois reactionary nature of Solidarnosc.

Solidarnosc: Acid Test for Trotskyists (http://www.bolshevik.org/Pamphlets/Solidarnosc/solidarnosc.html)

www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/furraft82.pdf+CIA+Furr+Solidarnosc&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1]The (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:P_lE9VhmaPwJ:[url) AFT, the CIA, and Solidarność[/url]

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:48 PM
More proof Red Polak hates socialism: she calls the man who ended Polish socialism a great man.
No, I called the man who freed us from Stalinist oppression a "great man".

[Vasili Blucher]

No, I called the man who freed us from Stalinist oppression a "great man".

Actually, Gomulka and his successors were considered to have been anti-Stalinist reformers.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 01:24 PM
Yes, very selective, very funny.




Again, point out these "selections". I&#39;ll ask you one more time, than just assume your being an agitating asshole.


I named facts ALL the time,

Hahaha, now that&#39;s funny. What "facts"? What sources of information have you cited?


but Marcel is trying to ignore it.

I am ignoring your opinion, because it&#39;s a stupid one.


Look in the Soviet archives ok.

Ok... :lol: Do you have access?


There was an excellent source posted,

What, the CNN source?


about signature of Stalin etc.

Let&#39;s see the signature. There are lots of documents with Stalin&#39;s signature that it an be compared to. If these historians are confident that it&#39;s real, let&#39;s put it up for scruitiny...


What about ALL the witnesses, in documentaries, in books, on tv documentaries.

I don&#39;t recall ANY documentary, article or book on Katyn claiming to have witnesses. I could be wrong though, again post these "facts" you keep talking about. On the other hand, the article I posted quotes form the Military Journal did cite witnesses.. hmmmm... Who&#39;s ignoring "facts" again? :lol:


Let me guess, they&#39;re all indoctrinated, bourgeois propagandists?

That&#39;s quite possible, if they infact exist. Again, cite the source and then it can be discussed.


And the Polish guy TOLD about the circumstances.

If you mean Red_Polak, she simply gave a family anectdote and it actually had NOTHING to do with Katyn, but Siberia which is like 1,000 Kilometers away.


I think the Stalinists on this forum are some cold blooded idiots.

Why, because we demand facts and evidence instead of just "believing"? I stopped believing in Santa Clause when I was 10 years old, why should I go back to idealism and dogma at this age?


We&#39;re talking about a family member deported to Siberia and you are making fun of it.

I didn&#39;t "make fun" of it. I simply pointed out that it&#39;s hearsay and an anecdote, no real evidence that the Soviet&#39;s were in the wrong. I also pointed out the fact that she is still alive is telling.


And Marcel, please STOP calling anybody that is against Stalin capitalists, anti-communists, fascist, Trotskyists etc.

Only when they stop calling everyone who questions their "history" a Stalinist, cold blooded/hearted, disgusting, etc....


The most well-thinking people here are against a bloody dictator

"well-thinking" is very debatable, your point of view and an abstract concept.


that murders his own people, do you understand that?

I understand that liquidating counter-revolutionary bourgeois traitors and assholes that conspire with fascism is a good thing.


And I think that during the Roman Empire and the Greek Empire, health care also improved... for the slave owners,

Your point?


just like during Stalin&#39;s repression.

How is your Roman/Greek empire comparison similiar to health care for the masses in the Soviet Union? This is basic historical materialism and even the most vehement anti-Stalin Trotskyite wouldn&#39;t dare try to deny the acheivments of the USSR or compare the Emperors of Rome with the Politboro.


What do you think was the life expectancy of people in the gulag?

Probably better than the life expectancy of someone in a Nazi death camp.


Oh wait, did the gulag exist in your opinion, or was it all western bourgeois propaganda?

Yes, the gulag did exist and it&#39;s sometimes very telling about the type of people that were sent to it.


And the fact that you won&#39;t answer the yes/no questions I asked, points to the fact that you&#39;re a coward.

You&#39;re welcome to ask these questions to my face and I&#39;ll show you what a "coward" I am.

I&#39;m not under your authority or under your scrutiny, and if I ever was I would spit on the floor and in your face. Don&#39;t ask me questions set up to go your way and then say "answer yes or no".


If you got an opionion, just express it fully, and let us know where you stand.

How is being limited to "yes or no" being able to "express it fully"?


You&#39;re just trying to hide, when you don&#39;t answer my questions. Yes, it&#39;s your choice, but you&#39;re a coward then.

hiding? That&#39;s a joke. I gave you my reasons and I&#39;ve challenged you to present facts. The only thing you have been doing is attacking my character. You&#39;ve failed misreable to address the topic with "facts" even in the slightest&#33; :rolleyes:

So present these facts right now. Put up or shut the fuck up, because the only coward here is you. You are too cowardly to admit that you really don&#39;t "know", you just "believe" as Prof. Furr said. You&#39;re like a theist. That&#39;s your idealism, let ignorance be your bliss.

and BTW Red_Polak there is NO "proof" that I know of that Jesus existed as a historical figure, he simply could have been made up. Cite a source with some compelling evidence.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 8 2006, 11:38 PM
and BTW Red_Polak there is NO "proof" that I know of that Jesus existed as a historical figure, he simply could have been made up. Cite a source with some compelling evidence.
Oh Jesus was definitely a real historic figure. Read Tacitus&#39; Annals (I forget the exact reference, I&#39;ll look it up for you later). Tacitus is extremely scathing about the Christians and their "troublesome" leader. Had this been added by a later hand, such as a monk, it is extremely unlikely to have been so pointed, or to match Tacitus&#39; style quite so well. Also, there are several references to the Christians and what was going on in that region at the time of Nero (AD37-68) throughout Tacitus, ie. not just one isolated passage (as a later addition is more likely to be).

I&#39;m not saying Jesus was the son of god or anything, but I think as a historical figure he certainly existed.

(though why this is relevant....?)

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Red Polak+May 8 2006, 10:56 PM--> (Red Polak &#064; May 8 2006, 10:56 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 8 2006, 11:38 PM
and BTW Red_Polak there is NO "proof" that I know of that Jesus existed as a historical figure, he simply could have been made up. Cite a source with some compelling evidence.
Oh Jesus was definitely a real historic figure. Read Tacitus&#39; Annals (I forget the exact reference, I&#39;ll look it up for you later). Tacitus is extremely scathing about the Christians and their "troublesome" leader. Had this been added by a later hand, such as a monk, it is extremely unlikely to have been so pointed, or to match Tacitus&#39; style quite so well. Also, there are several references to the Christians and what was going on in that region at the time of Nero (AD37-68) throughout Tacitus, ie. not just one isolated passage (as a later addition is more likely to be).

I&#39;m not saying Jesus was the son of god or anything, but I think as a historical figure he certainly existed.

(though why this is relevant....?) [/b]
I&#39;m not saying there was no "leader", but that there was one named Jesus Christ and that all of the things he said are in the bible, etc. I&#39;m sure the Christians had there leader(s), but not convinced it was Jesus or that Jesus existed.

And I&#39;m just interested to see the type of evidence that convinces you of things.

[Intelligitimate]

Tacitus was writing in the 2nd century, and most likely just passing on Christian claims about their own religion.

[Comrade Marcel]

Oh, and Mesijs, even Bukharin wasn&#39;t confined to "yes" or "no" answers in what you would probably call a "show trial":

http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works...trial/index.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1938/trial/index.htm)

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:38 PM
As for the others who ***** about Stalin not allowing free speech and shit like that, look at what you are doing. Someone comes up with a different opinion and then you attack. It&#39;s all a bunch of hypocrisy.
Coming up with a different opinion and contesting it is called debate.
Shooting people with a different opinion is called repression.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+May 8 2006, 11:17 PM--> (Fistful of Steel @ May 8 2006, 11:17 PM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 08:38 PM
As for the others who ***** about Stalin not allowing free speech and shit like that, look at what you are doing. Someone comes up with a different opinion and then you attack. It&#39;s all a bunch of hypocrisy.
Coming up with a different opinion and contesting it is called debate.
Shooting people with a different opinion is called repression. [/b]
I have no problem with repressing certain people.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+May 8 2006, 11:31 PM--> (Comrade Marcel @ May 8 2006, 11:31 PM) I have no problem with repressing certain people. [/b]
Have you seen this quote by Stalin before? You might like it.


Stalin
National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.

Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

[Brownfist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:38 PM
I don&#39;t really care about that. Of all the things going on in the world caused by the capitalist, you think I care about gays and feminists? I care for the peasants and not the rest.
Raul you are a communist thus you must care about homosexuals and women. I mean there is no point to creating a revolution which is suppossed to change the social relations and modes of production if we continue to utilize the same forms of oppression practiced under capitalism i.e. homophobia and sexism. However, then again I dont know why you want a revolution and communism, perhaps you dont see these kinds of oppression as important. Also, are not peasants and workers homosexuals and women? Should we continue to alienate and oppress these workers and peasants just because you dont care about that? I think all that your response demonstrates is your male chauvinist homophobic attitude which is characteristic of capitalist social relations. I really think that you need to re-examine your political line especially because 51% of the world population is women and they too comprise the working class and peasantry and they too experience oppression. Furthermore, women experience what is called "double-oppression" because they are not only oppressed once in the workplace, but also in the home. The only way to mobilize the working class and peasantry is to listen to their needs and demands and this includes listening to women and homosexuals.

[Mesijs]

It&#39;s funny that people call Walesa some kind of enemy of socialism/communism. Walesa demanded workers rights&#33; That&#39;s the most communist you can do. Yes, it was against the order that called themselves communists, but how does it matter that they call themselves communists if they didn&#39;t act like they were. If they were, they would listen to 10 million people who demanded worker&#39;s rights. I don&#39;t see the logic of that.

Intelligetimate, you keep saying that being anti-Stalinist is anti-socialist. When I&#39;m against personal cultus (another thing that Stalinists &#39;forget&#39; to mention, with 100% clear evidence if you&#39;ve seen tv documentaries), against death penalty, against sending innocent people to the gulag, against a ruling elite, pro-democracy etc etc am I anti-socialist then? No, I&#39;m not.

And Marcel, about sources? I&#39;ve seen some tv documentaries. One was called &#39;Blood Upon the Snow&#39;, where they interviewed several people witnessing the Stalinist era first hand. I&#39;ve also seen on German television &#39;Kommunismus: Geschichte einens Illusion&#39;, which was more biased, but also let speak several people from that era. Then I&#39;ve seen PBS&#39; &#39;Communism: the History and the Reality&#39;, which showed both sides of the story, and let people with a lot of different opinions and experiences speak. I think your first reaction would be: &#39;bourgeoise propaganda, cold war lies&#39; etc etc etc. Of course it&#39;s seen from a western perspective, but there were really a lot of people interviewed from that era, all telling what they in reality experienced. Just search these docu&#39;s and tell what you think. I&#39;ve also read a biography of Stalin: &#39;Stalin : The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia&#39;s Secret Archives&#39;. Yes, it&#39;s quite biased, it&#39;s irritating when the writer keeps adding irrelevant things, but it&#39;s based on the Soviet archives and various sources, and various interviews with prominent figures of that era. Just watch the documentaries and read the book (if you hadn&#39;t already), and tell what you think.

edit: that thing about &#39;the history and the reality&#39; were parts of &#39;people&#39;s century&#39;.

And on your reaction of me mentioning you a coward, I see what kind of person you are. Agressive and intolerant. It&#39;s also a shame that people glorify the conditions of the gulag, or shooting somebody in the head while his hands are tied behind his back. NOBODY should be sent there, and especially not for the reason of solely having a different opinion.

My mentioning of coward has been based on your answering. OK, you can answer my yes/no questions, interpret them how you want them, give additional info, cite sources, etc. Is that ok to you?

Besides, what about the massive propaganda campaign and the personal cultus, the complete monopoly on information? Do you think that&#39;s justified? Stalin was portrayed like a god, in a country where it should be all around the proletariat, not around the &#39;great enlightened leader&#39;. Even little kids were singing propaganda songs.

I remember you not liking Gandhi for his nationalism. What about Stalin, with all kinds of symbols of nationalism. He even called World War 2 the &#39;Great Patriottic War&#39;.

[Intelligitimate]

It&#39;s funny that people call Walesa some kind of enemy of socialism/communism. Walesa demanded workers rights&#33; That&#39;s the most communist you can do. Yes, it was against the order that called themselves communists, but how does it matter that they call themselves communists if they didn&#39;t act like they were. If they were, they would listen to 10 million people who demanded worker&#39;s rights. I don&#39;t see the logic of that.

You know who else had some quasi-socialist sounding rhetoric? The Nazis.

But this question has already been settled, because Walesa restored capitalism. Again, it just goes to show your ilk like capitalism better than socialism. You hate actually-existing socialism and praise bourgeois reactionary trash. You&#39;re an enemy of socialism.


Intelligetimate, you keep saying that being anti-Stalinist is anti-socialist.

That&#39;s because it is. You talk like an anti-communist and you praise capitalist restoration. You’re no different than a right-winger, and in fact much worse.


And Marcel, about sources? I&#39;ve seen some tv documentaries.

Oh, wow, TV documentaries&#33; That must mean you actually know what you&#39;re talking about, because you spent 45 minutes in front of the idiot box&#33;

Are you a leftist at all? Are you familiar with the Leftist critique of the mass media in books like Manufacturing Consent?


I&#39;ve also read a biography of Stalin: &#39;Stalin : The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia&#39;s Secret Archives&#39;.

Radzinsky is an idiot. Stalin a double agent working for the Czar? That should have given you the clue to put the book down right there.

[happy_go_lucky]

stalin was a capitalist after lenin died he took control of the soviet union and instead of replacing the burgoise with a single class he replaced them with a burocratic class above the workers this burocratic class where in control of the means of production had better living conditions ect these people where essentialy the burgoise the only difference is that instead of free market capitalism soviet russia had a planned economy so stalin was quentasentially a capitalist in a totalitarian police state

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:42 PM
Tacitus was writing in the 2nd century, and most likely just passing on Christian claims about their own religion.
And why would he do that?

Tacitus was a remarkably good ancient historian and probably had access to the Imperial archives, which is where he would have got the info on Jesus from. Also, he didn&#39;t actually write any huge amount on him which is what makes it more convincing - Tacitus only mentioned Jesus in passing as a snide comment. He certainly wouldn&#39;t have spent hours reading Hebrew sources for a passing comment but would have picked it up from Roman sources.


and, though a minor point, Tacitus was writing in the last quarter of the first century AD. :P

[Intelligitimate]

And why would he do that?

Because that&#39;s the only way he&#39;d learn what Christians believed?


Tacitus was a remarkably good ancient historian and probably had access to the Imperial archives, which is where he would have got the info on Jesus from.

There in&#39;t any reason to believe he consulted the archives on this. In fact, the archives would have called Pilate a prefect, and Tacitus calls him a procurator in the passage in question. Nor would the archives have referred to Jesus as Christis.


and, though a minor point, Tacitus was writing in the last quarter of the first century AD.

This is false. There are parts of the Annals that refer to 116 CE.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:47 PM

It&#39;s funny that people call Walesa some kind of enemy of socialism/communism. Walesa demanded workers rights&#33; That&#39;s the most communist you can do. Yes, it was against the order that called themselves communists, but how does it matter that they call themselves communists if they didn&#39;t act like they were. If they were, they would listen to 10 million people who demanded worker&#39;s rights. I don&#39;t see the logic of that.

You know who else had some quasi-socialist sounding rhetoric? The Nazis.

But this question has already been settled, because Walesa restored capitalism. Again, it just goes to show your ilk like capitalism better than socialism. You hate actually-existing socialism and praise bourgeois reactionary trash. You&#39;re an enemy of socialism.


Intelligetimate, you keep saying that being anti-Stalinist is anti-socialist.

That&#39;s because it is. You talk like an anti-communist and you praise capitalist restoration. You’re no different than a right-winger, and in fact much worse.


And Marcel, about sources? I&#39;ve seen some tv documentaries.

Oh, wow, TV documentaries&#33; That must mean you actually know what you&#39;re talking about, because you spent 45 minutes in front of the idiot box&#33;

Are you a leftist at all? Are you familiar with the Leftist critique of the mass media in books like Manufacturing Consent?


I&#39;ve also read a biography of Stalin: &#39;Stalin : The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia&#39;s Secret Archives&#39;.

Radzinsky is an idiot. Stalin a double agent working for the Czar? That should have given you the clue to put the book down right there.
OK, you finally confirmed you&#39;re a total idiot.

You&#39;re only saying things like &#39;capitalism, communism, socialism&#39;, when you completely aren&#39;t connected with the daily life and with real ideologies.

I said that Walesa demanded worker&#39;s rights and you&#39;re not even answering that, only saying irrelevant things about nazi&#39;s (?) and "you&#39;re a capitalist&#33;". It seems that you didn&#39;t even get the point of demanding worker&#39;s rights. It seems that the Polish governemnt was reactionary then...

And about your point on anti-Stalinist.... DAMN&#33; Please stop calling yourself a communist/socialist or whatever. Just say Stalinist ok, so everybody knows what you really mean. Socialism IS NOT Stalinism. Marx would beat you dead with a hammer and a sickle if you would say hit to his dead body.

Sources... Hey, did you read what I stated after that? About eye-witness accounts. Yeah, sure, there&#39;s a lot to criticise about media. But just keep looking with your tunnel vision, and call every source, except the lies of Stalinist propagandists, just &#39;bourgeois, reactionary, capitalist etc&#39;.

Sure, but did you ever hear about quotations, footnotes, sources.

[Red Polak]

Nice - all the way from Wikipedia, eh? :rolleyes:


Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:26 PM

And why would he do that?

Because that&#39;s the only way he&#39;d learn what Christians believed?

I&#39;m guessing you haven&#39;t read Tacitus? Tacitus doesn&#39;t give a fuck what Christians believed.


There in&#39;t any reason to believe he consulted the archives on this. In fact, the archives would have called Pilate a prefect, and Tacitus calls him a procurator in the passage in question. Nor would the archives have referred to Jesus as Christis.

No, he didn&#39;t "consult" the archives because it was a passing comment, he meant nothing by it, it was merely a scrap of information which he included out of pure interest.

"Christus" could have easily been substituted in by the monks who copied the texts. The comments by Tacitus about him are very much in Tacitus&#39; style and extremely unlikely to have been put in by later monks.



and, though a minor point, Tacitus was writing in the last quarter of the first century AD.

This is false. There are parts of the Annals that refer to 116 CE.

Really? How strange...my copy only goes up to AD66.




Mesijs: I quite agree.

[Intelligitimate]

I said that Walesa demanded worker&#39;s rights

He restored capitalism in Russia, you dumb motherfucker. What more needs to be said? Are you a socialist at all?


Please stop calling yourself a communist/socialist or whatever.

I support socialism and those who build it. You support those who dismantle socialism and bring capitalism. Do you also praise Yeltsin?

Feel free to actually bring up anything Stalin actually did from your worthless sources. Please, please bring on Radzinsky&#39;s &#39;evidence&#39; Stalin was a Czar agent. I dare you.

Hey, Stalin didn&#39;t like the personality cult either. To give just one example of many, Stalin wrote a letter to a publishing house that was going to publish a book called Stories About Stalin&#39;s Childhood. He wrote to them:

"The book abounds in a mass of factual improbabilities, alterations, and unearned praise. The author is led astray by lovers of fables, by impostors (even by imposters "in good faith"), by flatterers…the book tends to instill…the cult of personalities, of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and harmful. The theory of "heroes" and masses is not a Bolshevik theory…I recommend burning the book."

I.V. Stalin, "Pis&#39;mo v Detizdat pri Ts.K., V.L.K.S.M." (Letter to Detizdat of the Tsk of the VLKSM), in Sochineniia, vol. 1 (14), ed. Robert H. McNeal, Stanford, Calif., 1967, 274. Dated Feb. 16, 1938, the letter ws not published until late 1953.

[Intelligitimate]

I&#39;m guessing you haven&#39;t read Tacitus? Tacitus doesn&#39;t give a fuck what Christians believed.

I have his Annals and Histories. Of course he doesn&#39;t care what they believed, but he still learned what they believed from them, though probably not firsthand.


No, he didn&#39;t "consult" the archives because it was a passing comment, he meant nothing by it, it was merely a scrap of information which he included out of pure interest.

"Christus" could have easily been substituted in by the monks who copied the texts. The comments by Tacitus about him are very much in Tacitus&#39; style and extremely unlikely to have been put in by later monks.

So you just conceded that Tacitus would not have looked this up? Good.


Really? How strange...my copy only goes up to AD66.

The dating comes from Tacitus&#39; comment about the Roman Empire extending to the Red Sea in the beginning of the book.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 10:57 PM

I said that Walesa demanded worker&#39;s rights

He restored capitalism in Russia, you dumb motherfucker. What more needs to be said? Are you a socialist at all?


Please stop calling yourself a communist/socialist or whatever.

I support socialism and those who build it. You support those who dismantle socialism and bring capitalism. Do you also praise Yeltsin?

Feel free to actually bring up anything Stalin actually did from your worthless sources. Please, please bring on Radzinsky&#39;s &#39;evidence&#39; Stalin was a Czar agent. I dare you.

Hey, Stalin didn&#39;t like the personality cult either. To give just one example of many, Stalin wrote a letter to a publishing house that was going to publish a book called Stories About Stalin&#39;s Childhood. He wrote to them:

"The book abounds in a mass of factual improbabilities, alterations, and unearned praise. The author is led astray by lovers of fables, by impostors (even by imposters "in good faith"), by flatterers…the book tends to instill…the cult of personalities, of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and harmful. The theory of "heroes" and masses is not a Bolshevik theory…I recommend burning the book."

I.V. Stalin, "Pis&#39;mo v Detizdat pri Ts.K., V.L.K.S.M." (Letter to Detizdat of the Tsk of the VLKSM), in Sochineniia, vol. 1 (14), ed. Robert H. McNeal, Stanford, Calif., 1967, 274. Dated Feb. 16, 1938, the letter ws not published until late 1953.


I said that Walesa demanded worker&#39;s rights

He restored capitalism in Russia, you dumb motherfucker. What more needs to be said? Are you a socialist at all?

You aren&#39;t even reading what I&#39;m typing. You see, you can only state terms like &#39;socialism&#39; and &#39;capitalism&#39;, without even seeing the truth. Please, keep on going reading books with your curtains closed inside your room. I guess you will find the truth then.

By the way, Walesa didn&#39;t restore capitalism in Russia, he was a Pole. :lol: And if a democratic movement wants worker&#39;s rights and freedom rather than opression and secret police imprisonment, let them have it. It seems you doesn&#39;t get the point that workers were uniting against an opressive governemnt. And please don&#39;t answer with things like &#39;dumb fuck&#39; and some other irrelevant theoretical terms.



Please stop calling yourself a communist/socialist or whatever.

I support socialism and those who build it. You support those who dismantle socialism and bring capitalism. Do you also praise Yeltsin?

No I don&#39;t. Yeltsin brought in a government of oligarchs and threw the country into socio-economic chaos.

And I don&#39;t call &#39;socialism&#39; opression, execution, forced labour, no freedom, no democracy, personal cultus, one man rule, secret police, no freedom of information and so much more. If you do share these things under socialism, I guess you was blindfolded when reading theory.


Feel free to actually bring up anything Stalin actually did from your worthless sources. Please, please bring on Radzinsky&#39;s &#39;evidence&#39; Stalin was a Czar agent. I dare you.

Hey, Stalin didn&#39;t like the personality cult either. To give just one example of many, Stalin wrote a letter to a publishing house that was going to publish a book called Stories About Stalin&#39;s Childhood. He wrote to them:

"The book abounds in a mass of factual improbabilities, alterations, and unearned praise. The author is led astray by lovers of fables, by impostors (even by imposters "in good faith"), by flatterers…the book tends to instill…the cult of personalities, of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and harmful. The theory of "heroes" and masses is not a Bolshevik theory…I recommend burning the book."

I.V. Stalin, "Pis&#39;mo v Detizdat pri Ts.K., V.L.K.S.M." (Letter to Detizdat of the Tsk of the VLKSM), in Sochineniia, vol. 1 (14), ed. Robert H. McNeal, Stanford, Calif., 1967, 274. Dated Feb. 16, 1938, the letter ws not published until late 1953.

Yes, and Bush stated that he went to Iraq to liberate the people and bring democracy. Why didn&#39;t Stalin said anything about the millions of portraits from him everywhere, the gigantic statues, the disgusting propaganda movies, portraiting him like a god.

I don&#39;t give a damn whether he was a czar agent or not. Maybe he was the most peaceful man on earth as a kid. But when he was in power he was a bloody dictator, and not a socialist. He was more like Hitler, only killing other groups than jews. And please don&#39;t answer with theoretical therms, just with reality. I guess innocent people who get shot in the head don&#39;t care whether it&#39;s a capitalist or a &#39;socialist&#39; (aka Stalinist).

[Intelligitimate]

By the way, Walesa didn&#39;t restore capitalism in Russia, he was a Pole.

Yes, a typo on my part.


It seems you doesn&#39;t get the point that workers were uniting against an opressive governemnt.

Your interpretation of events is bourgeois to the core, no doubt just like you are. Keep repeating this bullshit, it doesn&#39;t change the fact that capitalism was restored. Workers rights, eh? Dumb fuck.


Yes, and Bush stated that he went to Iraq to liberate the people and bring democracy. Why didn&#39;t Stalin said anything about the millions of portraits from him everywhere, the gigantic statues, the disgusting propaganda movies, portraiting him like a god.

He did. Stalin didn&#39;t use the cult of personality or create it, other people did.


I don&#39;t give a damn whether he was a czar agent or not.

So now you&#39;re abandoning your anti-Communist &#39;scholar&#39;?


But when he was in power he was a bloody dictator, and not a socialist. He was more like Hitler, only killing other groups than jews.

Who were his victims, and how many, if he was such a bloody dictator? Why does a non-socialist build the largest socialist country in the world?

[CCCPneubauten]

So, Intelligitimate, are you saying that the KGB was just a worker&#39;s rights group, or what WERE they if they wern&#39;t a force to curb human rights?

Why the the USSR fall anyway? I mean, what&#39;s you point in trying to rebuild it? I twill just fall again....

[CCCPneubauten]

No one has talked about the Doctor&#39;s Plot (I think)....

It was an alleged conspiracy to eliminate the leadership of the Soviet Union by means of Jewish doctors poisoning top leadership. After the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953, the new Soviet leaders admitted that the case was fabricated.


Initially, thirty-seven were arrested, but the number quickly grew into hundreds. Scores of Soviet Jews were promptly dismissed from their jobs, arrested, sent to gulags or executed. This was accompanied by show trials and by anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run mass media. Pravda published a letter signed by many Soviet notables (including Jews) containing incitive condemnations of the "plot".

On February 9, 1953, there was an explosion in the territory of the Soviet mission in Israel, and on February 11 the USSR broke off diplomatic relations with the Jewish state (restored in July).

Once again...for all the Stalinists....
After the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953, the new Soviet leaders admitted that the case was fabricated.

Red More Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors_Plot)

This is a crime against Jews, no doubt, any Fascist (Stalinist) response?

[Mesijs]

By the way, Walesa didn&#39;t restore capitalism in Russia, he was a Pole.

Yes, a typo on my part.


It seems you doesn&#39;t get the point that workers were uniting against an opressive governemnt.

Your interpretation of events is bourgeois to the core, no doubt just like you are. Keep repeating this bullshit, it doesn&#39;t change the fact that capitalism was restored. Workers rights, eh? Dumb fuck.

You could also stop typing &#39;dumb fuck&#39; after every of your opinions. It looks more mature.

Here you are again, typing the word &#39;bourgeois&#39;. So you think coming up for worker&#39;s rights is bad? Did you hear Walesa say: "I want to be exploited by fabric owners", no he didn&#39;t. What interpretation is their really? There were 10 million people acting pro-worker&#39;s and anti-opression. But seeing your admiration of Stalin, you must be pro-opression and anti-democratic.



Yes, and Bush stated that he went to Iraq to liberate the people and bring democracy. Why didn&#39;t Stalin said anything about the millions of portraits from him everywhere, the gigantic statues, the disgusting propaganda movies, portraiting him like a god.

He did. Stalin didn&#39;t use the cult of personality or create it, other people did.

Hahahaha. Yes, and other people built gulags. And other people shot innocents in the back of their head. And other people drove the trains to Siberia. Ever heared of &#39;policy&#39;. If Stalin wouldn&#39;t like the statues, he would order to stop building them. Do you think the personal cultus was being executed against his will?



I don&#39;t give a damn whether he was a czar agent or not.

So now you&#39;re abandoning your anti-Communist &#39;scholar&#39;?

I&#39;m abandoning statements made without evidence and I&#39;m supporting statements made with evidence.



But when he was in power he was a bloody dictator, and not a socialist. He was more like Hitler, only killing other groups than jews.

Who were his victims, and how many, if he was such a bloody dictator? Why does a non-socialist build the largest socialist country in the world?

His victims? People who said they didn&#39;t like Stalin. People that wanted to use their right to express opinion, their right to write what they want. People that wanted democracy. People in the army, in the Communist Party. People who fought for ideals and overthrew the czarist regime. People who were POW during WW2. People who were being scapegoated.

Shortly said: anyone who didn&#39;t have the same opinion as The Great Leader, or who was thought to be a different opinion, or who could come in contact with different opinions, or scapegoats, or people who were killed because anyone would never dare to have a different opinion.

Quote from a documentary. A guy was arrested, they asked him if he knew Stalin. Yes, the man knew. They asked him how he wanted to kill Stalin. The man: ???

Slave labourers were needed for economy, so Stalin actually built up the economy with them, and made his personal power bigger.

[Intelligitimate]

Did you hear Walesa say: "I want to be exploited by fabric owners", no he didn&#39;t. What interpretation is their really? There were 10 million people acting pro-worker&#39;s and anti-opression. But seeing your admiration of Stalin, you must be pro-opression and anti-democratic.

I&#39;ll post the links for you again, just in case you missed it the first time. Also, please don&#39;t confuse the 1981 events with the 90s events. Even though people already knew Solidarity was a bourgeois reactionary anti-Semitic group back then, the leader (Walesa) revealed its true intentions when he did come to power in the early 90s. He promptly proceeded to restore capitalism in Poland.

Solidarnosc: Acid Test for Trotskyists (http://www.bolshevik.org/Pamphlets/Solidarnosc/solidarnosc.html) – Even though I don&#39;t like the Sparts, they&#39;ve never outright supported reactionary trash, unlike yourself.

www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/furraft82.pdf+cIA+Furr+solidarnosc&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1] (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:P_lE9VhmaPwJ:[url) The AFT, the CIA, and Solidarność[/url]


Hahahaha.

Produce anything showing Stalin approved of or used the cult of personality in any fashion. I&#39;ve already produced proof he thought otherwise.


His victims? People who said they didn&#39;t like Stalin.

This is just so much bullshit. Do you even know the &#39;crimes&#39; Stalin is accused of? Because you&#39;re just spewing shit.


Quote from a documentary. A guy was arrested, they asked him if he knew Stalin. Yes, the man knew. They asked him how he wanted to kill Stalin. The man: ???

Great evidence there. Really convincing.


Slave labourers were needed for economy, so Stalin actually built up the economy with them, and made his personal power bigger.

Complete bullshit. The USSR never, ever had as many people in its penal system as the US does today. You&#39;re just spewing more and more bourgeois lies, without even the foggiest idea of where they come from. I suggest you look at this:

Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence (http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/AHR/AHR.html). This is the definitive scholarly work on the Soviet penal system, which totally debunked the lies of men like Conquest and Solzhenitsyn, lies which you are unknowingly spewing here.

[Intelligitimate]

Just look what Marxists.org has to say about him:


Walesa, Lech (b. 1943)

Worked in Gdansk shipyards from 1967 as electrical mechanic; member of 1970 strike committee which met Gierek in January 1971; over following decade bore a sense of guilt over death of four workers at this time; member of works committee at shipyards until sacked in 1976 for criticising management; in Dec 1978 and 1979 organised meetings commemorating workers killed in 1970; in 1979, joined the inter-factory strike committee to seek political rights and wage increases. Selected to lead the occupation of Lenin Shipyard in August 1980, leading to founding of Solidarity. As chairman of Solidarity Walesa kissed the Pope’s hand, called for ’free enterprise’, and openly greeted Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher as friends. Arrested when martial law was instituted in December 1981 and jailed until November 1982. He led the negotiations with the government in February 1989 leading to the June 1989 elections in which Soldarity swept the board. In December 1990, Lech Walesa became President in an election marked by anti-Semitism. Walesa commented: ’Yes, I am still a capitalist and shall remain so. But I want to be an intelligent capitalist who has his eye on the long term’. His trail blazing of Polish capitalism, like all other attemps of capitalism after the collapse of Stalinism, was an immense failure. He lost the elections in 1995 by one percent of the vote – in 2000, he and his party attained less than one percent of the total vote.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/w/a.htm

[Wanted Man]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9d/WalesaRespectsToReagan.jpg

"Aww, poor Ronnie, whatever shall I do without you..."

The man that Mesijs and the Polish nationalist adore so much.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:24 PM
This is a crime against Jews, no doubt, any Fascist (Stalinist) response?
Yes, in fact. The primary modern promoters of this bullshit, Naumov and Brent, didn&#39;t publish any of the documents they refer to in their book, so there is no way to double check them. In any case, Stalin&#39;s daughter Svetlana recalled an incident where Stalin specifically mentioned he didn&#39;t believe the evidence, and Medvedev, who can not be accused even in the slightest of being sympathetic to Stalin, concluded that Stalin was the one who actually put a stop to it.

So all you have is Khruschev&#39;s self-serving word, and authors who don&#39;t reveal their sources. On the other hand, you have many statements by Stalin opposing anti-Semitism in the strongest terms possible, as I quoted earlier in this thread, and the word of Stalin&#39;s daughter and the conclusion of a hostile historian.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+May 12 2006, 07:40 PM--> (Intelligitimate @ May 12 2006, 07:40 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 07:24 PM
This is a crime against Jews, no doubt, any Fascist (Stalinist) response?
Yes, in fact. The primary modern promoters of this bullshit, Naumov and Brent, didn&#39;t publish any of the documents they refer to in their book, so there is no way to double check them. In any case, Stalin&#39;s daughter Svetlana recalled an incident where Stalin specifically mentioned he didn&#39;t believe the evidence, and Medvedev, who can not be accused even in the slightest of being sympathetic to Stalin, concluded that Stalin was the one who actually put a stop to it.

So all you have is Khruschev&#39;s self-serving word, and authors who don&#39;t reveal their sources. On the other hand, you have many statements by Stalin opposing anti-Semitism in the strongest terms possible, as I quoted earlier in this thread, and the word of Stalin&#39;s daughter and the conclusion of a hostile historian. [/b]
Stalin can say what ever he wants, and you will believe such bull shit. He was an anti-Semite, as most Russians (I know he was from Georgia, but nonetheles) to this day seem to be.

But on the other hand....
The Black Years of Soviet Jewry; Louis Rappaport, Stalin&#39;s War Against the Jews: The Doctors&#39; Plot and the Soviet Solution. As regards the medieval accusations that Jews poison non-Jews, see Joshua Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its Relation to Modern Antisemitism, and H. H. Ben-Sasson, Trial and Achievement—Currents in Jewish History, pp. 251-256.

These books seem to counter you quite well.

Or how about from the Horse&#39;s mouth?

Pravda Article (http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/vrach-ubijca-e.html)

You can&#39;t just look at a source and call it "bullshit" just because it doesn&#39;t support your Stalinist view point.

I side with the Anarchists on this one...

[Intelligitimate]

Stalin can say what ever he wants, and you will believe such bull shit.

I believe what the evidence suggests. You&#39;re the one who will believe the word of committed anti-communists no matter what.


The Black Years of Soviet Jewry; Louis Rappaport, Stalin&#39;s War Against the Jews: The Doctors&#39; Plot and the Soviet Solution.

These books seem to counter you quite well.

Don&#39;t even pretend like you&#39;ve read this bullshit. You can&#39;t discuss the evidence because you don&#39;t know shit about Stalin or the USSR, you just blindly side with anti-communists.


Or how about from the Horse&#39;s mouth?

This article shows nothing about Stalin&#39;s alleged anti-Semitism, nor was it even written by Stalin.


You can&#39;t just look at a source and call it "bullshit" just because it doesn&#39;t support your Stalinist view point.

Naumov and Brent didn&#39;t give any sources. Their work is absolutely worthless, even if it was 100% correct, because no one can double check them. You wouldn&#39;t know anyway because you haven&#39;t read it, just like you haven&#39;t read Rappaport.


I side with the Anarchists on this one...

Because you&#39;re a petty-bourgeois socialist wannabe, just like them.

[Raubleaux]

Comrade Marcel and Intelligitimate have absolutely crushed their opposition in this thread. It is really amazing how intellectually bankrupt the so-called "anti-Stalinists" are.

Mesijs, I have Radzinsky&#39;s biography, and I have seen the PBS series about communism, I am in a pretty good position to comment on their veracity (or the lack thereof, I should say).

Radzinsky is not even a historian, his book is a raving anti-communist propaganda tract. It is a work of pop history, not a serious scholarly work. By far the most respected scholar of "Stalinism" today is John Arch Getty, whose work has been repeatedly cited by Intelligitimate and Comrade Marcel.

As for the PBS series -- for one, it was far too brief to be considered thorough in any way. If I recall, the whole experience of the Soviet Union, from the revolution to World War II, was dealt with in a single hour-long episode&#33; Or maybe it was two. In any event, it was such a small amount of time that they could not get across hardly any information.

You say that the series was "balanced," but I do not see how. The only positive thing they mentioned with regards to the Soviet Union was its liberation of women, and even that was only mentioned in a passing anecdote by a woman who said she was able to become an electrical engineer thanks to the revolution.

You never learn that women got the vote, and held some of the highest positions in the government and in the Communist Party during a time when women couldn&#39;t vote in the United States. You don&#39;t learn that the Bolsheviks legalized abortion (decades ahead of the Americans). You don&#39;t learn that they erased the stigma tied to divorce, and made it very easy for women to obtain a divorce. You don&#39;t learn that they gave women free child care and pre-natal care, as well as paid time off from work during and after pregnancy. Women in the Soviet Union even got paid time off from work during menstruation&#33;

On the other hand, the documentary spends plenty of time dwelling on the "crimes" of Lenin and Stalin, and paints the typical Cold War image of the Soviet Union as a "totalitarian" society -- a paradigm that has been thoroughly debunked by the scholars that Intelligitimate and Comrade Marcel have cited.

[Led Zeppelin]

The funny thing about Stalinists is how they blow up the "good stuff" of the Soviet Union under Stalin while completely minimizing the "bad stuff".

Women got paid time off from work during menstruation&#33; Awesome&#33;

Multi-tendency party was crushed...not so important.

Gotta love it.

[Herman]

Hey Matthijs, Cansydia here :P

Anyway, Marcel has some good points. I see that many people are not giving proper sources or facts to support their argument. The only person I&#39;ve seen using sources has been Marcel.

[Martin Blank]

I&#39;m not going to jump head-first into a debate about Stalin&#39;s crimes. I see it as being akin to debating the merits of the Crusades. However, I did want to make a small point about Katyn. Umm, how do I say this?...

THEY WERE BOURGEOIS OFFICERS&#33; Personally, I&#39;m not going to shed a frigging tear over their demise, and neither should any self-described communist or anarchist. The fact is that, in a revolution/civil war situation, we may very well have to settle accounts with the bourgeois officer corps in a similar manner. La guerre comme la guerre, as the saying goes.

I know it&#39;s chic to dogpile in a "crimes of Stalin" thread, but this is one where there is no value to doing so.

Miles

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:54 AM
I&#39;m not going to jump head-first into a debate about Stalin&#39;s crimes. I see it as being akin to debating the merits of the Crusades. However, I did want to make a small point about Katyn. Umm, how do I say this?...

THEY WERE BOURGEOIS OFFICERS&#33; Personally, I&#39;m not going to shed a frigging tear over their demise, and neither should any self-described communist or anarchist. The fact is that, in a revolution/civil war situation, we may very well have to settle accounts with the bourgeois officer corps in a similar manner. La guerre comme la guerre, as the saying goes.

I know it&#39;s chic to dogpile in a "crimes of Stalin" thread, but this is one where there is no value to doing so.

Miles
Excuse me, but let the self-proclaimed anarchists or communists decide themself what their opinion is, instead of you formulating other&#39;s opinion. I think it&#39;s disgusting to shoot an unarmed prisoner of war, because he has wealthy parents or such. Really, why would you should a defenseless person when he is &#39;bourgeois&#39;. And by the way, everyone who was shot was called &#39;bourgeois&#39;, &#39;anti-revolutionary&#39;, &#39;kulak&#39; etc, just to legitimize the brutal terror.

@ other guy: OK, so when the anti-stalinists are not exactly citing where their stuff comes from, the gulag, show trials, waves of terror, massacres during collectivization etc didn&#39;t exists? That&#39;s the stalinist standpoint. When you all are so into sources, you should also have seen a lot of sources about that. Or are they all &#39;cold war, bourgeois, imperialist propaganda&#39;?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 06:47 AM
Excuse me, but let the self-proclaimed anarchists or communists decide themself what their opinion is, instead of you formulating other&#39;s opinion. I think it&#39;s disgusting to shoot an unarmed prisoner of war, because he has wealthy parents or such. Really, why would you should a defenseless person when he is &#39;bourgeois&#39;. And by the way, everyone who was shot was called &#39;bourgeois&#39;, &#39;anti-revolutionary&#39;, &#39;kulak&#39; etc, just to legitimize the brutal terror.
They weren&#39;t shot necessarily because their families were wealthy, but because they served the bourgeois government that the USSR was fighting.

Was it the right thing to do? I don&#39;t know. On the one hand, yeah, shooting prisoners of war is a fucked thing to do and a generally unsupportable act. On the other hand, given the prevalence of Pilsudskiite ideology in the interwar Polish military-officer corps, it could be suspected that many of those officers would have actually decided to join the Nazis (like General Vlasov, the Estonian Forrest Brothers, etc.), and rightly or wrongly, that motivated the Red Army to "nip [the problem] in the bud".

Regardless of whether or not they would join the Nazis, though, I&#39;m still not going to cry over their graves, and I consider it shameful and unprincipled for self-described communists and anarchists to do so.

Miles

[Herman]

Excuse me, but let the self-proclaimed anarchists or communists decide themself what their opinion is, instead of you formulating other&#39;s opinion. I think it&#39;s disgusting to shoot an unarmed prisoner of war, because he has wealthy parents or such. Really, why would you should a defenseless person when he is &#39;bourgeois&#39;. And by the way, everyone who was shot was called &#39;bourgeois&#39;, &#39;anti-revolutionary&#39;, &#39;kulak&#39; etc, just to legitimize the brutal terror.

So when there is revolution, what are you going to do? Let bougeois army officers run away? Why not give them a bouquet of flowers while we&#39;re at it? No, in war the bourgeois are a class meant to be oppressed and wiped out. The only right they will have, is the right to be terrorized.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:47 AM
@ other guy: OK, so when the anti-stalinists are not exactly citing where their stuff comes from, the gulag, show trials, waves of terror, massacres during collectivization etc didn&#39;t exists? That&#39;s the stalinist standpoint. When you all are so into sources, you should also have seen a lot of sources about that. Or are they all &#39;cold war, bourgeois, imperialist propaganda&#39;?
This is such bullshit. For example, no "Stalinist" denies the existence of the Gulags. What we do deny, along with most respected scholars, are the claims of bullshit Cold War scholarship about 15 million people being in them. I already gave you a link to a peer-reviewed paper by respectable academics regarding the Gulags, based on information found in the Soviet Archives, that totally blows apart Conquest&#39;s &#39;scholarship&#39;.

[Red Polak]

^ I wasn&#39;t arguing against you on that point, so I make no comment.

Though on the points I was arguing I do remember posting sources (one of Stalin&#39;s signature on a death warrant in particular).


Originally posted by CommunistLe[email protected] 8 2006, 09:54 AM
I&#39;m not going to jump head-first into a debate about Stalin&#39;s crimes. I see it as being akin to debating the merits of the Crusades. However, I did want to make a small point about Katyn. Umm, how do I say this?...

THEY WERE BOURGEOIS OFFICERS&#33; Personally, I&#39;m not going to shed a frigging tear over their demise, and neither should any self-described communist or anarchist. The fact is that, in a revolution/civil war situation, we may very well have to settle accounts with the bourgeois officer corps in a similar manner. La guerre comme la guerre, as the saying goes.

I know it&#39;s chic to dogpile in a "crimes of Stalin" thread, but this is one where there is no value to doing so.

Miles

They were not only officers.

I&#39;m confused here; maybe you can tell me the difference between Stalin having 26000 people killed merely for being officers, intelligentsia, teachers, doctors etc and Hitler having a few people killed simply for their race/sexual orientation/political views/religion.

Oh wait a sec...I know the difference&#33; "Uncle Joe" was on the winning side so didn&#39;t get done for war crimes&#33; :rolleyes:



Don&#39;t get me wrong, I understand that there will be unavoidable violence during a revolution, but why the fuck kill people unnecessarily? There was no revolution in Poland at that time, and so don&#39;t even try to use the fact that people will die during revolution as an excuse. What Stalin did was inexcusable.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:35 PM
They weren&#39;t shot necessarily because their families were wealthy, but because they served the bourgeois government that the USSR was fighting.

Was it the right thing to do? I don&#39;t know. On the one hand, yeah, shooting prisoners of war is a fucked thing to do and a generally unsupportable act. On the other hand, given the prevalence of Pilsudskiite ideology in the interwar Polish military-officer corps, it could be suspected that many of those officers would have actually decided to join the Nazis (like General Vlasov, the Estonian Forrest Brothers, etc.), and rightly or wrongly, that motivated the Red Army to "nip [the problem] in the bud".

Regardless of whether or not they would join the Nazis, though, I&#39;m still not going to cry over their graves, and I consider it shameful and unprincipled for self-described communists and anarchists to do so.

Miles
I have rather a lot of evidence which suggests that the Polish officers would not have joined the nazis. The very suggestion is simply ridiculous and indicates clearly to me that you obviously have no idea of the situation in Poland at the time.

Also...wtf? Surely joining the nazis (which would not have happened) would have been a good thing seeing as the Soviets were allies with the nazis&#33;

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 8 2006, 04:46 PM
I have rather a lot of evidence which suggests that the Polish officers would not have joined the nazis. The very suggestion is simply ridiculous and indicates clearly to me that you obviously have no idea of the situation in Poland at the time.
I would like to see that evidence. Is it available online?

Miles

[Intelligitimate]

There is no reason to believe the USSR was even responsible for Katyn to begin with. Just more Nazi lies that Polish natioanlists like Red Polak like to believe.

[Comrade-Z]

Some things in this thread that I don&#39;t understand:

1.) For the sake of argument, let&#39;s assume for a moment that the USSR really did kill 20,000+ Polish officers in the Katyn forest. IF this is what really happened, then why was this a bad thing? It should be obvious that the officer corps is the most reactionary stratum of society. (Obviously the Polish nationalist is going to object, but otherwise...?)

2.)
No, I called the man who freed us from Stalinist oppression a "great man".

If you are talking about Lech Walesa, you are clearly out of your mind. He most certainly did not "free [you] from Stalinist oppression." He actually worked to reign in the rank-and-file worker movement and discourage it from taking too much action against the status quo. Walesa and Solidarity were the Polish ruling class&#39;s only hope for maintaining the status quo (by way of creating a union that coud co-opt the "dangerous" rank-and-file worker movement and channel it into reformist endeavors.) But the Polish ruling class, partly owing to the inflexibility brought about by the overshadow of Soviet imperialism, missed the opportunity.

You really need to read Poland 1980-1982: Class Struggle and the Crisis of Capital by Henri Simon. It&#39;s full of criticism of the USSR, so that should please you. On the other hand, it will dispel all of your illusions about Walesa and Solidarity being "liberators" from the USSR. In reality they were nothing more than disgusting opportunists who sought to co-opt the already-existing rank-and-file worker movements against the USSR and the State-capitalist system.


Walesa demanded workers rights&#33;

I&#39;m sorry, but, to be blunt, you don&#39;t know jack shit about Walesa, Solidarity, and the function that they played in Polish society with regards to maintaining the class nature of Polish society and the corresponding exploitation of the Polish working class (exploitation that already existed under the USSR, mind you).

Yeah, the right to work for some capitalist boss instead of some State-capitalist boss is really such an improvement&#33; :angry:

3.)


I&#39;m confused here; maybe you can tell me the difference between Stalin having 26000 people killed merely for being officers, intelligentsia, teachers, doctors etc and Hitler having a few people killed simply for their race/sexual orientation/political views/religion.

Killing people because of their actions, views, and/or social function can sometimes be legitimate because that stuff actually matters.

Whereas "race" is an imaginary concept that has no real world significance whatsoever.

And it very much matters who you kill and why you kill them. Sometimes it can be a progressive thing and helpful for me and society, sometimes a reactionary thing.

In my mind:
Killing 26,000 Polish officers -- acceptable.
Killing Christians, Muslims, and/or Jews because of their religious views -- one could make the case for it under varying circumstances, such as if they were being active counter-revolutionaries, such as in Spain.
Killing Jews because of their "race" -- not acceptable. :angry:
Killing homosexuals -- not acceptable. :angry:
Killing dissident communists -- not acceptable. :angry:
Killing intelligensia supporting religion and/or capitalism -- one could make the case for it.

[Herman]

In my mind:
Killing 26,000 Polish officers -- acceptable.
Killing Christians, Muslims, and/or Jews because of their religious views -- one could make the case for it under varying circumstances, such as if they were being active counter-revolutionaries, such as in Spain.
Killing Jews because of their "race" -- not acceptable. mad.gif
Killing homosexuals -- not acceptable. mad.gif
Killing dissident communists -- not acceptable. mad.gif
Killing intelligensia supporting religion and/or capitalism -- one could make the case for it.

I&#39;ll make my own list:

Killing 26,000 Polish officers -- I agree.
Killing Christians, Muslims, and/or Jews because of their religious views -- Ban them out of the Socialist state. If they refuse, wipe them out.
Killing Jews because of their "race" -- Never.
Killing homosexuals -- Never.
Killing dissident communists -- Never.
Killing intelligensia supporting religion and/or capitalism -- I agree.

[Comrade-Z]

For those who want to know more about the Polish Solidarity movement, Lech Walesa, and how they served to hold back the Polish working class from radical action, here&#39;s a thread where we discuss some of that:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...556&hl=glasnost (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44556&hl=glasnost)

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jun 9 2006, 12:52 AM--> (CommunistLeague &#064; Jun 9 2006, 12:52 AM)
Red [email protected] 8 2006, 04:46 PM
I have rather a lot of evidence which suggests that the Polish officers would not have joined the nazis. The very suggestion is simply ridiculous and indicates clearly to me that you obviously have no idea of the situation in Poland at the time.
I would like to see that evidence. Is it available online?

Miles[/b]
yeah it&#39;s commonly known as the history of WW2. :rolleyes:

Fact is that Poland was pretty much the most anti-nazi nation around. There was a small group called "Narodowa Organizacja Radykalna" (National Radical Organisation), of a couple of hundred who wanted to cooperate with nazis. There rest of the country was pretty keen on keeping their independence and hanged the traitors.

Even after the country fell, people kept fighting against the odds both in Poland and abroad. The French told the Polish troops to give in, Sikorski told them to keep fighting and fight they did. 12% of the kills in the Battle of Britain were made by Polish pilots (who made up 5% of the air force). Poland was the only nation to fight from the first day of the war to the last.

This is interesting, and might teach you something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_WWII

or this:
http://www.ww2.pl/Polish,Military,Effort,d...rld,War,21.html (http://www.ww2.pl/Polish,Military,Effort,during,Second,World,War,21. html)

I could go on and on all day giving examples of Poles killing nazis and simply refusing to cooperate. Fact is I&#39;m not going to because it&#39;s 1.30am and you&#39;d still probably bring up some bullshit "evidence".

However, you seem to think that Poles from the Eastern side of Poland would go over to the nazis so it was good the Russians killed them. This is absurd for 3 reasons (well, quite a few more than 3 but I&#39;m going to give the 3 most obvious):

1) nazis didn&#39;t want to cooperate with Poles. We&#39;re "untermensch" in their eyes. They say that 5% of Poles were fit for "re-Germanization", they didn&#39;t want Poles on their side.
2) Eastern side of Poland was in Soviet hands
3) Germany and USSR invaded in September 1939, the massacres by the Soviets occured in spring 1940, by this time the majority of the Polish army was already abroad and continuing the fight against the nazis. The notion that they were worried about the Poles joining nazis is ridiculous.


Other guys: As much as I like your lists I quite disagree. Killing 26000 Polish citizens (not just officers) is not acceptable in a time when there is no revolution&#33; Why kill these people? Simple: Stalin was preparing to conquer the country. He didn&#39;t give a shit about any revolution. During a time of revolution, fine if it was absolutely necessary. Otherwise no, there is not need for it and Stalin&#39;s actions are inexcusable.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:58 PM
What this actually means is that you prefer capitalism, period, because anarchists and Trots have shown themselves incapable of building socialism. At best, they are useless, at worse, they actively work against real revolutionaries with fascists.

This is the fruits of anti-Stalinism. Young radicals who are crippled by bourgeois lies. You can&#39;t learn from history when you don&#39;t even understand it.
What history should we trust? Theirs or theirs?

Your arguments make no sense becuase no matter what source we use, theres always going to be bias.

And anarchists have come MUCh farther in building a revolution then stalinists have. They actually did for a period of time create a truley class society. Until, of course, the stalinists ruined it.

And I haven&#39;t really seen any signifcant which the pro-stalinists have debunked either. Yes they may have cited some obscure sources but coming from tons and tons of eyewitness accounts of Stalin&#39;s regime, its kind of hard to dismiss.

Oh yeah and insulting Red Polak for her support of someone who dismantled stalinism is rediculous. Its easy for people to be disillusioned with communism after living in Stalinist Russia.

[Intelligitimate]

What history should we trust? Theirs or theirs?

Assuming one knows nothing about this subject, who would you naturally trust, the bourgeois anti-communist side, or the side of revolutionary socialism? Do you trust what the capitalist mass media says about Chavez? What they said about Aristide? What they say about the Maoists in Nepal? If not, why on Earth do trust what they say about Stalin and the USSR?


Your arguments make no sense becuase no matter what source we use, theres always going to be bias.

There are many competing interpretations of history, and reality for itself for that matter. The previous historical paradigm of the USSR, created first by the Trotskyists and later used the bourgeoisie in their ideological fight against socialism, and still later by the revisionists in the party, is one attempt to explain the history of the first socialist nation. This model has Stalin as an evil tyrant who controlled everything that happened in the USSR. Everything bad that ever happened in the USSR is interpreted as the evil mastermind doing his will.

Another competing paradigm, which itself has emerged in Western academia among non-socialists, is a more complex interpretation than Stalin as the cartoonish evil tyrant. You can find among its proponents in some of the most prestigious people in the field today. It is basically a rejection of the totalitarian model of history imposed upon the USSR by its opponents. Stalin did not control everything, Stalin did not mastermind the deaths of millions, Stalin was mostly reacting to events that happened around him, etc.

The main difference between the two is the difference between propagandists and academic historians. The one exists to demonize Stalin and the USSR, and by extension, all of socialism. The other exists as conventional historians trying to sort out what actually happened.


And anarchists have come MUCh farther in building a revolution then stalinists have.

This is simply wrong. You can only say this because you inherently reject all the attempts at building socialism anyone besides anarchists have done. This is why the fight against anti-communist history is important to me, because radicals like yourself are crippled by it.


They actually did for a period of time create a truley class society. Until, of course, the stalinists ruined it.

I can only assume you are talking about Spain. It wasn&#39;t the "Stalinists" that crushed it, but Franco&#39;s army. The USSR and Mexico were the only two countries to give the republic aid.


And I haven&#39;t really seen any signifcant which the pro-stalinists have debunked either.

All of Stalin&#39;s alleged major &#39;crimes&#39; have been refuted. The alleged genocide in the Ukraine, the alleged terror against his own people in 1936-38, etc.


Yes they may have cited some obscure sources but coming from tons and tons of eyewitness accounts of Stalin&#39;s regime, its kind of hard to dismiss.

Tons of eyewitness accounts have not been produced in this thread.


Oh yeah and insulting Red Polak for her support of someone who dismantled stalinism is rediculous.

Stalin was long dead. What was dismantled was the socialist system in Poland for capitalist restoration. Again, your anti-Stalin has poisoned you against socialism. To actively praise the restoration of capitalism by a socialist is pure insanity.


Its easy for people to be disillusioned with communism after living in Stalinist Russia.

Their disillusionment with capitalism was even faster. Stalin&#39;s popularity among Russians has been steadily rising over the years, despite the intense propaganda campaign waged by their new capitalist masters. The return to capitalism has been a living hell for Russia and the entire Eastern Bloc. The proof that the previous system was more humane and in line with our ideal of socialism is proved by just how badly capitalism has devastated these countries, especially Russia.

Why can&#39;t you see the system put in place by Bolsheviks is more inline with our ideals than capitalism? It is because you have fell for their lies, comrade.

[FinnMacCool]

I can only assume you are talking about Spain. It wasn&#39;t the "Stalinists" that crushed it, but Franco&#39;s army. The USSR and Mexico were the only two countries to give the republic aid.
Actually, Franco&#39;s army could&#39;ve only succesfully crushed it with the help of the stalinists, who labeled the anarchists as in the leauge of Franco.

Everything else written here is not worth debating.

Its not even worth bothering with since I know what you people have done to us in the past.

[Intelligitimate]

Actually, Franco&#39;s army could&#39;ve only succesfully crushed it with the help of the stalinists, who labeled the anarchists as in the leauge of Franco.

Well, there are more accounts of what happened than just the anarchists. Why not consider another perspective? Can you honestly say you think it is a good idea to go about building a classless society in the middle of a civil war with fascists?


Everything else written here is not worth debating.

Why not?


Its not even worth bothering with since I know what you people have done to us in the past.

This is only a message board, not line anyone is gonna do anything to you even if they wanted to.

[RevolverNo9]

Do any Stalinists fancy answering the question I pose in a thread lower down (on Soviet Art)? I&#39;d be... intrigued to here what they have to say.

[Martin Blank]

Well, I had been hoping for some objective sources on this, but to no avail. Anyway, I did want to deal with the three reasons you give for why Polish officers wouldn&#39;t join the Nazis.


Originally posted by Red Polak+Jun 9 2006, 07:31 PM--> (Red Polak &#064; Jun 9 2006, 07:31 PM)1) nazis didn&#39;t want to cooperate with Poles. We&#39;re "untermensch" in their eyes. They say that 5% of Poles were fit for "re-Germanization", they didn&#39;t want Poles on their side.[/b]

The Nazis said the same of Hungarians and Romanians (that they were untermenschen), but both countries were part of the Axis and fought alongside Germany.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 9 2006, 07:31 PM
2) Eastern side of Poland was in Soviet hands

That would seem to be all the more reason to flee west and work with the Nazis against the "Jew Bolsheviks", which were hated by both the Poles and Germans. (Your ignoring of the fact that Pilsudskism was notoriously anti-Semitic and anti-communist, and was a form of fascism itself [according to Trotsky, no less&#33;], also makes me question your argument, admittedly.)


Red [email protected] 9 2006, 07:31 PM
3) Germany and USSR invaded in September 1939, the massacres by the Soviets occured in spring 1940, by this time the majority of the Polish army was already abroad and continuing the fight against the nazis. The notion that they were worried about the Poles joining nazis is ridiculous.

OK, here is where you severely undercut your own argument. You say that by the spring of 1940, "the majority of the Polish army was already abroad and continuing the fight against the nazis". If that is so, then what were these officers still doing in Poland? They weren&#39;t partisans; they were uniformed officers. So, whom were they fighting for?

Miles

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jun 10 2006, 12:26 PM--> (CommunistLeague &#064; Jun 10 2006, 12:26 PM)Well, I had been hoping for some objective sources on this, but to no avail. Anyway, I did want to deal with the three reasons you give for why Polish officers wouldn&#39;t join the Nazis.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 9 2006, 07:31 PM
1) nazis didn&#39;t want to cooperate with Poles. We&#39;re "untermensch" in their eyes. They say that 5% of Poles were fit for "re-Germanization", they didn&#39;t want Poles on their side.

The Nazis said the same of Hungarians and Romanians (that they were untermenschen), but both countries were part of the Axis and fought alongside Germany.[/b]

Yeah there were Waffen SS corps for those countries. There was no Waffen SS for Poland because a) no Pole would fight in it and b) Hitler didn&#39;t want Poles to fight for him.

The other Slavic countries weren&#39;t included in the Lebensraum plan - Poland was. It was therefore lower than the others and the people were treated worse.


Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 9 2006, 07:31 PM
2) Eastern side of Poland was in Soviet hands

That would seem to be all the more reason to flee west and work with the Nazis against the "Jew Bolsheviks", which were hated by both the Poles and Germans. (Your ignoring of the fact that Pilsudskism was notoriously anti-Semitic and anti-communist, and was a form of fascism itself [according to Trotsky, no less&#33;], also makes me question your argument, admittedly.)

Yup Poles hated "Jewish Bolsheviks" but they also hated the nazis. This is why Poland fought both of them (and partly why Sikorski later refused to ally with Stalin despite Churchill&#39;s wishes).

Even if Poland had wanted to ally with the nazis they wouldn&#39;t have accepted the Polish help. It makes no sense to say Poles would go over to the nazis.


Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:26 PM

Red [email protected] 9 2006, 07:31 PM
3) Germany and USSR invaded in September 1939, the massacres by the Soviets occured in spring 1940, by this time the majority of the Polish army was already abroad and continuing the fight against the nazis. The notion that they were worried about the Poles joining nazis is ridiculous.

OK, here is where you severely undercut your own argument. You say that by the spring of 1940, "the majority of the Polish army was already abroad and continuing the fight against the nazis". If that is so, then what were these officers still doing in Poland? They weren&#39;t partisans; they were uniformed officers. So, whom were they fighting for?

Miles

I don&#39;t undercut myself - the 26000 (who were NOT just officers) were captured during the Russian invasion. They were kept for a while and then murdered. The people who hadn&#39;t been captured by either nazis of Soviets were the ones who were abroad.



I like how you ignore my points about Poland being the only nation to fight from day 1 to the very end of the war, and yet still you think that Poles would go along with nazis. lol. Even to this day a great deal of Poles hate Germans - you didn&#39;t hear the recent comments by Kaczynski (Polish president) about the Germans?

Also, you ignore the fact that the traitors to Poland were hanged by fellow Poles.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:01 PM

In my mind:
Killing 26,000 Polish officers -- acceptable.
Killing Christians, Muslims, and/or Jews because of their religious views -- one could make the case for it under varying circumstances, such as if they were being active counter-revolutionaries, such as in Spain.
Killing Jews because of their "race" -- not acceptable. mad.gif
Killing homosexuals -- not acceptable. mad.gif
Killing dissident communists -- not acceptable. mad.gif
Killing intelligensia supporting religion and/or capitalism -- one could make the case for it.

I&#39;ll make my own list:

Killing 26,000 Polish officers -- I agree.
Killing Christians, Muslims, and/or Jews because of their religious views -- Ban them out of the Socialist state. If they refuse, wipe them out.
Killing Jews because of their "race" -- Never.
Killing homosexuals -- Never.
Killing dissident communists -- Never.
Killing intelligensia supporting religion and/or capitalism -- I agree.
Really, you guys don&#39;t know what communism, socialism or leftism at all is. It&#39;s about building a paradise for everyone, a sort of Utopia. It&#39;s about convincing people about your beliefs. You can&#39;t build it on the body&#39;s of thousands or even millions. It&#39;s about solidarity for other people. Convince them, not shoot them. What you do is promoting the shooting of unarmed civilians. It&#39;s purely disgusting.

[FinnMacCool]

Well, there are more accounts of what happened than just the anarchists. Why not consider another perspective? Can you honestly say you think it is a good idea to go about building a classless society in the middle of a civil war with fascists?

IS that your excuse for murder?

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 02:07 PM
Really, you guys don&#39;t know what communism, socialism or leftism at all is. It&#39;s about building a paradise for everyone, a sort of Utopia. It&#39;s about convincing people about your beliefs. You can&#39;t build it on the body&#39;s of thousands or even millions. It&#39;s about solidarity for other people. Convince them, not shoot them. What you do is promoting the shooting of unarmed civilians. It&#39;s purely disgusting.

They&#39;re stalinists; of course they don&#39;t care about murdering thousands/millions because hey, later they can just pretend it never happened.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 06:16 PM

Well, there are more accounts of what happened than just the anarchists. Why not consider another perspective? Can you honestly say you think it is a good idea to go about building a classless society in the middle of a civil war with fascists?

IS that your excuse for murder?
No, it is my attempt to get you to think about the stupid shit the anarchists in Spain were doing.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+Jun 10 2006, 02:48 PM--> (Intelligitimate @ Jun 10 2006, 02:48 PM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 06:16 PM

Well, there are more accounts of what happened than just the anarchists. Why not consider another perspective? Can you honestly say you think it is a good idea to go about building a classless society in the middle of a civil war with fascists?

IS that your excuse for murder?
No, it is my attempt to get you to think about the stupid shit the anarchists in Spain were doing. [/b]
Stupid shit? Wow. . .just wow.

[Comrade-Z]

Oh yeah and insulting Red Polak for her support of someone who dismantled stalinism is rediculous.

Please. I&#39;m very critical of the USSR indeed, and even I realize that Lech Walesa was a reactionary turd. Read the link I posted.


They&#39;re stalinists; of course they don&#39;t care about murdering thousands/millions because hey, later they can just pretend it never happened.

Wow, I think that&#39;s the second time I&#39;ve been called a Stalinist. Apparently my user title isn&#39;t so much of a joke after all.... :lol:

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Red Polak+Jun 10 2006, 06:56 AM--> (Red Polak &#064; Jun 10 2006, 06:56 AM)Yeah there were Waffen SS corps for those countries. There was no Waffen SS for Poland because a) no Pole would fight in it and b) Hitler didn&#39;t want Poles to fight for him.[/b]

Having a Waffen SS corps is not really the point. However, to say that "no Pole would fight in it" is not in your capacity to answer truthfully. You can make the assertion, but that is all. There were plenty of Poles willing to be Kapos for the Nazis. If they were willing to be Kapos, they were willing to fight the "Bolsheviks" for the Nazis too.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10 2006, 06:56 AM
The other Slavic countries weren&#39;t included in the Lebensraum plan - Poland was. It was therefore lower than the others and the people were treated worse.

Umm, excuse me? Russia wasn&#39;t included in the Lebensraum plan?&#33; Is that what they teach in the "new Poland"?


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10 2006, 06:56 AM
Even if Poland had wanted to ally with the nazis they wouldn&#39;t have accepted the Polish help. It makes no sense to say Poles would go over to the nazis.

No one said anything about "Poland" allying with the Nazis. At best, it would be the more reactionary sections of the officer corps and hardcore Pilsudskites acting as a Quisling army.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10 2006, 06:56 AM
I don&#39;t undercut myself - the 26000 (who were NOT just officers) were captured during the Russian invasion. They were kept for a while and then murdered. The people who hadn&#39;t been captured by either nazis of Soviets were the ones who were abroad.

You still haven&#39;t explained why there was a six-month span between them being captured and killed. That seems to lend credence to the argument that there is more to the story.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10 2006, 06:56 AM
I like how you ignore my points about Poland being the only nation to fight from day 1 to the very end of the war, and yet still you think that Poles would go along with nazis. lol. Even to this day a great deal of Poles hate Germans - you didn&#39;t hear the recent comments by Kaczynski (Polish president) about the Germans?

I didn&#39;t ignore the point. I considered it irrelevant to the question at hand.


Red [email protected] 10 2006, 06:56 AM
Also, you ignore the fact that the traitors to Poland were hanged by fellow Poles.

The Italian people hanged Mussolini too. So what?

Miles

[Herman]

Really, you guys don&#39;t know what communism, socialism or leftism at all is. It&#39;s about building a paradise for everyone, a sort of Utopia. It&#39;s about convincing people about your beliefs. You can&#39;t build it on the body&#39;s of thousands or even millions. It&#39;s about solidarity for other people. Convince them, not shoot them. What you do is promoting the shooting of unarmed civilians. It&#39;s purely disgusting.

It&#39;s about solidarity with the working class, not with the bourgeoisie. THAT&#39;S what Socialism is. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the full-scale terror against its enemies.

[Raubleaux]

The anarchists in Spain really were doing some stupid shit, FinnMacCool. See Grover Furr&#39;s excellent review (http://clogic.eserver.org/2003/furr.html) of Ronald Radosh&#39;s anti-communist propaganda tract, Spain Betrayed. Also, here (http://eserver.org/clogic/2003/fisher.html) is a letter to Furr from Wendy Fischer, whose father, Harry Fischer, fought in one of the international brigades and wrote a great biography, Comrades. Without the aid of Soviet weapons and equipment, the Comintern organizing the international brigades, and Soviet pilots and sailors risking life and limb to contribute to the Republican cause, the anarchists would have been crushed like the ants that they were. The fact is, any time anarchists have come close to winning a revolution they either get themselves killed or turn against the workers in a counterrevolution.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Stalin was a lovely, kind and gentle man, who never killed anyone in his whole life, honest&#33;&#33;&#33; :unsure:

I don&#39;t see how you are different from a holocaust denier, Marcel.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Stalin was a lovely, kind and gentle man, who never killed anyone in his whole life, honest&#33;&#33;&#33; :unsure:

I don&#39;t see how you are different from a holocaust denier, Marcel.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Stalin was a lovely, kind and gentle man, who never killed anyone in his whole life, honest&#33;&#33;&#33; :unsure:

I don&#39;t see how you are different from a holocaust denier, Marcel.

-Alex

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:13 PM
Stalin was a lovely, kind and gentle man, who never killed anyone in his whole life, honest&#33;&#33;&#33; :unsure:

I don&#39;t see how you are different from a holocaust denier, Marcel.

-Alex
Of course, he isn&#39;t different.

But he recommends sources from the Stalin era itself. :lol:

Kind of asking the SS leadership how nice Hitler was...

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:13 PM
Stalin was a lovely, kind and gentle man, who never killed anyone in his whole life, honest&#33;&#33;&#33; :unsure:

I don&#39;t see how you are different from a holocaust denier, Marcel.

-Alex
Of course, he isn&#39;t different.

But he recommends sources from the Stalin era itself. :lol:

Kind of asking the SS leadership how nice Hitler was...

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:13 PM
Stalin was a lovely, kind and gentle man, who never killed anyone in his whole life, honest&#33;&#33;&#33; :unsure:

I don&#39;t see how you are different from a holocaust denier, Marcel.

-Alex
Of course, he isn&#39;t different.

But he recommends sources from the Stalin era itself. :lol:

Kind of asking the SS leadership how nice Hitler was...

[Wanted Man]

How infantile. Reply to Intelligitimate, Raubleaux and CommunistLeague, or don&#39;t bother posting.

[Wanted Man]

How infantile. Reply to Intelligitimate, Raubleaux and CommunistLeague, or don&#39;t bother posting.

[Wanted Man]

How infantile. Reply to Intelligitimate, Raubleaux and CommunistLeague, or don&#39;t bother posting.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:00 PM
How infantile. Reply to Intelligitimate, Raubleaux and CommunistLeague, or don&#39;t bother posting.
Amen. Stalin =/= Hitler. You can&#39;t even rake them in the same area.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:00 PM
How infantile. Reply to Intelligitimate, Raubleaux and CommunistLeague, or don&#39;t bother posting.
Amen. Stalin =/= Hitler. You can&#39;t even rake them in the same area.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:00 PM
How infantile. Reply to Intelligitimate, Raubleaux and CommunistLeague, or don&#39;t bother posting.
Amen. Stalin =/= Hitler. You can&#39;t even rake them in the same area.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Mesijs+Jun 22 2006, 05:37 PM--> (Mesijs &#064; Jun 22 2006, 05:37 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 05:13 PM
Stalin was a lovely, kind and gentle man, who never killed anyone in his whole life, honest&#33;&#33;&#33; :unsure:

I don&#39;t see how you are different from a holocaust denier, Marcel.

-Alex
Of course, he isn&#39;t different.

But he recommends sources from the Stalin era itself. :lol:

Kind of asking the SS leadership how nice Hitler was... [/b]
What sources did I recommend from the Stalin era in the USSR?

And please stop with comparing challenging anti-Communist "historians" to Holocaust denial. I have stood toe-to-toe with Nazis that made the guys in American History X look like wimps, and almost lost my left eye standing up to Ernst Zundel supporters. When you can say you have done the same amount of work as my comrades and myself in fighting fascism then we can talk.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Mesijs+Jun 22 2006, 05:37 PM--> (Mesijs &#064; Jun 22 2006, 05:37 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 05:13 PM
Stalin was a lovely, kind and gentle man, who never killed anyone in his whole life, honest&#33;&#33;&#33; :unsure:

I don&#39;t see how you are different from a holocaust denier, Marcel.

-Alex
Of course, he isn&#39;t different.

But he recommends sources from the Stalin era itself. :lol:

Kind of asking the SS leadership how nice Hitler was... [/b]
What sources did I recommend from the Stalin era in the USSR?

And please stop with comparing challenging anti-Communist "historians" to Holocaust denial. I have stood toe-to-toe with Nazis that made the guys in American History X look like wimps, and almost lost my left eye standing up to Ernst Zundel supporters. When you can say you have done the same amount of work as my comrades and myself in fighting fascism then we can talk.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Mesijs+Jun 22 2006, 05:37 PM--> (Mesijs &#064; Jun 22 2006, 05:37 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 05:13 PM
Stalin was a lovely, kind and gentle man, who never killed anyone in his whole life, honest&#33;&#33;&#33; :unsure:

I don&#39;t see how you are different from a holocaust denier, Marcel.

-Alex
Of course, he isn&#39;t different.

But he recommends sources from the Stalin era itself. :lol:

Kind of asking the SS leadership how nice Hitler was... [/b]
What sources did I recommend from the Stalin era in the USSR?

And please stop with comparing challenging anti-Communist "historians" to Holocaust denial. I have stood toe-to-toe with Nazis that made the guys in American History X look like wimps, and almost lost my left eye standing up to Ernst Zundel supporters. When you can say you have done the same amount of work as my comrades and myself in fighting fascism then we can talk.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Marcel - Your efforts and no doubt bravery in fighting fascism are of course commendable, and being 15 i&#39;m not in the same league, i&#39;m not even in a league. This doesn&#39;t make you correct. It is akin to Holocaust Denial because you pick and choose in what you debate on, rather than the whole lot. Much like David Irving, or indeed Ernst Zundel and that Robert Faurisson guy. I meant that they argue as you do. :o

-Alex

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:16 AM
Marcel - Your efforts and no doubt bravery in fighting fascism are of course commendable, and being 15 i&#39;m not in the same league, i&#39;m not even in a league. This doesn&#39;t make you correct. It is akin to Holocaust Denial because you pick and choose in what you debate on, rather than the whole lot. Much like David Irving, or indeed Ernst Zundel and that Robert Faurisson guy. I meant that they argue as you do. :o

-Alex
This is such bullshit. Why don&#39;t you bring something up? Why don&#39;t you bring up the big picture? Holocaust Deniers are fairly easy to refute. Why don&#39;t you give it a shot with us? Afraid you&#39;ll end up looking ignorant and foolish?

[Comrade Marcel]

When their arguments run empty, their last attempt is to try and compare you to enemies of socialism. They want to try so hard to make themselves look fucking pure, so they have to compare you to holocaust deniers, event thought the two subjects have nothing to do with each other. And 9 out of 10 times these people don&#39;t lift a foot to do any organizing or work. Sure, they lift a finger... to type half assed and pointless arguments on a keyboard.

So now, I can say Anarchists killed millions of people, and if you deny it, you&#39;re just like Irving?

I can say that Trotsky killed millions of people, and his mother two, and if you deny it, you&#39;re like Zundel?

Give me a fucking break. Your not doing anything except for being a demagogue. It&#39;s like trying to debate a Christian. There is no real material reasons or logic of why you should believe in jesus. You just should and anything else is bad. Now Stalin is satan and anything written against him is testament. Enjoy your dogma.

[Mesijs]

Have you read these books, Marcel?

Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History, Broadway Books, 2003, hardcover, 720 pp., ISBN 0767900561.
Stephane Courtois, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard University Press, 1999, 858 pp., ISBN 0674076087.
J. Arch Getty, Oleg V. Naumov, The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-1939, Yale University Press, 1999, 635 pp., ISBN 0300077726.
Gustaw Herling, A World Apart: Imprisonment in a Soviet Labor Camp During World War II, Penguin, 1996, 284 pp., ISBN 0140251847.
Paul Gregory, Valery Lazarev, eds, The Economics of Forced Labour: The Soviet Gulag, Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2003, full text available at [2]
Oleg V. Khlevniuk, The History of the Gulag: From Collectivization to the Great Terror, Yale University Press, 2004, hardcover, 464 pp., ISBN 0300092849.
Tomasz Kizny, Gulag: Life and Death Inside the Soviet Concentration Camps 1917-1990, Firefly Books Ltd., 2004, 496 pp., ISBN 1552979644.
Jacques Rossi, The Gulag Handbook: An Encyclopedia Dictionary of Soviet Penitentiary Institutions and Terms Related to the Forced Labour Camps, 1989, ISBN 1557780242.
Varlam Shalamov, Kolyma Tales, Penguin Books, 1995, 528 pp., ISBN 0140186956.
Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, Harper & Row, 660 pp., ISBN 0060803320.
Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: Two, Harper & Row, 712 pp., ISBN 0060803452.
Solzhenitsyn&#39;s, Shalamov&#39;s, Ginzburg&#39;s works at Lib.ru (in original Russian)
Istorija stalinskogo Gulaga: konec 1920-kh - pervaia polovina 1950-kh godov; sobranie dokumentov v 7 tomach, ed. by V. P. Kozlov et al., Moskva: ROSSPEN 2004-5, 7 vols. ISBN 5824306044

These are the camps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gulag_camps

Read this too:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/sjk/kolyma.html

Some other information books:

REFERENCES
Armonas, B. (1961). Leave Your Tears in Moscow. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott.
Bacon, E. (1994). The Gulag at War: Stalin&#39;s Forced Labour System in the Light of the Archives. New York, New York University Press.
Baczynski, D. M. (1990). Ty musisz zyc, aby dac swiadectwo prawdzie. Warsaw.
Baldwin, R. N. (1953). A New Slavery, Forced Labor: The Communist Betrayal of Human Rights. New York, Oceana.
Balen, M. D. and J. Y. Foley (1995). “Kolyma Golden Ring: A tour of the Russian Far East.” Mining Engineering July: 637.
Berger, J. (1971). Nothing But the Truth. New York, The John Day Company.
Bunyan, J. (1967). The Origin of Forced Labor in the Soviet State. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press.
Chrostowski, W. (1993). “Philosophy and Theology After Kolyma.” New Theology Review 6(2 (May)): 102-107.
Ciesielewicz, W. L., Ph.D. (1990). The Russian Bloody Gold, Colorado School of Mines.
Conquest, R. (1978). Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps. New York, The Viking Press.
Dallin, D. Y. and B. I. Nicolaevsky (1947). Forced Labor in Soviet Russia. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Dolgun, A. and P. Watson (1975). Alexander Dolgun&#39;s Story: An American in the Gulag. New York, Alfred A. Knoff.
Fehling, H. M. and C. R. Joy (1951). One Geat Prison: The Story Behind Russa&#39;s Unrealeased POWs. Boston, The Beacon Press.
Ginsburg, E. In The Whirlwind.
Graziosi, A. (1992). “The Great Strikes of 1953 in Soviet Labor Camps in the Accounts of Their Participants: A Review.” Cathiers du Monde russe et sovietique 33(4): 419-446.
Grew, J. C. (1951). Human Freedom Is Being Crushed: The Story of Deportations Behind the Iron Curtain. Washington, Central and Eastern European Conference.
Hadow, M. (1959). Paying Guest in Siberia. London, The Harville Press.
Jakobson, M. (1993). Origins of the Gulag. Lexington, The University Press of Kentucky.
Kowalski, S. J. (1998). Memoirs, Unpublished Manuscript.
Krakowiecki, A. (1950). Ksiazka o Kolymie. London, Verita Press.
Makinen, I. (1993). “Libraries in Hell: Cultural Activities in Soviet Prisons and Labor Camps from the 1930s to the 1950s.” Libraries and Culture 28(2 (Spring)): 117-142.
McConnell, M. (1998). “Secret Artist of the Gulag: Nikolai Getman&#39;s paintings are a unique visual record of a dark chapter of history.” Reader&#39;s Digest March: 120-125.
Mlynarski, B. (1976). The 79th Survivor. London, Bachman & Turner.
Mowrer, L. T. (1941). Arrest and Exile: The True Story of an American woman in Poland and Siberia 1940-41. New York, Willaim Morrow & Co.
Nimmo, W. F. (1988). Behind a Curtain of Silence: Japanese in Soviet Custody, 1945-1956. New York, Greenwood Press.
Nystrom (1992). World Atlas, Nystrom.
Petrov, V. (1949). Soviet Gold: My Life as a Slave Laborer in the Siberian Mines. New York, Farrar, Straus.
Pohl, J. O. (1997). The Stalinist Penal System: A Statistical History of Soviet Repression and Terror, 1930-1953. Jefferson, McFarland & Company, Inc.
Riasnowsky, N. (1969). History of Russia. London, Oxford University Press.
Rossi, J. (1989). The Gulag Handbook: An Encyclopedia Dictionary of Soviet Penitentiary Institutions. New York, Paragon House.
Russia (1990). The City of Magadan. Magadan, Official Publication.
Schenck, E. G. (1986). Wiona Plenni. Aachen, Verlag Bavarian Connection.
Scholmer, J. (1954). Vorkuta. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Shklovskii, I. V. (1916). In Far Northeast Siberia. London, MacMillan and Co.
Silde, A. (1958). The Profits of Slavery: Baltic Forced Laborers and Deportees under Stalin and Khrushchev. Stockholm, Latvian National Foundation in Scandinavia.
Slonimski, W. J. (1962). Purga. Warsaw, Iskry Publishers.
Solomon, M. (1971). Magadan. Montreal, Chateau Books Limited.
Stajner, K. and J. A. (Translator) (1988). Seven Thousand Days in Siberia. New York, Farrar Straus Giroux.
Stephan, J. J. (1994). The Russian Far East. Stanford, The Stanford University Press.
Swianiewicz, S. (1965). Forced Labour and Economic Development: An Enquiry into the Experience of Soviet Industrialization. London, Oxford University Press.
Zorin, L. (1980). Soviet Prisons and Concentration Camps. An Annotated Bibliography 1917-1980. Newtonville, Oriental Research Partners.
Kolyma, The Russian Tragedy, by Jens Alstrup (in Danish).
KOLYMA, the documentary film, winner of the Berlin Documentary Film Festival & the Amsterdam Documentary Film Festival, Artistic License, Inc, 1997.
Gulag Camps in USSR Links to USSR Gulag sites in Hungarian and English.

(http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/sjk/kolyma10.htm)

Enough sources? Read them and tell about them, &#39;Comrade&#39; Marcel.

And don&#39;t brag about beating fascists, it has nothing to do with this discussion.

[More Fire for the People]

"The Black Book of Communism". The majority of the sources in this book were taken by nazis. In fact, the majority of the &#39;statistics&#39; about Holodomor and the &#39;gulag death system&#39; were taken by nazis and nazi-collaborators. The estimated &#39;50 million deaths&#39; from Holodomor would have depleted the population of the Ukraine and part of Russia, not to mention the widespread disease it would have created. The logical number? somewhere between 2 - 5 million.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Nice try Mesijs, but no matter what evidence you quote, as with Holocaust deniers, it will never be enough.

You are dealing with a quasi-religious faith here, with Stalin as the main deity (and that monster Mao as his Logos).

The words: "head", "banging" and "brick wall" come strangely to mind at this point.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 24 2006, 09:53 AM
Nice try Mesijs, but no matter what evidence you quote, as with Holocaust deniers, it will never be enough.

You are dealing with a quasi-religious faith here, with Stalin as the main deity (and that monster Mao as his Logos).

The words: "head", "banging" and "brick wall" come strangely to mind at this point.
It&#39;s not a question of &#39;deifying&#39; or spitting on Stalin&#39;s grave. It&#39;s a matter of establishing the facts and setting the record straight. No proper criticism can began without proper evidence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hop:


It&#39;s a matter of establishing the facts and setting the record straight. No proper criticism can began without proper evidence.

As I said, &#39;brick wall&#39;.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I&#39;m offended, and i&#39;m not going to respond.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Fuck it, i&#39;m responding. Marcel and Intelligimate:

First off, i&#39;d appreciate it if you were a little less aggressive. It isn&#39;t necessary, surely?

Anywho, I wasn&#39;t actually making any general comment about the Holocaust or Stalin at all, if either of you bothered to read. All I said was that you have the same arguing style. That was it. That was the sum total of what I was trying to communicate to you.

Suddenly, i&#39;m an irrational, christian-esque bullshitter. :rolleyes:

-Alex

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+Jun 24 2006, 04:01 PM--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ Jun 24 2006, 04:01 PM)
Rosa [email protected] 24 2006, 09:53 AM
Nice try Mesijs, but no matter what evidence you quote, as with Holocaust deniers, it will never be enough.

You are dealing with a quasi-religious faith here, with Stalin as the main deity (and that monster Mao as his Logos).

The words: "head", "banging" and "brick wall" come strangely to mind at this point.
It&#39;s not a question of &#39;deifying&#39; or spitting on Stalin&#39;s grave. It&#39;s a matter of establishing the facts and setting the record straight. No proper criticism can began without proper evidence. [/b]
Excuse me, did you read my previous post? I quoted a full list of sources.

The problems with people like you, Marcel, and Intelligitimate is, that you decide for yourself what are proper sources.

You: all nazi sources
Marcel: bourgeois propaganda
Intelligitimate: Stalin&#39;s signature could be false on that document
Marcel: imperialist cold war lies
Marcel (when I say biographers quoted from the Soviet state archives): I&#39;ve never seen these archives, could be lies

Really, be fair to me: does it matter how many sources I cite, even how many eyewitnesses I quote. You and types like you keep having your own vision, and do not use rationality.

[Cheung Mo]

Typical Russian Stalinist -- "Here are some immoral faggots. Let us join our fascist, Islamist, Papist, and Orthodox comrades and beat the fuck out of them."

There were Stalinists protesting the gay pride parade in Moscow.

That alone makes them the enemy of any true socialist and any true humanist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As I said Mesijs, you are talking to the deaf.


Really, be fair to me: does it matter how many sources I cite, even how many eyewitnesses I quote. You and types like you keep having your own vision, and do not use rationality.

Even a signed confession form Joe himself would not convince them.

[More Fire for the People]

The problem is they are ‘all nazi sources’. The majority, not all, of foreign statistics about Holodomor and Gulag deaths come from nazis. Both of these statistics could have been falsified for propaganda reasons. What we need to do is take Soviet statistics and compare them to previous known famine statistics and see if they&#39;re right. As to the gulag deaths, I&#39;m afraid we may never know how many died.

[Intelligitimate]

Fuck it, i&#39;m responding. Marcel and Intelligimate:

First off, i&#39;d appreciate it if you were a little less aggressive. It isn&#39;t necessary, surely?

Anywho, I wasn&#39;t actually making any general comment about the Holocaust or Stalin at all, if either of you bothered to read. All I said was that you have the same arguing style. That was it. That was the sum total of what I was trying to communicate to you.

Suddenly, i&#39;m an irrational, christian-esque bullshitter.

Hey, wow, slow down. Why are you attacking me? I only compared you to neo-Nazi Holocaust Deniers. Why are you attacking me and being so aggressive? Is that necessary?

You don&#39;t know shit about Holocaust Deniers, and if you actually bothered to read the sources we quote, you will see they are for the most part conventional non-Marxist historians. For fucks sake, even people like Robert Conquest have finally admitted stuff like the famine in Ukraine was not man-made, and he was the major champion of this bullshit for decades&#33;


Excuse me, did you read my previous post? I quoted a full list of sources.

Please Mesijs, we know you aren&#39;t familiar with probably a single book in that list. Your main source of claims in this thread were based on some shitty PBS documentary and a book written by a non-academic crank who claimed Stalin was a Tzarist agent, among other things.


The problems with people like you, Marcel, and Intelligitimate is, that you decide for yourself what are proper sources.

We demand evidence&#33; I&#39;ve read plenty of anti-communist material. They are some of the worst pieces of crap at times, but even they can contain truth. To demonstrate both points with one example, in Medvedev&#39;s Let History Judge, a classic of anti-communism, he quotes Stalin denouncing the cult of personality as evidence Stalin fostered the cult of personality&#33; They are so batshit insane with anti-communism that they can interpret negative evidence as positive evidence.

Also, a bunch of the works you reference are simply out of date or were written before the opening of the archives, or happen to be based on shitty scholarship (Applebaum&#39;s book is worthless garbage). Some of it is outright Nazi propaganda, like the old Black Book of Communism. Others were written by trash like Solzhenitsyn, an anti-Semitic Christian fascist. The man got less time in jail for siding with Nazi traitors than the people he writes about for stealing grain. His sources are worthless. Solzhenitsyn will quote as a source unpublished and unnamed people. It&#39;s hysterical&#33;

In any case, since it seems almost all your references are about the Gulags, I highly suggest you read this work, written by researchers whose names appear in your list.

Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence (http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/AHR/AHR.html). This is the definitive work on the subject. This is the work quoted referenced in nearly all modern publications on the Gulags. This is the paper on it.


Intelligitimate: Stalin&#39;s signature could be false on that document

I never said that. You are making shit up.


Really, be fair to me: does it matter how many sources I cite, even how many eyewitnesses I quote. You and types like you keep having your own vision, and do not use rationality.

I would be surprised if you had read even a single one of the books or articles you copied and pasted. And what eyewitnesses have you cited? Eyewitnesses to what?

You&#39;re the one who doesn&#39;t use any sort of rationality. I am trying my best to substantiate everything I said with sources of impeccable quality, sources that can not simply be dismissed as "Stalinist" or claimed to be incompetent. I cite research from the best historians in the field today. I have actually read them, and link to them whenever I can.

You, on the other hand, show no real knowledge of the subject or familiarity with modern scholarship, and a refusal to even try to engage it. You are the one who has a vision, created by anti-communist Cold War &#39;scholars&#39;, and refuse to use any rationality whatsoever on this topic.


The problem is they are ‘all nazi sources’. The majority, not all, of foreign statistics about Holodomor and Gulag deaths come from nazis. Both of these statistics could have been falsified for propaganda reasons. What we need to do is take Soviet statistics and compare them to previous known famine statistics and see if they&#39;re right. As to the gulag deaths, I&#39;m afraid we may never know how many died.

I highly suggest Silver and Anderson&#39;s Demographic Analysis and Population Catastrophes in the USSR. It exposes most of the numbers tossed around by anti-communist scholars to be completely bankrupt. If you don&#39;t have access to academic journals online, I can email you a pdf copy of their paper.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Intelligimate - For the last time, I compared your arguing style to their arguing style&#33; I&#39;ve told you that twice now, here&#39;s hoping the message will get through. <_<

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn, you are talking to those who not only do not listen, they cannot.

Have a debate with a broom handle, you will get further&#33;

[Comrade Marcel]

Wow, Mesijs. You can do a google search/look for books on amazon. I&#39;m sooo impressed. What exactly is listing books going to prove? And you listed Solzhenitsyn, a man who admitted to prefering fascism over socialism and capitalism&#33; Not even the most reactionay of bourgeois scholars take him seriously anymore, yet you suggest him. :rolleyes:


Enough sources? Read them and tell about them, &#39;Comrade&#39; Marcel.

Yeah, I&#39;m just going to go off now and read all of those. I&#39;ve been through most of them in part and am familiar with the content. If you have something to prove, let see it. Otherwise, listing a bunch of books means fuck all. If I list a bunch of books now, and my list is bigger then yours, do I win?


And don&#39;t brag about beating fascists, it has nothing to do with this discussion.

STFU. It has exactly to do with the discussion, when I&#39;m being compared to those people. Pay attention or don&#39;t bother working your wretched fingers, &#39;comrade&#39;.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Marcel - Please. I&#39;m beginning to go insane. I am not comparing you to a fascist. I. Am. Not. Comparing. You. To. A. Fascist. I merely said you argue like one. Could you find it in yourself to acknowledge that?

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No, the facists killed fewer people.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2006, 06:30 PM
No, the facists killed fewer people.
The Fascists were not in power as long as the Stalinists were either. And at least Stalinism was a progressive force, in that in the USSR, it tremendously advanced the productive forces. This alone proves the superiority of a planned economy (if a deformed workers&#39; state can do this, a democratic workers&#39; state will far outstrip what the USSR accomplished). What was needed, and still needed in current Stalinist regimes, is for a second revolution against the Stalinsts to happen and start out on the road to socialism. Stalinism is horrible, but a capitalist alternative is far worse (I read somewhere that 35 million people starve to death each year. Stalin was supposed to have killed something like 28 to 40 million in his time. Capitalism basically kills more in one year than those that died in the entire Stalinist regime via starvation alone in one year&#33;).

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:21 PM
Stalinism is horrible, but a capitalist alternative is far worse
It&#39;s exactly that message that leftists need to take onto the streets, but we are always having to defend ourselves against what happened in the USSR, because that is the blinkered view that the capitalist media like to portray, and the gullable masses buy it.

I admire loyalty, I really do, but why Stalinists have to &#39;cherish&#39; this regime is beyond me.

Until we throw off this image, we will never ever progress as a movement.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 05:53 PM
Marcel - Please. I&#39;m beginning to go insane. I am not comparing you to a fascist. I. Am. Not. Comparing. You. To. A. Fascist. I merely said you argue like one. Could you find it in yourself to acknowledge that?

-Alex
Just. Please. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

If someone looks like a fascist does that mean anything?

What point are your trying to make? Just STFU if you don&#39;t have one.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2006, 06:30 PM
No, the facists killed fewer people.
Why don&#39;t you go back to trying to figure out dialectics?

I find it so odd that you spend so much time being skeptical about dialectical materialism but don&#39;t even bother to question bourgeois "scholars". They couldn&#39;t posibly have any motivation to lie. :rolleyes:

Anyways, western "revolutionaries" like most of the lot on here will never do fuck all or lift a finger to fight imperialism in their life. But they will continue to bash the only form of real socialism that has ever existed, and the biggest threat to international capitalism that has ever existed.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Axel1917+Jun 25 2006, 07:21 PM--> (Axel1917 @ Jun 25 2006, 07:21 PM)
Rosa [email protected] 25 2006, 06:30 PM
No, the facists killed fewer people.
The Fascists were not in power as long as the Stalinists were either. [/b]
That doesn&#39;t matter. The fascists killed 20 million Russians alone&#33; I suppose RL would probably blame Stalin for that one to though.

Generally the bourgeois concensus is that 20 million&#39;ish were killed in the Stalin era, which is still highly exaggerated and about 19.5 million or so more than what the archives indicate.

So how did the fascists "kill" fewer?

And maybe RL would be happier under fascism. Since people were drawing comparisons with me and Holocaust deniers, I&#39;m sure Hitler would have agreed whole-heartedly with RL that Lenin&#39;s dialectics is "bullshit".


And at least Stalinism was a progressive force, in that in the USSR, it tremendously advanced the productive forces. This alone proves the superiority of a planned economy (if a deformed workers&#39; state can do this, a democratic workers&#39; state will far outstrip what the USSR accomplished).

What is this "deformed worker&#39;s state" bullshit? Are you with the Sparts or IBT or something? In any case, it&#39;s really easy to call something "deformed" when you&#39;ve never beeen part of any formation yourself. The greatest claim to fame of these people (who use the terms "deformed worker&#39;s state") is that Trotsky lead the Red Army. Wow, putting aside his fuck ups and let&#39;s pretend for a moment he did a good job, that was like almost a hundred years ago now. What have the Trots done since then, except more splits then all of Van Dam&#39;s movies put together? Also, what the heck do you consider "a democratic workers&#39; state" and why do you think such a socio-political structure would necessarily increase industrial production?


What was needed, and still needed in current Stalinist regimes, is for a second revolution against the Stalinsts to happen and start out on the road to socialism.

Here we go&#33; This is why we can read Trotsky talking about the need to kill Soviet leaders even well the Nazis were on the verge of invading. And this is why in one breath Trots now will defend "deformed worker&#39;s states", "Stalinist regimes" or "state capitalists" (depending on which trend) and in the other take the side of imperialism over these seem states or movements. Why? because they are fucking stupid.


Stalinism is horrible, but a capitalist alternative is far worse (I read somewhere that 35 million people starve to death each year.

Well, thousands starve daily for sure. Something like every half a second another persyn dies. Since Fascism is simply "capitalism at it&#39;s most extreme" (and this is even Trotsky&#39;s discription) we can only imagine the havoc that it would have caused the world. But, maybe in theory RL would rather live in as a native in Algiers under Vichy France or Africa under Hitler/Moussolini then be liberated by "Stalinism".


Stalin was supposed to have killed something like 28 to 40 million in his time.

Why was he supposed to do this? And was he going to do this with his bare hands? :rolleyes:

Really, people need to do two things in this discussion: 1.) realise that Stalin didn&#39;t have the super duper elite control over every single nook, cranny, man, womyn, child and their cat in the USSR. Many people share responsibilties in every single state. and 2.) Back your fucking numbers up. Even the most vulgarly anti-Stalin of Trot groups (IBT and Sparts) think these numbers are simply anti-Communist bullshit fabrications. Only the Trot groups that are basically social-dems in radical clothing (I.S.(O), N.S., S.A., whatever other shitty little group) believe these lies, and they don&#39;t even investigate it and would simply rather be more populist then challenge it publically getting dirty.


Capitalism basically kills more in one year than those that died in the entire Stalinist regime via starvation alone in one year&#33;).

We know this, the problem is it&#39;s hard to admit it when your living in an imperialist country off the fruits of these starvations much like most of the people on here are (myself included, but I point it out al the time and admit it and I am anti-KKKanadian).

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2006, 09:17 PM











That doesn&#39;t matter. The fascists killed 20 million Russians alone&#33; I suppose RL would probably blame Stalin for that one to though.

Not to mention probably 12 million others. I was not completely sure when it comes to deaths under the Stalin era. I would not be surprised if it happened to be fewer than what is generally indicated. Hypothetically speaking, if the Fascists killed less (I am not sure about this.), they were not around long enough, nor did they meet their goals, of which would have led them to have killed many more millions.


Generally the bourgeois concensus is that 20 million&#39;ish were killed in the Stalin era, which is still highly exaggerated and about 19.5 million or so more than what the archives indicate.

I don&#39;t know what the specific numbers are. They could be exaggerated. Although it does not change the fact that Stalin falsified Bolshevism and killed Marxists. His policies also did a good deal of damage to the movement (not putting up any real opposition to Hitler&#39;s rise to power with the Comintern, bankrupt two-stage "Theory," etc.



So how did the fascists "kill" fewer?

I was not specific; I was putting forth this answer in a hypothetical manner. I don&#39;t know if they actually killed fewer. I don&#39;t know the exact numbers. They could be blown out of proportion. I have not looked into this, but I have heard that the Black Book of Communism contradicts some of its resources.



And maybe RL would be happier under fascism. Since people were drawing comparisons with me and Holocaust deniers, I&#39;m sure Hitler would have agreed whole-heartedly with RL that Lenin&#39;s dialectics is "bullshit".

I don&#39;t know about this part or not, but I do think that her devotion to leftism is questionable.


What is this "deformed worker&#39;s state" bullshit? Are you with the Sparts or IBT or something? In any case, it&#39;s really easy to call something "deformed" when you&#39;ve never beeen part of any formation yourself. The greatest claim to fame of these people (who use the terms "deformed worker&#39;s state") is that Trotsky lead the Red Army. Wow, putting aside his fuck ups and let&#39;s pretend for a moment he did a good job, that was like almost a hundred years ago now. What have the Trots done since then, except more splits then all of Van Dam&#39;s movies put together? Also, what the heck do you consider "a democratic workers&#39; state" and why do you think such a socio-political structure would necessarily increase industrial production?

Sparts? No. IBT? Nope. Trotsky had scientifcally analyzed the USSR, in addition to predicting its collapse with dreadful accuracy if the Stalinists were not overthrown by Marxists (this prediction was made way back in 1936&#33; Totally confirmed in 1991&#33;).

There are a lot of people that call themselves Trotskyists, of whom have fragmented like no one&#39;s business. That does not invalidate the entire movement as a whole, though. And what have Stalinist regimes done other than eventually selling out to capitalism? A democratic workers&#39; state is when all means of production and political power are in the hands of the workers and not in the hands of a Stalinist bureaucracy. Secondly, production would skyrocket, given that no one knows the needs of the consumers better than the consumers themselves, the workers. Stalinism left this in the hand of bureaucrats that were not always well involved and informed with what they were planning (look at Krushchev&#39;s agricultural disaster.). Moscow planning for Vladivostok is not exactly the best way to do things.


Here we go&#33; This is why we can read Trotsky talking about the need to kill Soviet leaders even well the Nazis were on the verge of invading. And this is why in one breath Trots now will defend "deformed worker&#39;s states", "Stalinist regimes" or "state capitalists" (depending on which trend) and in the other take the side of imperialism over these seem states or movements. Why? because they are fucking stupid.

Trotsky did state to defend the USSR agiainst Fascists in the case of invasion. He noted the overthrow of Stalin being the role of the workers, not Fascists. And of course, Stalin&#39;s refusal to put forth a front against Fascism and not doing anything when the Fascists came to power in Germany did not help things out either. His purges wiped out the finest cadres of the Red Army, weakening it when it came to the actual invasion.



Well, thousands starve daily for sure. Something like every half a second another persyn dies. Since Fascism is simply "capitalism at it&#39;s most extreme" (and this is even Trotsky&#39;s discription) we can only imagine the havoc that it would have caused the world. But, maybe in theory RL would rather live in as a native in Algiers under Vichy France or Africa under Hitler/Moussolini then be liberated by "Stalinism".

True, capitalism is far worse. And Fascism is one of capitalism&#39;s greatest crimes. I do find it odd how Rosa states what she does. It is as if she would almost prefer capitalism.




Why was he supposed to do this? And was he going to do this with his bare hands? :rolleyes:

I say supposed to in the sense that the capitalists say these are the real figures, and that we are "supposed" to believe them. Are they accurate? I am not sure. They could be exaggerated. I was basically saying: "Even if the capitalist figures are accurate, they still do not change the fact that capitalism kills far more in one year than Stalin did in 29."


Really, people need to do two things in this discussion: 1.) realise that Stalin didn&#39;t have the super duper elite control over every single nook, cranny, man, womyn, child and their cat in the USSR. Many people share responsibilties in every single state. and 2.) Back your fucking numbers up. Even the most vulgarly anti-Stalin of Trot groups (IBT and Sparts) think these numbers are simply anti-Communist bullshit fabrications. Only the Trot groups that are basically social-dems in radical clothing (I.S.(O), N.S., S.A., whatever other shitty little group) believe these lies, and they don&#39;t even investigate it and would simply rather be more populist then challenge it publically getting dirty.

Perhaps he did not have the power of everything, but we generally mean the bureaucracy he was a head of that did this. I don&#39;t know the actual numbers as of yet (I have not had time to look yet), but Stalin&#39;s regime nevertheless did play anti-worker roles (no real opposition to Hitler when he came in power via the Comintern, killing off Marxists, expelling Trotsky, falsifying Bolshevism, etc.).





We know this, the problem is it&#39;s hard to admit it when your living in an imperialist country off the fruits of these starvations much like most of the people on here are (myself included, but I point it out al the time and admit it and I am anti-KKKanadian).

This does lead some people not to realize this, especially given how the Bourgeoisie don&#39;t really cover a whole lot about "unimportant" people far away. They only bring in things in a sensationalist manner when it suits their interests. They did not hate Stalin because of purges or anything like that. They were against him due to naked class interest. The Allies did not really care about Hitler at first, hoping that he would turn his attention East and keep down the German workers. They only "switched" sides when he threatened their empires. The US has also backed all kind of reactionary regimes, and they would gladly support someone that killed hundreds of millions of people in the name of capitalism. They just break out the sensaionalist reporting when it comes to people dying to hype people up and try to gain public support,

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:48 PM
Intelligimate - For the last time, I compared your arguing style to their arguing style&#33; I&#39;ve told you that twice now, here&#39;s hoping the message will get through. <_<

-Alex
Saying this is a worse insult to us than anything we&#39;ve said to you, especially to comrade Marcel, who has risked life and limb against Holocaust Deniers.

When I first started reading this material, I was a wishy-washy type of a socialist, like most of the people here. I just accepted the conventional wisdom about how evil Stalin was and how bad communism is. I come mainly from a background of a skeptical atheist, and I am quite familiar with the tactics of Holocaust Deniers. One of the first books of skeptical literature I ever purchased was Michael Shermer&#39;s Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. In it, he devotes two chapters to Holocaust Deniers. It had been years since I read it, and when I first started reading this material, I thought to myself "Is this stuff like Holocaust Denial?"

I went back and read those chapters straight through, plus a lot of online stuff about them. I can guarantee you, nothing we say is even remotely like Holocaust Denial. No prominent Holocaust Denier is a respected academic in the field of Nazi history. They are all universally despised and seen as cranks by the field. They are all anti-Semites with an agenda, and most have no academic credentials whatsoever. In contrast, the people we rely on are mainstream scholars in the field, even leading figure in the field like J. Arch Getty. These men are not even socialists, let alone Marxists. They are not pro-Stalin in the slightest. They are conventional historians who have basically come to completely disregard the Cold War crap that masqueraded as scholarship for decades.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Marcel - It was a criticism of your arguing style. That is all. I am now going to discontinue talking to you, since it took me such a disturbingly long time to just get my one, small and simple point across. Ciao. :)

Intelligitimate - That&#39;s much better. Here&#39;s my proposal. I&#39;m now fascinated to see who is correct, since Stalin is thrown at me as an example of why i&#39;m wrong if I ever bring up communism in a discussion. I always accept the received wisdom that he was worse than Hitler, in fact I wasn&#39;t aware that it was even disputed this hotly. It would be excellent if you are right, although I remain sceptical. I&#39;m going to research this whole thing myself, instead of listening to either side and picking one. Whatever the conclusion I draw from this, i&#39;ve been fair, yes?

Michael Shermer&#39;s book is excellent, isn&#39;t it? My Grandad gave it to me as a birthday gift... Cover-to-cover brilliance. I think he&#39;s doing a new one about religion, keep your eyes peeled. :o

-Alex

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2006, 06:30 PM
No, the facists killed fewer people.
That&#39;s completely false. It&#39;s a common misconception that the fascists killed "only 6 million". I think those 6 million come only from the amount of jews that were killed. The total death count of fascism must be much, much higher. And that is common knowledge, not recognising that is either extremely ignorant, or has some sort of agenda behind it. As a matter of fact, that makes for a rather interesting tie between anti-Stalin propaganda and fascist apologism. :lol:

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2006, 09:17 PM
Also, what the heck do you consider "a democratic workers&#39; state" and why do you think such a socio-political structure would necessarily increase industrial production?
I just wanted to react to this point, Marcel.

Isn&#39;t the ultimate target of communism that worker&#39;s control the means of production democratically?

And what was the target of the october revolution? Not to increase industrial production, but to get political freedom. What you are arguing here is that it is more important to produce as much as possible, instead of aiming for the communist ideal.

And I&#39;ve got a reccomendation for you: please read the book &#39;I chose freedom&#39; by Victor Kravchenko. It&#39;s an autobiography of a prominent communist idealist in the USSR, and he writes down perfectly why stalinism is the most disgusting, murderous and opressing force history has ever known.

[lovablecommie]

Stalin was guilty of numerous crimes against humanity as admited by the USSR in Kruschevs address. however it can be argued that the harsh brutality employed by Stalin was neccesary in achieving the industrialisation much needed by the soviet union to repel the facists. As Stalin said it was neccesary to move "100 years in 10". This is something echoed in the reign of Ivan the terrible who also employed brutality to expand Russia and was remarked upon as being one of Russia&#39;s strongest leaders. In other words a communist state needs a "stern master" in order to progress to a point where it becomes able to substain itself free of a dictator.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

basically he beats them up till they get sick of it

[More Fire for the People]

I think the crimes against humanity arguement is weak. The development of new modes of production typically results in unwanted deaths due to famine and the like. This is unfortunately an objective aspect of development. The real question is how many people died unnecessarily? And more importantly, how did Stalin contribute to the degeneration of workers’ democracy?

[Louis Pio]

Another question: was most of the cc during the revolution actually working against the revolution since they got purged(killed/totured) later, that seems to be one of the arguments from the appologists of Stalin. Let&#39;s try to keep in mind that it was Lenin and Trotsky who put forward the idea of taking power together with the workingclass bolshevics like the vyborg district whereas Kamenev and Stalin bitterly opposed the seizure of power.

[matiasm]

I think a dictator like Stalin left that "bad" image of communism. Lenin bartardized Marx (not so mush in a bad way that is) Stalin bartardized Lenin in a cruel way beastfull way.

In my political economy class at university (i live in australia, but i`m not australian) whenever we have dicussion over communism, etc, capitalist students and neutral students argue that communisn dictates and kills people to follow thier belief, when i ask for their facts on this they quickly point out Stalin. Then i argue that what Stalin did was not communism nor was in Marx&#39;s socialism.

The Soviet Union did nothing good to promot communism around the world and niether did the US propoganda against communism and the USSR, using them as a bad and evil example.

Che Guevara critically slaughtered the USSR in a speech during his time in the Congo (not whilst he was their as a guerrilla, but as an ambassador). He pointed out that if the USSR was really a socialist moving state they and as big as thier economy was they would lose all capitalist tendecies (which they still had) and they had the obligation of helping other developign and third world Socialist states for the cause towards the rise of socialism.

[Revolution67]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:19 AM
I think a dictator like Stalin left that "bad" image of communism. Lenin bartardized Marx (not so mush in a bad way that is) Stalin bartardized Lenin in a cruel way beastfull way.

In my political economy class at university (i live in australia, but i`m not australian) whenever we have dicussion over communism, etc, capitalist students and neutral students argue that communisn dictates and kills people to follow thier belief, when i ask for their facts on this they quickly point out Stalin. Then i argue that what Stalin did was not communism nor was in Marx&#39;s socialism.

The Soviet Union did nothing good to promot communism around the world and niether did the US propoganda against communism and the USSR, using them as a bad and evil example.

Che Guevara critically slaughtered the USSR in a speech during his time in the Congo (not whilst he was their as a guerrilla, but as an ambassador). He pointed out that if the USSR was really a socialist moving state they and as big as thier economy was they would lose all capitalist tendecies (which they still had) and they had the obligation of helping other developign and third world Socialist states for the cause towards the rise of socialism.
Comrade matiasm:

It is easier to criticise Lenin and Stalin, based on the works of anti-Stalinists, bourgeoisie scholars. What we need to understand that Lenin and Stalin totally transformed USSR from an agragarian country to a highly industrialised developed nation. Well, Lenin did not live enough after the revolution and died in 1924. When Stalin took the charge, he had to protect the revolution and protect USSR from onsluaghts wrought by the &#39;White Guards&#39;, insidious traitors, capitalist imposters, counter-revolutionaries and all those elements who intended to destroy the world&#39;s first socialist revolution to make way for full blown market capitalism. Stalin had to deal with these problems with an iron hand and he succeeded in that.

In a span of about 30 years, he industrialised USSR, provided free education and healthcare and free housing. During Stalin&#39;s reign, the life expectancy of average citizen doubled, the literacy rate, which was like 40% pre-revolution period, stood at a healthy 93% and above at the time of his death. In the 1950&#39;s the american economists feared that living standards of the soviet citizens would rise well over the average living standard of the American citizens.

It is also not true that Stalin was a dictator. Many times, his own recommendations were out-voted, much to his disappointment, by the party members. Today, Russians, over 75+ years of age, fondly remember Stalin and his times. If he were such a ruthless, cruel tyrant, why would anyone remember him and that too with sense of nostalgia and respect?

Next time, when your friends speak in derogatory terms about Stalin, just tell them that whatever he (Stalin) did, could not be achieved by any capitalist country within a short span of time, such as 30 years. I would suggest you to go through every thread discussing Stalin on the messageboard and draw your own conclusions.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:49 AM
I think a dictator like Stalin left that "bad" image of communism. Lenin bartardized Marx (not so mush in a bad way that is) Stalin bartardized Lenin in a cruel way beastfull way.


Saying that Lenin basterdized Marx and then Stalin Lenin, etc. is interesting, but nothing more than your point of view, unless you are willing to elaborate. You remind me of the Soviet revisionists who started the tradition of blaming the leader previous to them.... A tendency straight from bourgeois politics.


In my political economy class at university (i live in australia, but i`m not australian) whenever we have dicussion over communism, etc, capitalist students and neutral students argue that communisn dictates and kills people to follow thier belief, when i ask for their facts on this they quickly point out Stalin. Then i argue that what Stalin did was not communism nor was in Marx&#39;s socialism.

Why you would bother arguing with middle-class university students who only saw BBC or history channel docs and read a few bourgeois "biographies" is beyond me. Or, why would you even care what these people think?

Besides, what the hell does "dictating and killing" have to do with an argument against Stalin era economics? History speaks for itself, and it&#39;s a fact that the Soviets caught up to the U&#036; in about five decades what it took the U&#036; about five centuries to gain; not to mention the USSR did it without colonizing and imperializing.

If you want to argue that Socialist economies work better than capitalist ones, one could point to the fact that even the U&#036; used centralized planning of the economy during WW II. There was no "supply and demand" at that point. Also, you could look into the work of Polanyi, for example, that destroys the myth of a "free market" economy, and there are plenty of works on socialist market economies available.

None of this has anything to do with "killing and dictating", of course. But why you ahve a problem "killing and dictating" enemies of socialism is a different question, obviously.


Che Guevara critically slaughtered the USSR in a speech during his time in the Congo (not whilst he was their as a guerrilla, but as an ambassador). He pointed out that if the USSR was really a socialist moving state they and as big as thier economy was they would lose all capitalist tendecies (which they still had) and they had the obligation of helping other developign and third world Socialist states for the cause towards the rise of socialism.

You do know that Che was attacking the REVISIONIST Soviet Union at that time right? You do know that Che was an admirer of Lenin, Stalin and Mao right? All of his policies and ideas came from a Marxist-Leninist (That is "Stalinist") perspective... with a hint of Mao.

[matiasm]

Originally posted by Rudra+Sep 6 2006, 04:35 AM--> (Rudra @ Sep 6 2006, 04:35 AM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 09:19 AM
I think a dictator like Stalin left that "bad" image of communism. Lenin bartardized Marx (not so mush in a bad way that is) Stalin bartardized Lenin in a cruel way beastfull way.

In my political economy class at university (i live in australia, but i`m not australian) whenever we have dicussion over communism, etc, capitalist students and neutral students argue that communisn dictates and kills people to follow thier belief, when i ask for their facts on this they quickly point out Stalin. Then i argue that what Stalin did was not communism nor was in Marx&#39;s socialism.

The Soviet Union did nothing good to promot communism around the world and niether did the US propoganda against communism and the USSR, using them as a bad and evil example.

Che Guevara critically slaughtered the USSR in a speech during his time in the Congo (not whilst he was their as a guerrilla, but as an ambassador). He pointed out that if the USSR was really a socialist moving state they and as big as thier economy was they would lose all capitalist tendecies (which they still had) and they had the obligation of helping other developign and third world Socialist states for the cause towards the rise of socialism.
Comrade matiasm:

It is easier to criticise Lenin and Stalin, based on the works of anti-Stalinists, bourgeoisie scholars. What we need to understand that Lenin and Stalin totally transformed USSR from an agragarian country to a highly industrialised developed nation. Well, Lenin did not live enough after the revolution and died in 1924. When Stalin took the charge, he had to protect the revolution and protect USSR from onsluaghts wrought by the &#39;White Guards&#39;, insidious traitors, capitalist imposters, counter-revolutionaries and all those elements who intended to destroy the world&#39;s first socialist revolution to make way for full blown market capitalism. Stalin had to deal with these problems with an iron hand and he succeeded in that.

In a span of about 30 years, he industrialised USSR, provided free education and healthcare and free housing. During Stalin&#39;s reign, the life expectancy of average citizen doubled, the literacy rate, which was like 40% pre-revolution period, stood at a healthy 93% and above at the time of his death. In the 1950&#39;s the american economists feared that living standards of the soviet citizens would rise well over the average living standard of the American citizens.

It is also not true that Stalin was a dictator. Many times, his own recommendations were out-voted, much to his disappointment, by the party members. Today, Russians, over 75+ years of age, fondly remember Stalin and his times. If he were such a ruthless, cruel tyrant, why would anyone remember him and that too with sense of nostalgia and respect?

Next time, when your friends speak in derogatory terms about Stalin, just tell them that whatever he (Stalin) did, could not be achieved by any capitalist country within a short span of time, such as 30 years. I would suggest you to go through every thread discussing Stalin on the messageboard and draw your own conclusions. [/b]
Thank you i will surely read up on Stalin. In all honesty I have not researched much on him but will do so. So this circulation of propoganda suggesting that Stalin ordered massarces to civilians are false?? (this is a real question no sarcasm intended)

[matiasm]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+Sep 6 2006, 06:36 AM--> (Comrade Marcel &#064; Sep 6 2006, 06:36 AM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 03:49 AM
I think a dictator like Stalin left that "bad" image of communism. Lenin bartardized Marx (not so mush in a bad way that is) Stalin bartardized Lenin in a cruel way beastfull way.


Saying that Lenin basterdized Marx and then Stalin Lenin, etc. is interesting, but nothing more than your point of view, unless you are willing to elaborate. You remind me of the Soviet revisionists who started the tradition of blaming the leader previous to them.... A tendency straight from bourgeois politics.


In my political economy class at university (i live in australia, but i`m not australian) whenever we have dicussion over communism, etc, capitalist students and neutral students argue that communisn dictates and kills people to follow thier belief, when i ask for their facts on this they quickly point out Stalin. Then i argue that what Stalin did was not communism nor was in Marx&#39;s socialism.

Why you would bother arguing with middle-class university students who only saw BBC or history channel docs and read a few bourgeois "biographies" is beyond me. Or, why would you even care what these people think?

Besides, what the hell does "dictating and killing" have to do with an argument against Stalin era economics? History speaks for itself, and it&#39;s a fact that the Soviets caught up to the U&#036; in about five decades what it took the U&#036; about five centuries to gain; not to mention the USSR did it without colonizing and imperializing.

If you want to argue that Socialist economies work better than capitalist ones, one could point to the fact that even the U&#036; used centralized planning of the economy during WW II. There was no "supply and demand" at that point. Also, you could look into the work of Polanyi, for example, that destroys the myth of a "free market" economy, and there are plenty of works on socialist market economies available.

None of this has anything to do with "killing and dictating", of course. But why you ahve a problem "killing and dictating" enemies of socialism is a different question, obviously.


Che Guevara critically slaughtered the USSR in a speech during his time in the Congo (not whilst he was their as a guerrilla, but as an ambassador). He pointed out that if the USSR was really a socialist moving state they and as big as thier economy was they would lose all capitalist tendecies (which they still had) and they had the obligation of helping other developign and third world Socialist states for the cause towards the rise of socialism.

You do know that Che was attacking the REVISIONIST Soviet Union at that time right? You do know that Che was an admirer of Lenin, Stalin and Mao right? All of his policies and ideas came from a Marxist-Leninist (That is "Stalinist") perspective... with a hint of Mao.[/b]
Firstly what i meant by Lenin bastardizing Marx was, that Marx approach to a communist movment was through a revolt lead by "the proletariat" a mass workers movement. Lenin took Marx but altered this element, there by creating a vanguard party, a party that would lead the revolution and lead the workers. Maybe bastardizing was the wrong word maybe "altered" is better.

Dont get me wrong i think Leninism is the best method to a socilaist revolution.

In regards to Che, i never said he critizized Stalin and Lenin, if you read what i wrote i said he critially slaughtered the USSR at that time.

oh and who the hell are you to tell me that i have bourgeois tendecies in my political thought. I lived in Uruguay, i have experienced that third world nature which capitalist pricks created&#33;&#33; My parents moved to Australia due to economcial circumtstances and that due to a military dictarshop murdered communist believers&#33;&#33; so in personal thoughts towards others you should shut the fuck up in you have no facts&#33;&#33;

I was not critizing Lenin, i support Lenin, perhaps i might have some thoughts or ideas in which Stalin could have lead the revolution differently in certain aspects&#33;

You said to me "Why you would bother arguing with middle-class university students" and "why would you even care what these people think?" Becasue its a class full of students and thats what you do you share ideas opinions and arguements. Why would you keep your mouth shut i ask you. I would prefer to speak up and clarify things so that other ingorant studnets listening to those bourgeois studnet dont get mislead into false propoganda.

[VRKrovin]

I am not a maoist, but I agree with comrade Marcel. Comrade JV Stalin was the last true marxist-leninist to rule the USSR. After his death, the bourgeoisie was restored to power, after comrade Malenkov was ousted by Khrushchev and his bourgeois lackeys. I stand in solidarity with comrade Marcel in defense of the great leader and teacher of the wold proletariat, comrade Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.


VR Krovin
American Bolshevik

[chimx]

krovin, on the one hand, makes me loose my appetite for his wretched degree of dictator worship, yet on the other hand, makes me quite hungry due to his KFC avatar.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 12:52 AM
krovin, on the one hand, makes me loose my appetite for his wretched degree of dictator worship, yet on the other hand, makes me quite hungry due to his KFC avatar.
Though Trotsky looks much more like Col. Sanders...

I thought you&#39;re a vegetarian with that Green and Black enviro-anarcho shit flag?

[Mesijs]

Hey Marcel, have you read &#39;I chose freedom&#39; bij Victor Kravchenko. Please do read it (don&#39;t say something like bourgeois propaganda blabla just read it yourself) and then tell me what you think of it. In my opinion the greatest account on Stalinism.

[The Author]

If anyone is interested in seriously studying the history of the USSR and keeping an open mind, I&#39;d suggest "Fraud, Famine, and Fascism" by Douglas Tottle for starters.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm

Also, "Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union" by Mario Sousa is important to read as well.

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lies.html

And, a couple of interesting articles on Katyn:

http://www.politicsforum.org/soviet/viewto...ighlight=mukhin (http://www.politicsforum.org/soviet/viewtopic.php?t=2321&highlight=mukhin)

http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/katyn.html

[Revolution67]

Comrade CritisizeEverythingAlways

Thanks for providing those links. But I think, we are just banging our heads against the walls. Many of the so-called "communists" would rather be happy lapping up bourgeosie propaganda about SU and Stalin. But we should keep trying. :)

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 12:46 PM
Comrade CritisizeEverythingAlways

Thanks for providing those links. But I think, we are just banging our heads against the walls. Many of the so-called "communists" would rather be happy lapping up bourgeosie propaganda about SU and Stalin. But we should keep trying. :)
Ahhh you&#39;re so dumb. Do you call statistics and eyewitness accounts propaganda?

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Mesijs+Oct 3 2006, 01:13 AM--> (Mesijs @ Oct 3 2006, 01:13 AM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 12:46 PM
Comrade CritisizeEverythingAlways

Thanks for providing those links. But I think, we are just banging our heads against the walls. Many of the so-called "communists" would rather be happy lapping up bourgeosie propaganda about SU and Stalin. But we should keep trying. :)
Ahhh you&#39;re so dumb. Do you call statistics and eyewitness accounts propaganda? [/b]
nah, it&#39;s the dead bodies in pits which are the real "propaganda". ;)

I find it incredible that there are still people who admire Stalin and try to deny his crimes. I suppose there&#39;ll always be idiots who frankly deny something despite all evidence to the contrary - holocaust deniers and earth-is-flat believers. :rolleyes:

[Revolution67]

Originally posted by Okocim
nah, it&#39;s the dead bodies in pits which are the real "propaganda".

I find it incredible that there are still people who admire Stalin and try to deny his crimes. I suppose there&#39;ll always be idiots who frankly deny something despite all evidence to the contrary - holocaust deniers and earth-is-flat believers.
(emphasis added) Well, I would like to see those damning evidences against Stalin. Would you like to cite a source or study? Do you want us to beleive you, just because you guys say so? Though it is another thing that virulently anti-Stalin historians like Medvedev have changed their outlook towards Stalin&#39;s era. The two greatest anti-stalinist psuedo-historians Conquest and Solzhenitsyn are today not even taken seriously by any of the modern bourgeosie scholars. So if you think you guys have evidence to the contrary, then please put it on the board and discuss.

[Wanted Man]

If any of you jackasses are still crying about sources, may I point you to that moment when Intelligitimate posted (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49516&st=75&#entry1292066619), oh, I don&#39;t know, a whole shitload of them? Thank you.

[Prairie Fire]

Oy, I wish I had jumped on this thread sooner. I have spent days, on and off, reading every post on this thread. Okay, here it goes:

Chimx:

"now if only they will start beating up stalinists in subways."

"krovin, on the one hand, makes me loose my appetite for his wretched degree of dictator worship, yet on the other hand, makes me quite hungry due to his KFC avatar. "

You have not contributed anything useful to this thread. We are trying to have a serious discussion here, so Fuck off.

Red Polak:

You are beyond a polish nationalist; you are a Polish Chauvenist. If you think that is unfair, perhaps you should re-read nine pages of your comments. Here are a few jems:

"There is no need to "accuse" Stalin of genocide - we all KNOW he did it. "

And in the middle ages, everyone KNEW that the world was flat.

"Stalin pretended to ally with us but really didn't give a shit and basically just wanted the Germans to finish us off so he gained a nice bit of teritory after the war"
"my grandmother was sent there after the Russians invaded, destroyed her family's farm and basically trashed the place (Eastern border)"

What do you mean basically? This is a bullshit cop-out of yours, presenting information as a fact, and then not taking any responsibility for it's legitimacy.

"Hell with you guys in power you'd probably be shipping off Poles to Siberia again"

"No you'd probably be building yourselves another little empire"

"regardless if you take part in a revolution because imo you'd probably gain power afterwards and once again ruin the name of Communism, oppress and murder"

More bullshit cop-outs, presented as facts.

"...what with Stalin and Hitler being allies and all..."

Allies? Go to google and type up "operation Barbarossa". Read up on how Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and killed 25 million soviets, smack yourself across the face vigourously, and don't confuse a non-aggression pact with an alliance, you opportunist *****.Oh, wait, you do know the difference...

No, you're quite right, non-agression does not = friendship, but does tend to mean not being agressive. I'd say ignoring the pact and invading the country is rather aggressive... So Hitler was Stalins Ally, who invaded his country?


"I'm not quite sure what Ukranians have to do with this though - my family's farm was nowhere near Ukraine, and certainly wasn't on "stolen land" (mainly because the Polish eastern border used to extend quite a bit more, "

"Stole territory? Don't be ridiculous - it was Polish land originally"

"The corridor was rightfully Polish land, stolen by various people"

The theory of "Lebensraum", a la Poland.

" oh right, of course, the Poles committed "war crimes". Don't be so fucking stupid"

Of course. The Polish capitalist government would never do that! he he. Red Polak is the first to accuse everyone of warcrimes, but apperently her own Polish government is off limits for war-crimes allegations. Howdy, hypocrite!

"I could answer most, if not all, of the lies in documents you posted. I am not going to however because a) it would take some time"

Thats what having a discussion is all about, sweetie. You think it was easy for me to review nine pages of posts? Good try, though.

""prof." Grover Furr's comments were ridiculous. I scan-read them"

:lol: Try actual reading. you'll get better results.

"Why would Yeltsin confess that Stalin murdered millions if he didn't?"

Why would Yeltsin let the capitalists rape his once great nation? Jeez, Yeltsin wasn't even a revisionist, he was a down-right CAPITALIST. You think that this man would tell the truth about Socialism in the USSR?

"True, I hate Stalinism more than Fascism"
"I actually hate you guys more than the nazis "

He he. This great polish Patriot is willing to overlook 3 million poles murdered in the death camps by the Nazis, but not 26 000 allegedly killed by Stalin. I see your true colours.

"My "Pollack nationalism" Hows about we lay off the ethnic-slurs?"

You are the one who keeps saying "Stalinist" left and right. "Stalinist" is a political slur, and until you stop using it, it is fair to call you by any slur that we fancy.

"Walesa was a great man, he went to prison for standing out against you shits"

Okay, seriously... STOP PRETENDING TO BE A COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST.
You prefer fascism to Stalins USSR, and think that Walesa was a great man?
There is not a socialist alive, polish or not, who will echo your polish chauvenist
point of view.

Of all of the anti-Stalin elements on this thread, your arguments are the most emotional and entirely annecdotal and rooted in personal opinion.

Malte:

Okay, maybe it's me, but aren't you a rev-left moderator? WTF are you doing participating in the thread, let alone taking a stand. As someone with authority on this board, aren't you at least supposed to maintain some air of neutrality in all of the veiwpoints and arguments on this forum?

"What a disgusting, cold and entirely cynical statement. "

All science,logic and fact are "cold and cynical", little boy. There is nothing more futile than an emotional political argument; the more emotions are invested, the less facts are consulted.

"International solidarity was a foreign word for him(Stalin)"

Which is probably the reason that he helped bring Socialism to most of Eastern Europe and Asia.


"The truth is, Stalin's anti-fascism was hypocritical, he was a cowardly bastard when it was about confronting fascists. "

Oh, absolutely. Go to google, type in "Stalingrad", "Kursk", "Eastern front",
do some research, and then proceed to slap yourself vigourously. I think that this method is generally applicable to everyone who thinks that Stalin collaborated with
or appeased Hitler.

"That is a quote from an TV interview I saw last week on German public TV"

Of course the heavily monopolized Capitalist mass-media would NEVER, EVER lie or exaggerate, especially about their sworn enemies.

"This thread is another conformation that it makes absolutely no sense at all to discuss with Stalinists about history. Truely pathetic"

You are discouraging discussion, and you are the Moderator of a discussion forum, no less. Fucking incredible. If YOU want to stop discussing, I'm sure that none of us "Stalinists" will object.

"But again it's obvious that Stalin kiddies like Matthijs are not really interested in facts. "

Which is probably the reason why the majority of all links and referances on this thread have been posted by Marcel and intellegitimate.


FinnMaccool:

"I mean as much as I hate capitalism, I would rather live in a capitalist society then a Stalinist society. At least you have somewhat of a fighting chance in a capitalist society where as stalinism simply be reduced to absolute slavery. "

This really says it all. I mean, I have met Trots that will choose Stalin over Capitalism any day.

I don't really have to elaborate on this individual, but I'm going to.

"If there is any reason why people love Stalin, its because of the massive amounts of soviet propaganda that was pushed on them and the fact that people can't let go of the fact that authoritarian socialism is dead"

If Stalin was, as you say, an authortarian, then why is it that people can't "let go"? Since when does authortarianism invoke nostalgia? You're argument makes no sense.


"What history should we trust? Theirs or theirs?

Your arguments make no sense becuase no matter what source we use, theres always going to be bias"

How are you different from us? You hold the viewpoint of the capitalist class.
Do you honestly believe that your information sources are not slanted?

"And anarchists have come MUCh farther in building a revolution then stalinists have. They actually did for a period of time create a truley class society. Until, of course, the stalinists ruined it."

Yes, yes. brag about your handful of Dipshit communes during the spanish civil war. We "Stalinists" on the other hand, unfortunately have to settle for socialism in entire countries.

"oh yeah and insulting Red Polak for her support of someone who dismantled stalinism is rediculous"

We are not insulting Red Polak for her support of a man who "Dismantled Stalinism" (Krushchev?). We are insulting her for her polish chauvenist support of Lech Walesa, who completely restored capitlalism in Poland and reduced millions of Poles to sub-par living conditions.

"Everything else written here is not worth debating."

Of course not; it is factual. You can't debate gravity, can you?
I have to say though, it is very immature to come to a DISCUSSION FORUM
and say that you "don't want to play anymore" when you have no rhetoric.
You have a lot of growing up to do, buddy.

"Its not even worth bothering with since I know what you people have done to us in the past. "

And what is that exactly? Trotsky killed your boys at Kronstdad, and Franco killed your boys in Spain. By the way, that mellow-dramatic attempt at sympathy was a nice touch. Sorry that I called you on your shit.

"IS that your excuse for murder?"

Some people want the sea without the waves. Do you even believe in revolution and class struggle, little boy? Believe it or not, sometimes people get hurt in revolutions. Besides, it has allready been pointed out that it was Francos troops who put an end to your "ideal society".

"Wow. . .just wow. "

If you've got something to say, say it. This is not rhetoric.


Fistful of Steel:

your idealism knows no bounds, and I don't mean that in a good way. If you ever want to acheive revolution though, you will hav eto look into actual materialism. Thats okay; I don't think you want a revolution anyway.

" (In reference to Hitler and Stalin being the same) I agree. They're both standing at the top of a pyramid of blood, and their economic policies weren't so completely different. Hitler may have been "far right" but the left and right scale usually represents economics, and Hitler seemed to employ largely Keynesian economics. "

So, how does Hitlers Keynesian economic model prove your assertion that Hitler and Stalin had similar economic policies? There was still a very clear distinction of wealth, and system of private property ownership in the third Reich. How is this in any way similar to Stalins USSR?

"The repression of "capitalism" isn't worth the destruction of social freedom for a level economic playing field. It's hypocritical really."

I'm going to take a wild guess, and say that you are an Anarchist; ONLY an anarchist/capitalist would subvert material needs to abstract freedoms.
Besides, you offer no proof that the freedoms in question were non-existent.


" I don't know many that support imperialism, either. I'd much rather prefer them to those that would subject other's forcefully to their will. "

Perhaps I have taken this quote out of context, bu tI don't think so. I think this quote says it all.

"Wanting communism right away, which has proven more fruitful than letting the revolution stagnate under the Vanguard"

Yep, definately an Anarchist. As the saying goes, rome wasn't built in a day.
You can not build a revolution without changing the consiousness of the entire masses, and believe it or not, that can take a while. Even so, this thread is not a
critique of Leninism.

"Right... Because you don't agree with a persons economic policy you think they don't deserve to live?"

"Going into the real world to change the corrupt system doesn't mean being an authoritarian dickhead, or recklessly killing anyone who has an opinion different from yours"

For a persyn who has a ballsy name like "Fist full of steel", you seem to be quite squeamish when it comes to the prospects of actual armed class struggle. Let me review: you want communism right after the revolution ,and you think that this can be achieved without killing reactionary elements? Then again, I'm not even sure you want a revolution.


"Coming up with a different opinion and contesting it is called debate.
Shooting people with a different opinion is called repression. "

Talking shit about revolution, but getting squeamish about actually killing people
is called anarchism.


Nachie:

WTF is an "anti-civilization Marxist" ? Is this a lame attempt at humour?

I have no idea why this individual is on a discussion forum; he doesn't seem to want to discuss anything.

"I think it was redstar2000 who was telling me how a little while ago Stalinists were restricted to Opposing Ideologies, but this strategy "didn't work" because then they all went and started other forums.

I replied, isn't that a good thing??? "

For all of your anti-authortarian rhetoric, you have no problems discriminating against the politics of other rev-left members and restricting their freedoms on this board. Hypocrite.

"Here's the problem:

On the Interweb, loonies can run around and tie up whole threads for days with these kind of absurdities.

In real life, somebody would have broken a table over this guy's face by now, and we could have already been talking about something that actually matters. "

He he. While all of his Comrades are cloaking their arguments in the guise of "opposition to authoratrianism", this individual openly dispenses with argument and makes veiled threats of violence

"Arguing (verbally) with a Stalinist is like trying to teach calculus to a brick. Please everyone, just let this thread die the quiet death it so rightly deserves. Please?"

I've read this entire forum, and it seems to me that the "Stalinists" are using sources and logic, while the anti-stalin forces resort to anecdotes, assertions and insults. It is not us who are thick. Is there any particular reason that this individual
is trying so hard to constrict discussion?

"Also, fuck Lenin. Thank you and goodnight. "

Perhaps it is more accurate to say "arguing with Nachie is worse than teaching calculus to a brick."


Burn the Olive tree:

I can't be too hard on this individual. I was spewing the same bourgie anti-Stalin shit when I was a 15 year old bolshevik. Perhaps embracing Stalin comes with age. I encourage you to keep studying Comrade. You will see that history favors Stalin.

"I don't see how you are different from a holocaust denier, Marcel."

Marcel gives sources and puts forward a logical argument. It is you who are like a holocaust denier, clinging to the dogma of your historical revisionism, denying all evidence and blocking out all dissenters. Marcel has presented meticulous sources that back up his argument; have you?

"It is akin to Holocaust Denial because you pick and choose in what you debate on, rather than the whole lot"

Marcel is in a tricky spot. For a while, he was the only person on this thread defending Stalin. He can't respond to EVERY anti- Stalin comment. Besides, how many are worth responding to? Insults and repeating the same charges over and over again... Unlike you all, Marcel does not simply respond like a trained monkey.
He responds to the comments that he can make an intelligent arguement against.

"Much like David Irving, or indeed Ernst Zundel and that Robert Faurisson guy."

Boy, Marcel has been stomping nazi balls before you knew what communism was. I have met him on many occasions, and he is a staunch anti-fascist. Comparing anything about him to Zundel and Irving is a fucking insult.

"First off, I'd appreciate it if you were a little less aggressive. It isn't necessary, surely?"

If you don't want to people to get angry, stop insulting them. This is a gathering place for individuals from the far left, so comparing anything about a person to fascism is the worst insult imaginable. If you don't want there to be any shit, then stop stirring shit up.

"I am not comparing you to a fascist. I. Am. Not. Comparing. You. To. A. Fascist. I merely said you argue like one."

You don't get it , do you? >Sigh< Yes, you are comparing him to a fascist.
You are saying he argues like a fascist.

"I always accept the received wisdom that he was worse than Hitler, in fact I wasn't aware that it was even disputed this hotly. It would be excellent if you are right, although I remain sceptical. I'm going to research this whole thing myself, instead of listening to either side and picking one"

That's the smartest fucking thing I've heard on this entire thread!

Rosa Lichtenstien:

No one has been trying to stifle argument more than this persyn.
While this persyn asserts that talking to "Stalinists" is like talking to a brick wall,
It is exactly the opposite. Marcel, Intelligitimate, and all other "Stalinists" have given detailed sources and evidence to support their point of view, and argued intelligently against every point. I can't say the same for the other side.
Rosa, you have contributed absolutely nothing to this thread, you patronizing sack of shit, so fuck off



"Nice try Mesijs, but no matter what evidence you quote, as with Holocaust deniers, it will never be enough.
The words: "head", "banging" and "brick wall" come strangely to mind at this point "

"(In response to a request for evidence) As I said, 'brick wall'"

"As I said Mesijs, you are talking to the deaf"

"Even a signed confession form Joe himself would not convince them."

"Burn, you are talking to those who not only do not listen, they cannot."

"Mesijs, don't expect any sensible answers from Marcel; hell he still thinks the masses still follow us Leninists!"

"Have a debate with a broom handle, you will get further! "

Any particular reason that you don't want to debate Rosa?

"No, the facists killed fewer people. "

No they didn't. 25 million Soviets alone died during the second world war.
There is also the 6 million jews, 3 million poles, 500,000 gypsies and 12,500
homosexuals. Funny how this individuals only argument on this entire thread was in favor of fascism.

"Even a signed confession form Joe himself would not convince them. "


You don't get it, do you? That's our point exactly; you DON'T have a signed confession by Stalin. Hell, you don't have anything, except for a festering hatred for Stalin. imagine this thread as a court room; If you had no evidence in a court room, your case would be thrown out by the judge. Why should we take a different approach when it comes to Stalin?


"You are dealing with a quasi-religious faith here, with Stalin as the main deity (and that monster Mao as his Logos)"

Bullshit. We are not religious about Stalin. Hell, I barely mention Stalin in real life.... unless I'm arguing with a Trot/ Anarchist/ Revisionist/Capitlalist.
Despite how much of a "Stalinist" I am, you are the ones who brought him up in the first place. I am simply defending him. Also, Mao is not nescesarily hand in hand with Stalin; I'm a Hoxhaist. If anything, with your dogmatic adherance to everything you've heard about Stalin, you are quasi-religious.

Mesijs:

This is the persyn who started the thread comparing Stalin supporters to holocaust deniers. Perhaps I should start a thread comparing Mesijs to a three year old in Sunday school; Seriously this individual accepts every single anti-communist documentary and article at face value. Also I continue to find it funny how he wants us to stop labelling him, but he labels us.

"You are just so blind. Let me ask you some questions. Just ONLY answer with yes or no, please. Thanks"

Yes,because all world events of the 20th century are so simple that they can be reduced to yes or no questions. Idiot. This is a bullshit attempt to try and control the discussion, and negate the argument.

"Besides, you don't believe ANY source, except if it exactly says what you want. "

Who the hell has been presenting sources? There is nothing but anecdotes and opinions passed off as facts from the anti-stalin bunch.

"What about ALL the witnesses, in documentaries, in books, on tv documentaries. Let me guess, they're all indoctrinated, bourgeois propagandists?"

Yes, because the monopolzed bourgeousie media never spreads propaganda.
Jeez Mesijs, we live in the age of the "Weapons of mass Destruction" fiasco;
You think that propaganda of this kind doesn't happen all of the time?

"I think the Stalinists on this forum are some cold blooded idiots. We're talking about a family member deported to Siberia and you are making fun of it."

Who's making fun? We are simply demanding reliabel evidence, not anecdotes!
What, we are supposed to believe the Polish chauvenist, and ask no questions?
Quit trying to cloud the discussion with appeals to emotion!

"And Marcel, please STOP calling anybody that is against Stalin capitalists, anti-communists, fascist, Trotskyists etc. The most well-thinking people here are against a bloody dictator that murders his own people, do you understand that?"

Stop calling us Stalinists, you Cappie bastard!

"And the fact that you won't answer the yes/no questions I asked, points to the fact that you're a coward. If you got an opionion, just express it fully, and let us know where you stand. You're just trying to hide, when you don't answer my questions. Yes, it's your choice, but you're a coward then"

Are you fucking thick? Marcel HAS expressed his opinion, SEVERAL TIMES!
Because you choose to ignore his sources, and try to constrict him by demanding that he answer all questions in a yes or no format, doesn't mean he hasn't given his opinion! It is you who is selective and blocking us out!

"And Intelligetimate, who's really producing untruths here. You stalinist guys are just totally deaf and blind. I've read about Stalin, I've seen documentaries, and I've seen, read and heared all sorts of evidence,"

We have also read all about Stalin and seen documentaries, and heard all sorts of evidence. How does this make you better than us?

"And please STOP calling anti-Stalinists anarchists, trotskyists, capitalists etc etc."

Stop calling us Stalinists, You Anarchist, Donkey raper!

"And stop calling any evidence bourgeois lies. Just study the evidence without labeling it some dumb-ass dogma. "

What fucking evidence? The best that you have given us is a list of books, many of which have allready been debunked! It is you who is ignoring the evidence!

"It's funny that people call Walesa some kind of enemy of socialism/communism. Walesa demanded workers rights! That's the most communist you can do."

Okay, I stand corrected... Some other socialists are hot for Lech. Well, maybe not. Mesijs is not quite a socialist. So explain to me how Walesa helped the plight of the Polish worker? He fucked all of their social programs, completely restored capitalism, destroyed the economy and livelihoods of millions of poles. Oh yeah, a real friend of the working class.

"with 100&#37; clear evidence if you've seen tv documentaries"

Here we go again! People like you shouldn't watch TV; You're just WAY too fucking gulllible and succeptable to propaganda.

"And Marcel, about sources? I've seen some tv documentaries. One was called 'Blood Upon the Snow', where they interviewed several people witnessing the Stalinist era first hand. I've also seen on German television 'Kommunismus: Geschichte einens Illusion', which was more biased, but also let speak several people from that era. Then I've seen PBS' 'Communism: the History and the Reality', which showed both sides of the story, and let people with a lot of different opinions and experiences speak. I think your first reaction would be: 'bourgeoise propaganda, cold war lies' etc etc etc. Of course it's seen from a western perspective, but there were really a lot of people interviewed from that era, all telling what they in reality experienced. Just search these docu's and tell what you think. I've also read a biography of Stalin: 'Stalin : The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives'. Yes, it's quite biased, it's irritating when the writer keeps adding irrelevant things, but it's based on the Soviet archives and various sources, and various interviews with prominent figures of that era. Just watch the documentaries and read the book (if you hadn't already), and tell what you think"

Mesijs, have you ever seen a pro-Stalin documentary? No? Exactly.
There's a reason that there arn't any pro-Stalin documentaries on TV.

"And on your reaction of me mentioning you a coward, I see what kind of person you are. Agressive and intolerant."

You are the one who is intolerant! I am not trying to convert you to the side of Stalin. It is you who are persecuting us for our political stance.

"Besides, what about the massive propaganda campaign and the personal cultus, the complete monopoly on information?"

You think that this massive "propaganda campaign" is not happening under capitalism? You think that your TV is not preaching the line of the capitalist class?
Fuck, your mother shouldn't let you out of the house by yourself.

"I remember you not liking Gandhi for his nationalism."

He didn't like Ghandi for maintaining the Caste system in India, not for his nationalism.

"DAMN! Please stop calling yourself a communist/socialist or whatever. Just say Stalinist ok, so everybody knows what you really mean"

Okay, but only if you call yourself a cappie donkey raper, so everyone knows what you mean.

"You aren't even reading what I'm typing."

Have you read any "Stalinist" Sources?

"By the way, Walesa didn't restore capitalism in Russia, he was a Pole. And if a democratic movement wants worker's rights and freedom rather than opression and secret police imprisonment, let them have it. It seems you doesn't get the point that workers were uniting against an opressive governemnt. And please don't answer with things like 'dumb fuck' and some other irrelevant theoretical terms"

You're actually calling what is going on in Poland right now "Democracy"?
Dude, it is you who needs to stop calling yourself a communist. Seriously.

"You could also stop typing 'dumb fuck' after every of your opinions. It looks more mature"

Stop typing 'Stalinist', Donkey raper.

"Slave labourers were needed for economy, so Stalin actually built up the economy with them, and made his personal power bigger"

Man, I would love to see a single source for any of the shit that your typing on this forum, Fucking incredible.

"other guy: OK, so when the anti-stalinists are not exactly citing where their stuff comes from, the gulag, show trials, waves of terror, massacres during collectivization etc didn't exists? That's the stalinist standpoint"

No, that's the LOGICAL standpoint. I'm willing to believe in Bigfoot, but first I have to see some conclusive evidence. If you can't produce evidence on something that you consider is a universal fact, what does that say about your viewpoint?

"Really, you guys don't know what communism, socialism or leftism at all is. It's about building a paradise for everyone, a sort of Utopia. It's about convincing people about your beliefs. You can't build it on the body's of thousands or even millions"

I think you are the one who needs to re-open the books. Marx and Engles and Lenin argued against Utopian Socialism, and you obviously don't understand how capitalism reacts in the face of peoples revolution; It resorts to fascism, and cracks down on the people. Marx understood this.

"Have you read these books, Marcel?"

Okay dude, you gave a fucking Wiki file for evidence of the gulags?
And all of these books? Fucking Conquest and Solzhenitsyn? Even Conquest has abandoned most of the shit he used to preach, like the Ukranian famine. And the black book of communism is pure propaganda. Kudos on producing a list of references though.

"The problems with people like you, Marcel, and Intelligitimate is, that you decide for yourself what are proper sources"

Why is that a problem? You should be cynical about all information, deciding for yourself wether it's legit or not. The problem with you is, you are so naive.

"Ahhh you're so dumb. Do you call statistics and eyewitness accounts propaganda? "

Some of them, yes. What is hard about this?


To comment on this entire thread in general:

I'm not sure if anyone has said this yet, but why the fuck are we letting people call us "Stalinists"? This is the most degrading political slur. We prefer to be called
"Anti-revisionists" or "Marxist-Leninists". "Stalinist" is a pejorative slur that negates the argument before it even happens.

I am therefor suggesting that from now on anyone who calls us Stalinists,
will be divided into four catagories:

Capitalist Donkey Raper, Trot Donkey Raper, Anarchist donkey Raper and Revisionist Donkey Raper.

If you donkey rapers don't like this, then stop calling us Stalinists. I think this is fair.

As for the arguments against Stalin, they must be taken into the context of all arguments against communism. Why is it that none of the charges against Stalin came up until after his death? In the 50's and 60's, the cappies accused communists of worshipping Satan; These days they accuse us of restricting freedoms and violating human rights. I assure that everything they accuse us of, they are guilty of themselves. This Anti- Stalin bullshit is just a dividing force within the communist movement, that's all. It is a seed sown to spread disarray and confusion within the revolutionary ranks, nothing more.

I hope I've caught up now.

[Wanted Man]

Heh, nice job at finishing up this major ass-kicking once and for all. Fair enough though, somebody had to save those poor donkeys. They should all be prosecuted for animal abuse. By the way, for further reference, Malte is actually the guy who owns this place, and kicking ass is even more fun when you use quote tags properly, so people can easily discern between your comments and theirs(although, to be fair, their posts are so silly, I could tell instantly ;)). In case you don&#39;t know, here&#39;s how:


&#91;quote=donkey raper&#93;blah blah blah&#91;/quote&#93;

Looks like this:


Originally posted by donkey raper
blah blah blah

Anyway, let&#39;s compare the sources provided in this 9-page monster of a thread to see who is making the best point:

Comrade Marcel: <a few interesting articles>
Intelligitimate: <long list of online and offline sources>
Polak: my own pure shameless Polish nationalist revanchism passed down by my family
Mesijs: well, I saw some documentaries on TV...
Polak: I KNOW he committed genocide&#33;
Malte: Don&#39;t be so mean to Polak&#39;s granny&#33;
CritisizeEverythingAlways: <more links>
RavenBlade: <most ass-kicking post ever>

Well, the Stalinists sure got their asses kicked. :rolleyes:

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 11:25 pm
Comrade Marcel: <a few interesting articles>
Intelligitimate: <long list of online and offline sources>
Polak: my own pure shameless Polish nationalist revanchism passed down by my family
Mesijs: well, I saw some documentaries on TV...
Polak: I KNOW he committed genocide&#33;
Malte: Don&#39;t be so mean to Polak&#39;s granny&#33;
CritisizeEverythingAlways: <more links>
RavenBlade: <most ass-kicking post ever>

Well, the Stalinists sure got their asses kicked. :rolleyes:
:lol: great summary of perhaps the most repeated thread on RevLeft.

[chimx]

For historical estimates of deaths and information on the famines see the following:

Tsaplin in Voprosy istorii, 1989 no. 4, p 175-181.
Osokina in Istoriya SSSR, 1991 no. 5, 18-26.
Robert Conquest, Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine, 1986.
Sheila Fitzpatrick, Stalin&#39;s Peasants, 1994.

According to the Russian historian, V. P. Danilov, almost 400,000 households were "dekulakized" and deported between 1930 and 1931. This means at least 1.5 million people. This also doesn&#39;t take into account the "dekulakization" in 1932 or 1933. To those stalinist historians that would paint a pretty picture of the process of deportation, let me quote from Alec Nove&#39;s essay, "How many victims in the 1930s?":


[Exiles and deportees cover] a wide range of conditions of life and of victims. Thus our former colleague S. V. Utechin told that he and his family were in Karaganda as spetspereselentsy, under tolderable material circumstances (and Utechin himself was an agitator in the 1938 elections&#33;). By contrast, some lived under appalling conditions; a (postwar) example was Ariadna Efron, daughter of the poet Tsvetaeva (see her correspondence with Pasternak, Novyi mir, 1988, no. 11). Many deported peasants died of hardship, others managed to get jobs on construction sites and in new factories. So there are important distinctions to be made when one speaks of &#39;deportees&#39;, who undoublted numbered manymillions, and who share only the characteristics that they were nether in the care of Gulag, nor free citizens.

I&#39;ll post some other articles about the famine later, and Stalin&#39;s mismanagement of the agrarian sector which complicated the situation.

[chimx]

The famines of the early 1930s killed millions. it was so bad cannibalism became incredibly common. Proof as to how widespread cannibalism had been in Ukraine at that time can be furnished by such facts as these: in the Lukianovka jail in Kiev they had a separate building for "maneaters." Among the prisoners in the Solovky Islands in 1938 there were 325 cannibals of 1932-1933, of whom 75 were men and 250 women.

Here are some eyewitness accounts of the famine, including the above statistic (http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/Great_Famine/accounts.shtml)

The Ukrainian Weekly has an Excellent Collection (http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/Great_Famine/index.shtml) of scholarly works on the Great Famine. The Ukraine suffered 7 million deaths, much of which could have been avoided.

--

here is another article by Conquest worth reading:
Victims of Stalinism: A Comment
Robert Conquest
Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319

available online HERE (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0966-8136%28199711%2949%3A7%3C1317%3AVOSAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B&size=LARGE)

--

It is also important to note that the result of his shitty policies, infant mortality soured in the USSR, being nearly 15 times as high as the US. Here is an excellent demography study on it: LINK (http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF124/cf124.chap4.html)

--

An article from the Journal of Genocide Research:
link (http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/bilinsky.html)

--

more later

[chimx]

*cricket*

[Intelligitimate]

The Ukrainian Nationalist community, of which ukrweekly.com is a front for, paid Conquest a large sum of money to write the book Harvest of Sorrow, which was meet with much scholarly criticism. You see how most of the respectable names in Western Sovietology reacted to his work in Jeff Coplon&#39;s 1988 Village Voice article:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html

It should also be pointed out that not even Conquest believes in the famine-genocide thesis anymore. See R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, Debate: Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33: A Reply to Ellman, Europe-Asia Studies_, vol. 58, No. 4, June 2006, pp.629.

If you are interested in serious research on the famine as it pertains to the Ukraine, chimx, I recommend highly the work of Dr. Tauger. Most of his papers are on available on his website, if you don&#39;t have access to the JSTOR.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/soviet.htm

To summarize some important points Tauger demonstrates: the famine was not the result of some campaign to kill Ukrainians. It was caused mostly by bad weather, and effected all the USSR. The Party did in fact lower grain quotas several times in an attempt to alleviate the famine. Memoir accounts are often contradictory and unreliable (you can find many outright denying any problem). The number of victims are also highly exaggerated. I believe Tauger cites Sivler and Anderson&#39;s paper, Demographic Analysis and Population Catastrophes in the USSR, which is a paper you should read also.

Also, I&#39;m pretty sure if you had read this entire thread, you would see this issue has already been dealt with.

[chimx]

from your article:


By general consensus, Stalin was partially responsible. . . .

. . .In 1932, the Soviet Union was in crisis. The cities had suffered food shortages since 1928. Grain was desperately needed for export and foreign capital, both to fuel the first Five-Year Plan and to counter the growing war threat from Germany. . . .

. . .In this context, collectivization was more than a vehicle for a cheap and steady grain supply to the state. It was truly a "revolution from above," a drastic move towards socialism, and an epochal change in the mode of production. There were heavy casualties on both sides -- hundreds of thousands of kulaks (rich peasants) deported to the north, thousands of party activists assassinated. Production superseded politics, and many peasants were coerced rather than won to collective farms. Vast disruption of the 1932 harvest ensued (and not only in the Ukraine), and many areas were hard-pressed to meet the state&#39;s grain requisition quotas.

Again, Stalin and the Politburo played major roles.

The result: massive deaths.

And no, I don&#39;t want to read through 10 pages of bickering replies.

[Intelligitimate]

I&#39;m not sure what the point of (dishonestly) quoting that was, nor you reply. What I am sure of is that you don&#39;t have any kind of grasp on the relevant scholarly literature on this topic.

[chimx]

The criticisms which you are posting are not denying the fact that millions of people died, partially at the hands of Stalinist policy, but that it didn&#39;t constitute genocide because it wasn&#39;t intentionally directed towards Ukrainians. The point is that literally bajillions of people died because of Stalin&#39;s top-down revolution, that when added to drought conditions, left the Russian people with little hope. You, on the other hand, are twisting the words of these authors to serve your own church of Stalin worship. Stalin fucked up, and Russia suffered. Nobody is arguing this fact.

[Zeruzo]

I dont know if this is already posted, but i thought i&#39;d just add my 2 cents:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm

edit: and http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node68.htm...000000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node68.html#SECTION00800000000000000000)

[Intelligitimate]

As the sources I have cited indicate, Russia had suffered some 150 famines in its last 1,000 years of history. The 1932-33 famine, which was the last famine Russia experienced, was caused primarily by weather conditions that would have caused it regardless of what policies were in effect. Collectivization was quite successful, as just as serious a drought occurred a few years later, but collectivization had boosted crop yields high enough to avert disaster,

Also as the sources I cite indicate, the figures usually tossed around by anti-communists are not justifiable in the slightest. See Silver and Anderson&#39;s paper I mentioned.

[chimx]

No, as the articles you cite state, it was the destruction of the NEP and the extermination of the Kulak class which aggravated the famine. These were policies put forth by Stalin, and this is why the sources you cite put partial blame on him.

[Intelligitimate]

Again, read Tauger. The Coplon article was quoted as a reference to what other Western Sovietologists thought of Conquest&#39;s Harvest of Sorrow. Tauger&#39;s work clearly demonstrates the primary cause was weather and not anything else (Kulak resistance, grain quotas, etc). But it speaks volumes none the less that you want to attribute the famine to the elimination of capitalism and the rich peasants.

[chimx]

The only reason Tauger callously dismisses Ukrainian memoir material is because some of the memoirs point to a good crop yield (which wasn&#39;t the case), as if this point alone nullifies the entirety of the Ukrainian people&#39;s experiences.

And just for those that are interested, here is a rebuttal by Conquest to Tauger&#39;s work: (click me (http://www.jstor.org/jstor/gifcvtdir/di001350/00376779/di000550/00p04552_l.1.gif?config=jstor&[email protected]_response/41p9ap4ICM4FtzuY-0/40/4kkgT67W/300376779.di000550.00p04552.0/1RQ9.sFZhEXYToHUTQ7xhb)

[Jacob Peters]

Are you joking?

There is no need to "accuse" Stalin of genocide - we all KNOW he did it. Hell, the Soviets admitted it in the early 90&#39;s.

The purges, the massacres, Katyn forest - 26000 Poles executed in a mass grave.

That is unsubstantiated. Russia&#39;s military prosecutor Alexander Savenkov has shown the so-called "documents" revealing executions to have been fabricated. According to is investigation, only 1803 Poles died of which 22 bodies have been identified. Polish prisoners of war had been promptly repatriated upon the restoration of diplomatic relations with the illegitimate Polish militarist regime in London.

По данным, полученным в ходе расследования, в том числе и от украинских, белорусских и польских коллег, всего на территории бывшего СССР содержались 14542 человека. Установлена гибель 1803, из которых 22 идентифицированы", - сказал Савенков.
http://www.newsru.com/arch/russia/11mar2005/ne_priznali.html

The Polish landlords ruthlessly oppressed the occupied Malorussian and Belorussian territories ever since the seizure of territory by Lithuania and Poland from Russia during the Riurikid dynasty in the 14th century. When Russia took back what was her&#39;s in the so-called "Polish Partitions" in 1772 and 1793, Polish nationalist authors distort their history as having been rife with oppression even though they were the ones who oppressed Malorussian and Belorussian serfs. Poland again in an effort to steal territory East Slavic territory unleashed a campaign of ruthless expension in 1919 which resulted in the destruction of the Lithuanian-Belorussian Soviet Republic. In 1920, the Kiev Offensive was unleashed and eventually half of Belorussia and substantial Ukrainian territory was seized. Stalin in 1939 when the situation of Poland was hopeless decided to liberate territory which ahd been seized from Poland in 1921 through the extortionary Treaty of Riga.

In 1935 Poland declared that it would no longer be bound by the League of Nations treaty on ethnic minorities, arguing that its own laws were adequate. That same year, many Belorussians in Poland who opposed the government&#39;s policies were placed in a concentration camp at Byaroza-Kartuzski (Bereza Kartuska, in Polish). The Belorussians lost their last seat in the Polish Sejm in the general elections of 1935, and the legislation that guaranteed the right of minority communities to have their own schools was repealed in November 1938. The state then involved itself more deeply in religion by attempting to Polonize the Orthodox Church and subordinate it to the government.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/bytoc.html

The so-called "artificial" famine in Ukraine is more nonesense.

It has been discredited by credible, objective scholars like Stephen Wheatcroft, Robert Davies, and Mark Tauger that this famine was not artificial. It resulted primarily due to drought in 1931 and excessive rain in 1932. There was a severe shortage of horses which made it extremely difficult to get any sowing done. The claim that there was an excess of grain collections and harvests that were no different than in other years is just false. In 1932, grain collections had been significantly lowered to 18 million tons down from the projected 29 million tons. The horrendous harvests in 1931 and 1932 were disastrous due to disastrous weather, rust, and a severe shortage of draught power. These bad harvests alone brought massive famine in around February to July 1933. 97% of all excess deaths in the period 1932-33 occurred in 1933 during the months before September.

USSR grain production; collections (million tons), 1930-33:
1930: 73 to 77 produced ; 22.1 collected
1931: 57 to 65 produced ; 22.8 collected
1932: 55 to 60 produced ; 18.5 collected
1933: 70 to 77 produced ; 22.7 collected

The archives have vindicated the reports of New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty who 73 years earlier correctly estimated that deaths had trebled during what he described as a food shortage due to manifold diseases resulting from a decrease in immunity from malnutrition. The declassified demographic reports show that in Ukraine, North Caucasus, and the Volga, there were 2.1 million deaths in excess:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economic...nger/deaths.xls (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls)

Plus, archival documents show that the Soviet government genuinely tried to reduce the effects of the famine among the population:

Between February and July 1933 at least thirty-five Politburo decisions and Sovnarkom decrees selectively authorised issue of a total of only 320,000 tons of grain for food. 50 million people were fed with this relief aid.

On April 6, 1933, a regional official wrote at length to Stalin describing the famine conditions and urging him to provide grain. Stalin received the letter on April 15, and on April 16 the Politburo granted 700 tons of grain to the district. Stalin sent a telegram: "We will do everything required. Inform sieze of necessary help. State a figure." There was a reply on the same day, and on April 22, the day on which Stalin received the second letter, Stalin scolded, "You should have sent answer not by letter but by telegram. Time was wasted"

Sources:
Stephen G. Wheatcroft, R.W Davies, "Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriclture, 1931-33"
http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Taug...n%20Actions.pdf (http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20Natural%20Disaster%20and%20Human%20Actio ns.pdf)


The only reason Tauger callously dismisses Ukrainian memoir material

Memoirs are absolutely useless in trying to determine economic or demographic statistics. Memoirs are only reliable when trying to examine the perception. The likes of Stephen Wheatcroft and Robert Davies who have actually conducted a serious economic study on Soviet agriculture in the early 1930s have found that agricultural production and conditions were horrendous in 1931 and 1932. Robert Conquest is good at literary writing, but he is not an economist or demographer.

In regard to the purge, it is ludicrous to say that Stalin had some sort of conspiracy to wipe out the opposition. Those who interpret Stalin as an all-powerful, omnipotent leader with the ability to make anything happen adhere to the unscientific "Great Man" form of history. History is not made from above but is made from below. The purge was largely the work of regional party leaders trying to get rid of their competition. Yezhov himself was punished due to the overzealousness of his units during 1937-38. Vyshinsky and Zhdanov had frequently complained about how the purge was inflicting harm to the state and party. This is vividly described by scholars J.Arch Getty, Gabor Rittersporn, and Robert Thurston.

In any case, the purge did not have implications for the vast majority of workers and peasants since it was primarily limited to the elite of the party, state, and burreaucracy. Foreign communist parties like the Polish were wiped out of existence. The Yezhovshchina was a clumsy mistake which is why it was never repeated. At most Stalin had active involvement with the cases of Bukharin and Zinoviev.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:00 pm
The only reason Tauger callously dismisses Ukrainian memoir material is because some of the memoirs point to a good crop yield (which wasn&#39;t the case), as if this point alone nullifies the entirety of the Ukrainian people&#39;s experiences.

And just for those that are interested, here is a rebuttal by Conquest to Tauger&#39;s work: (click me (http://www.jstor.org/jstor/gifcvtdir/di001350/00376779/di000550/00p04552_l.1.gif?config=jstor&[email protected]_response/41p9ap4ICM4FtzuY-0/40/4kkgT67W/300376779.di000550.00p04552.0/1RQ9.sFZhEXYToHUTQ7xhb)
You can find Tauger&#39;s replies to Conquest here:

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Taug...1%20article.pdf (http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%201st%20exch%20w%20Conquest%20over%2091%20 article.pdf)
http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Taug...1%20article.pdf (http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%202nd%20exch%20w%20Conquest%20over%2091%20 article.pdf)

To say Tauger "callously dismisses" memoir material is pure imagination. Tauger does not "callously dismiss" anything. Tauger is a disinterested academic scholar recognized by everyone as the leading authority on the subject. Chimx is attempting to smear Tauger simply because he does not find his research anti-communist enough for his liking.

It should also be very telling to the people reading this that chimx is relying on a notorious anti-communist &#39;scholar&#39; who once was employed by the IRD in making black propaganda against the USSR, and who actively worked with the Reagan administration. He even wrote a book about what to do when the Soviet invade...

Conquest has been completely discredited as a serious scholar for decades now. No serious researcher takes him seriously, besides other Cold Warriors.

[Jacob Peters]

Furthermore, Conquest was awarded something or other called the "Medal of Freedom" by George W. Bush. Conquest in his works injects an aggressive anti-communist bias. In one of his works he blames Stalin for the Cold War on the basis of "communists orchestrating militant strikes" in western Europe. Conquest on almost all counts has been discredited. In his volume about the famine, he is incorrect that it was artificial and that the demographic catstrophe from it and dekulakization amounted to 15 million killed. He is wrong in claiming that grain collections by the Soviet government resulted in famine. Soviet demographic archives reveal 2 million dead in Ukraine, North Caucasia, and the Volga. Conquest is not an economist nor a demographer which is why his writings cannot be taken with much seriousness. His work is merely a compilation of partisan memoirs.

[The Reverend]

To be short and to the point, read Marx&#39;s writings again. He would have ***** slapped Stalin, and that&#39;s no lie. Many of the things Josef Stalin did during his reign are simply unacceptable to anyone who is "leftist", Regardless of your political sub-sub-category.

In the most basic senses of the phrases, Leftists belive in universal equality, freedom, and human rights. Rightists belive in powerfull hierarchy, control, and exploitation (they use euphimisms for this, but it is what it is). I think we can all agree on these facts. Stalin was a dictator with a serious political hiararchy, he utilized secret police and prison camps for political dissidents, and employed exploited labor. Want some proof of that last one? Gladly:
"In 1933, worker&#39;s real earnings sank to about one-tenth of the 1926 level. There was also use of the unpaid labor of both common and political prisoners in labor camps."
Stalin also brought in labor engineers, from some of the most class-opressive capitalist countries to show them how to boost industrial production. Stephen Adams of Great Britain is just one example. It is true that Stalin modernized Russia&#39;s backasswords economy, but at what cost? Could any egalitarian future justify at the very least 3 million deaths?

Stalin may not have been a fascist, but he was quite clearly a rightist. True, he claimed to be working towards a leftist goal, but this goal was never achieved, much less in his lifetime, so we are left to judge him by his actions, not his rhetoric.

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 03, 2007 09:50 am
To be short and to the point, read Marx&#39;s writings again. He would have ***** slapped Stalin, and that&#39;s no lie. Many of the things Josef Stalin did during his reign are simply unacceptable to anyone who is "leftist", Regardless of your political sub-sub-category.

In the most basic senses of the phrases, Leftists belive in universal equality, freedom, and human rights. Rightists belive in powerfull hierarchy, control, and exploitation (they use euphimisms for this, but it is what it is). I think we can all agree on these facts. Stalin was a dictator with a serious political hiararchy, he utilized secret police and prison camps for political dissidents, and employed exploited labor. Want some proof of that last one? Gladly:
"In 1933, worker&#39;s real earnings sank to about one-tenth of the 1926 level. There was also use of the unpaid labor of both common and political prisoners in labor camps."
Stalin also brought in labor engineers, from some of the most class-opressive capitalist countries to show them how to boost industrial production. Stephen Adams of Great Britain is just one example. It is true that Stalin modernized Russia&#39;s backasswords economy, but at what cost? Could any egalitarian future justify at the very least 3 million deaths?

Stalin may not have been a fascist, but he was quite clearly a rightist. True, he claimed to be working towards a leftist goal, but this goal was never achieved, much less in his lifetime, so we are left to judge him by his actions, not his rhetoric.
And why wasn&#39;t he a leftist? Just because he wasn&#39;t the average soft-intellectual that only talks about ideology? Yeah, ideology is easy when you don&#39;t put it in practice, like Trotsky who was only critcising the revolution from the sidelines and wasn&#39;t confronted with the practical issues of actually making revolution work. We are talking about class-struggle here wich is a dirty buisiness. Of course you are going to risk being criticised when you actually do something. But don&#39;t worry about that, as long as you keep posting on a website or publish a nice leftist book you are no problem to the system. But when you take up arms, when you take action, when you put into practice all those nice theories then you&#39;ll be a dictator, a devil and a mass-murderer.