Stalin: Man Of Steel

[ahab]

I knew Joseph Stalin was fuckin crazy but after watching that I really realized what a fucking nut job wimp he was.

*side note* the history channel, although supposed to be neutral when it comes to being left or right, seemed pretty one sided on this doc. They pretty much talked about how all communism was bad. Stupid choice on their part

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:49 AM
I knew Joseph Stalin was fuckin crazy but after watching that I really realized what a fucking nut job wimp he was.

*side note* the history channel, although supposed to be neutral when it comes to being left or right, seemed pretty one sided on this doc. They pretty much talked about how all communism was bad. Stupid choice on their part
So if you noted how poor their view of socialism was why would you believe everything they had to say about a leader in a socialist country?

[Pawn Power]

I wouldn't watch the History channel and expect to get useful or factual histroy.

One can easily read about the attrocities of stalin in a more factual history book.

[ahab]

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+Jul 19 2006, 01:56 AM--> (CCCPneubauten @ Jul 19 2006, 01:56 AM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 12:49 AM
I knew Joseph Stalin was fuckin crazy but after watching that I really realized what a fucking nut job wimp he was.

*side note* the history channel, although supposed to be neutral when it comes to being left or right, seemed pretty one sided on this doc. They pretty much talked about how all communism was bad. Stupid choice on their part
So if you noted how poor their view of socialism was why would you believe everything they had to say about a leader in a socialist country? [/b]
well i believed most of what was said because the people who were saying it were survivors, kruschev's son, the daughter of stalin and people who were in his administration that survived. Just parts from the narrorator were a little one sided but the accounts from the people who lived through it were real

[godisdead]

even testimony from "actual ppl" can be skewed to fit a certain view or agenda. like airing only certain segments, etc.


never use the history channell as a objective source on any event. someone pays to have those films made, ppl with $$$ that love to paint "revolutionaries" or "revolutions" as evil and negative.


i watch the channel for "footage" (mainly WWII) and their funny re-actments...i love watching third rate actors pretend to be napolean (lmao).

as someone stated above, read a well researched book.

[ahab]

yea yea well still stalin was a fuck up, he was a terrible military strategist, cruel to his people and military, paranoid and skittish. kinda paints a picture for communism :o

[Avtomatov]

If he was such a fuck up then how come under his leadership the ussr was industrialized and had huge economic growth. He turned it into a superpower.

[ahab]

yea, at the expense of 24 MILLION PEOPLE!

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:18 AM
yea, at the expense of 24 MILLION PEOPLE!
Evidence? :lol:

Use either the Fascist accounts or the capitalist ones.

[working_class_warrior]

In retrospect Stalins daughter which defected to the united states and the son of the man who initiated the popularly termed "De-stalinization" are not nutral sources.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:49 AM
I knew Joseph Stalin was fuckin crazy but after watching that I really realized what a fucking nut job wimp he was.
A "wimp"? This is the guy Russians are still scared of.

[ahab]

well then i guess we'll never know :rolleyes:

the only evidence is what is said in the history books, which are supposed to be fact, now obviously not everything in them is 100% accurate because most people have different views on what happened.

Maybe his daughterturned and Kruschev was anti-stalin because stalin was fuckin crazy! If i became the leader of a nation that was plagued by a mad man for 30 years and their were statues of him in every town and propaganda films to make him look like some kind of hero i would de-stalinize too. Also though if I became the leader of a nation i would desintagrate the government and put the nation into an anarchist state lol

Like I said the only proof of his atrocities is the history books and the accounts of the people who lived through it. All they did was add up the dead from the construction sites, goulogs, the war, the rural towns that suffered from hunger and the paranoia that ended in people being arrested for no reason and either dying from being tortured or just dying in jail.

[working_class_warrior]

krusteve was just as bad of a stalinist though so what can you do.

[Year: 1]

Stalin wasn't a socialist although he called himself one. He was a parasite!!!! Just like those people in the Spanish Inquisition called themselves Christians---well were they following the precepts of Christ, who called for compassion, charity, mercy and almsgiving? Hardly!!!!

[praxis1966]

It is a fact Stalin was mass murdering lunatic, the only question is how many millions he killed. That being said, I take just about anything on the History Channel cum grano salis. The joint is owned by Disney, after all.

[1984]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:49 AM
I knew Joseph Stalin was fuckin crazy but after watching that I really realized what a fucking nut job wimp he was.

*side note* the history channel, although supposed to be neutral when it comes to being left or right, seemed pretty one sided on this doc. They pretty much talked about how all communism was bad. Stupid choice on their part
Being an American channel, be VERY skeptical when watching it when it comes to 20th century history - they ARE indeed biased.

See how they avoid talking about Vietnam, South America... US Imperialism apparently never existed for the channel's staff. Heck, did they ever show a documentary on the Paris Commune or the student movement in '68? How was their approach to the Russian Revolution...?

And after republican-oriented crap such as "Military Mail", did you really have any doubts about the "neutrality" of History Channel...?

:rolleyes:

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:10 AM
It is a fact Stalin was mass murdering lunatic, the only question is how many millions he killed.
You think Stalin went about garrotting innocent peasants? That he stalked the streets of Moscow at night?

The tendency to label Stalin as a "lunatic", a "monster" or "the devil" is lazy history at its very worst. Its clear that this stupidity is not confined to the History Channel <_<

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Comrade Om

The tendency to label Stalin as a "lunatic", a "monster" or "the devil" is lazy history at its very worst. Its clear that this stupidity is not confined to the History Channel

I agree&#33;

The overwhelming majority of evidence suggests that Stalin was an immensely calm, caring, passionate and committed communist who sacrificed personal glory for the greater good of the socialist revolution and transistion that took root under his aloof guidance (he was not a dictator after all).

During his 32 years as the fully recallable and supported leader of the people (who adored him, but that wasnt because of an entrenched personality cult - it was spontaneous, despite appearances and lies to the contrary), the USSR made incredibly solid progress towards communism, the transistion away from socialism and towards a stateless classless society was made more apparent as every year passed until 1953.

The bureaucracy and other elite classes were completely eliminated from the USSR, and in their place, a genuine and accountable system of delegation and workers councils (self-management) was pursued as much and whenenver possible.

Popular participation and critical discussion in this process of socialist transistional regarded paramount by Stalin himself; particularly critical political and theoretical discussions which were encouraged vigorously both inside and outside the party, under Stalin political dissent was the norm not suppressed like it is today in so-called &#39;democratic&#39; societies, where the states political opponents are routinely murdered, imprisoned or otherwise silenced. Such things were alien to the USSR, particularly during Stalin&#39;s time.

Unlike modern day bourgeois leaders and dictators, he was a definately a reluctant leader, modest, he shirked the limelight as much as possible, staying away from the vain egotism that characterised other regimes of the period, to him the idea of re-naming places after himself, erecting statues in his image, or the mass-production of his own portrait would have been greeted with a warm laugh, he was not a megalomaniac after all.

Also, something that people dont often mention, under his guidance the prison system of the USSR shrank dramatically, political dissidents or dissenters were not let chained in labour camps, that is the stuff of the modern US, not socialist russia or the USSR.

Where on earth do people get their information from? You need a broader perspective than just what the bourgeois media tells you on the TV.

[ComradeOm]

Here’s a radical idea for you BD – Stalin wasn’t a caricature. Shock, horror. There was nothing particularly vicious or virtuous about him. He was simply a human being like everybody else. Not a particularly nice person by all account but calling him a "lunatic" is lazy.

But no… that’s not good enough for you. Stalin must have been some evil spawn of Satan who drank the blood of innocents. I hear his moustache was made out of pubic hair from dead Romanov children and that every full moon he turned into an anarchist. Those deaths in the USSR that people think were caused by famine… Stalin ate every last one of them. The fat bastard.

I’ll try another radical idea (whoah… I don’t know if my conformist Marxist brain can handle two in one day) – instead of taking the lazy way out and building up some nice comfortable caricature, how about you actually read the history and try and examine his actions without the preconception that he was the Antichrist. I know its more difficult than mindlessly repeating drivel about Stalin and Hitler frolicking together in the woods but give thinking a go. You might even find that its fun.

BTW I hope you tore that post off some Stalinist site and didn’t waste your time writing it.

[Black Dagger]

I don&#39;t get it Comrade, where did i say he was a lunactic? Satanic? The anti-christ? Evil or crazy?

You&#39;re evading my critcisms

I don&#39;t think Stalin was satan, i&#39;m saying his politics were and are shit, and im criticising the direction that the USSR took under his rule.

I suppose if what i said is so cliche, you wouldn&#39;t mind answering the points i raised right? It should be easy, it&#39;s all based on carcicatures and not on historical reality yeah?

Well?

Did he sacrifice personal glory for the greater good of the socialist revolution? I.E. did he put the revolution above his own individual ambitions?

Was he a fully recallable and supported leader of the people or not?

Was there a personality cult surrounding him?

Was the transistion away from socialism and towards a stateless classless society made more apparent as every year passed until 1953? Or did the &#39;transistional&#39; state entrench itself?

Under Stalin was the bureaucracy and other elite political-social classes completely eliminated from the USSR? And all their privileges? And in their place, was there a genuine and accountable system of delegation and workers councils (self-management) pursued as much and whenenver possible?

Was popular participation and critical discussion in this process of socialist transistional held as paramount during his rule?

Was critical political and theoretical discussions encouraged vigorously both inside and outside the party?

Under Stalin was political dissent (or dissent of any stripe) the norm? Or were his opponents eliminated and imprisoned? What happened to the original members of the CC?

Was he a reluctant leader? Did he shirk from the limelight as much as possible, staying away from the vain egotism that characterised other regimes of the period? Or did he re-name places after himself, erect statues in his image, and have his portrait spread all over the USSR?

Did he lead a shift away from punitive imprisonment and labour camps? Just off hand, do you support prisons and labour camps?

Was he a dictator or not?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Revolution is the [email protected] 19 2006, 02:04 AM
One can easily read about the attrocities of stalin in a more factual history book.
Why don&#39;t you be so kind as to be more specific?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 02:30 AM

well i believed most of what was said because the people who were saying it were survivors, kruschev&#39;s son, the daughter of stalin and people who were in his administration that survived. Just parts from the narrorator were a little one sided but the accounts from the people who lived through it were real
Mr. K lost his son in WW II. Stalin refused to make a deal with the nazis and exchange him for nazi POWs, like he did with his own son Yakov, and Kruschev was forever pissed about that. No doubt his son was told he has no brother because of Stalin.

Svetlana was a brat who blamed her mothers death on her father.

As for the rest of the people they interviewed; do you honestly believe that if they wanted to make it unbiased, every single persyn they interviewed would be against Stalin?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 03:59 AM
yea yea well still stalin was a fuck up,
..and you could have done a better job, right? :lol:


he was a terrible military strategist,

Is this your opinion, or do you have facts to back it up? And where do you get this from? As far as I can tell it&#39;s mainly history channel and Kruschev&#39;s secret speech that made this charge.

However, even Fidel Castro disagrees:


I believe Stalin led the USSR well during the war. According to many generals, Zhukov and the most brilliant Soviet generals, Stalin played an important role in defending the USSR and in the war against Nazism. They all recognized it.

--Blaiming Stalin for everything would be historical simplism (http://marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1992/06/03.htm)


cruel to his people and military,

Example?


paranoid

We have all heard this many times, of course. But for someone to be paranoid they must be wrong and irrational. All the evidence about how the USSR went downwards after Stalin&#39;s death points to him having good reason to be suspcious. Also, I doubt you are a psychologist and/or someone in a position to make that diagnoses.


and skittish.

Really? he was ively and unpredictable; playful? :lol:


kinda paints a picture for communism :o

No, it&#39;s "comrades" like you who are painting the picture.

[Comrade Marcel]

More quotes on Stalin as a military strategist:


"Is it true that Stalin really was an outstanding military
thinker, a major contributor to the development of the Armed Forces and
an expert in tactical and strategic principles?
From the military standpoint I have studied Stalin most
thoroughly, for I entered the war together with him and together with
him I ended it.
Stalin mastered the technique of the organization of front
operations and operations by groups of fronts and guided them with
skill, thoroughly understanding complicated strategic questions. He
displayed his ability as Commander-in-Chief beginning with Stalingrad.
In guiding the armed struggle as a whole, Stalin was assisted
by his natural intelligence and profound intuition. He had a knack of
grasping the main link in the strategic situation so as to organize
opposition to the enemy and conduct a major offensive operation. He was
certainly a worthy Supreme Commander.
Here Stalin&#39;s merit lies in the fact that he correctly
appraised the advice offered by the military experts and then in
summarized form--in instructions, directives, and
regulations--immediately circulated them among the troops for practical
guidance.
As regards the material and technical organization of
operations, the buildup of strategic reserves, of the organization of
production of materiel. and troop supplies, Stalin did prove himself to
be an outstanding organizer. And it would be unfair if we, the Soviet
people, failed to pay tribute to him for it."

Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto:
NC Press, c1987, APPENDIX 1
Portrait of Stalin by
Zhukov, p. 143

CHUEV: Golovanov, in his memoirs, writes that Stalin, and not the
marshal of artillery Voronov, determined the main thrust of artillery at
Stalingrad.
MOLOTOV: That&#39;s right.
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p.
202

"His [Zhukov] relations with Stalin were on occasions stormy,
but they were based on mutual respect. From many incidents related by
Zhukov in his memoirs, written after Stalin&#39;s death, it is clear that he
never questioned Stalin&#39;s authority and that he regarded him as a leader
of profound wisdom and mastery of affairs, even in the military field."

Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1979, p. 315

"Stalin dominated the [Tehran] conference. He was brief and
incisive in his comments, clear about his objectives, patient and
inexorable in pursuing them. Brooke considered that he had an
outstanding military brain, and observed that in all his statements he
never once failed to appreciate all the implications of a situation with
quick, unerring eye, and "in this respect he stood out compared with
Roosevelt and Churchill." The head of the U.S. military mission in
Moscow had noted that no one could fail to recognize "the qualities of
greatness in the man." Combined with this essential greatness, there
was a charm and at times a human warmth...."

Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1979, p. 388

"Taking care not to show surprise at the question, Konev
replied after a little thought, "Stalin is universally gifted. He is
brilliantly able to see the war as a whole and this makes it possible
for him to direct it so successfully."

Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1979, p. 395

"Stalin was not a military man. Nevertheless he coped ably with
the leadership of the armed forces. Ably. There was no people&#39;s
commissar heading the air force but Stalin. The Navy, led by Stalin,
and the artillery, led by Stalin."

Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p.
202

(thanks to comrade klo for the quotes)

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 20 2006, 09:49 AM--> (ComradeOm &#064; Jul 20 2006, 09:49 AM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 06:10 AM
It is a fact Stalin was mass murdering lunatic, the only question is how many millions he killed.
You think Stalin went about garrotting innocent peasants? That he stalked the streets of Moscow at night?

The tendency to label Stalin as a "lunatic", a "monster" or "the devil" is lazy history at its very worst. Its clear that this stupidity is not confined to the History Channel <_< [/b]
In most civilized societies, if someone orders or solicits the death of someone else, they&#39;re just as culpable as the person pulling the trigger. Let me put it this way, George Bush orders the invasion of Iraq. Tens of thousands die, including massive numbers are innocents. Who is responsible? Is it the soldier, doing his ordered duty, or the warmongering madman that sent him in the first place? What I want to know is why you have a different set of standards for Stalin, just because he claimed to be a communist?

Oh, and before you talk about someone&#39;s &#39;stupidity&#39;, don&#39;t. Check my post history. I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll find I&#39;m anything but. Further, name calling just makes you sound like an asshole. And Comrade Om, before you go off half-cocked about people being orthodox Marxists, you should also know who you&#39;re talking to. I&#39;ve said repeatedly in various posts that my to biggest ideological influences are Paolo Freire and Antonio Gramsci, neither of which were Marxists. Sounds like you need to get your facts straight, son.

Frankly, I&#39;m quite sick of Stalin&#39;s apologists on this board. Denial of his crimes sounds disturbingly like the rhetoric of Neo-Nazis claiming that the Holocaust never occured. Get back to me when you guys stop letting ideology ruin your perception of historical fact.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:00 AM
Frankly, I&#39;m quite sick of Stalin&#39;s apologists on this board. Denial of his crimes sounds disturbingly like the rhetoric of Neo-Nazis claiming that the Holocaust never occured. Get back to me when you guys stop letting ideology ruin your perception of historical fact.
praxis1966: When you said you&#39;re not stupid, I was going to actually respect that but when I read this at the end of your post I couldn&#39;t possibly believe you.

This is a really stupid argument on those who can not bring facts to the table when we are talking about the history of Stalin and the USSR. When all these false accusations have been invented by exactly those fascists and capitalists who in those days sided with fascism over communism - and these people are masters at covering there own crimes, well making it seem others are worse (hence always claiming over 6 million) - you look like a fool and lacky mouthpiece.

Please, you get back to us when you are ready to present "historical fact", instead of this histerical shit you bring now.

And BTW. Gramsci wasn&#39;t a Marxists? :huh: Urm, are you sure about that?

[praxis1966]

This is a really stupid argument on those who can not bring facts to the table when we are talking about the history of Stalin and the USSR. When all these false accusations have been invented by exactly those fascists and capitalists who in those days sided with fascism over communism - and these people are masters at covering there own crimes, well making it seem others are worse (hence always claiming over 6 million) - you look like a fool and lacky mouthpiece.

Look, I don&#39;t have any skulls of dead dissidents from Stalinist Russia, so I can&#39;t really bring facts to the debate now can I? What I can do is remind you of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) who died in the kulaks for political crimes, innumerable Chekists who were outright purged, and nevermind the members of his own government who were executed or just disappeared.

Oh, and Gramsci was a Marxist in the early part of his career. However, later he broke with Marx, saying that the latter had too many naturalist and positivist encrustations, reducing everything to natural law and allowing no room for man as a historical being. Further, he was a syndicalist as well, and (as far as I know) was the first theorist to really develop that school of socialism. Which, I dare say, diverges from Marx as well.

[Ol' Dirty]

Look&#33;

It&#39;s A bird&#33;

It&#39;s a plane&#33;

No...

It&#39;s a crazy fascist dictator&#33;

Stalin: Man of Steel.

Rated R for Revolutionary.

:rolleyes:

I&#39;m sorry. I simply couldn&#39;t resist.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jul 20 2006, 05:04 PM--> (Black Dagger &#064; Jul 20 2006, 05:04 PM)I don&#39;t think Stalin was satan, i&#39;m saying his politics were and are shit, and im criticising the direction that the USSR took under his rule.[/b]
Now that I have no problem with. I agree with most of them. What does piss me off is the lazy practice of dismissing the man and his policies by claiming that he was a "lunatic". As I said, its bad history.


praxis1966
What I want to know is why you have a different set of standards for Stalin, just because he claimed to be a communist?
Did I say that I had? I apply the exact same criteria to Mao or Hitler. These are the other two that tend to be portrayed as monstrous lunatics. These men were products of specific material conditions. Their objectives, no matter how perverted, were largely admired and their actions copied. Writing off this backgrounds and reasoning cuts the "dull" bits out of history and makes for a more interesting television. It makes for very poor history though. These were not cartoon characters.


Oh, and before you talk about someone&#39;s &#39;stupidity&#39;, don&#39;t. Check my post history. I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll find I&#39;m anything but. Further, name calling just makes you sound like an asshole. And Comrade Om, before you go off half-cocked about people being orthodox Marxists, you should also know who you&#39;re talking to. I&#39;ve said repeatedly in various posts that my to biggest ideological influences are Paolo Freire and Antonio Gramsci, neither of which were Marxists. Sounds like you need to get your facts straight, son.
And I suggest you check my past posts before accusing me of being some "Stalin apologist". The issue here is not the crimes of Stalin but rather the lazy tendency to turn him into some pantomime villain. Call it my "orthodox Marxism" if you will but I’m reluctant to simply label someone a "lunatic" in lieu of a study of the man, his motives and the material conditions that spawned both.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+Jul 19 2006, 01:52 AM--> (CCCPneubauten @ Jul 19 2006, 01:52 AM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 05:18 AM
yea, at the expense of 24 MILLION PEOPLE&#33;
Evidence? :lol:

Use either the Fascist accounts or the capitalist ones. [/b]
There&#39;s evidence, its just that you will deny it at your convenience.

Given, the numbers may be skewed, but regardless he committed unacepptable atrocities.

[working_class_warrior]

Stalinism: a buracratic anti-working class movement. best repesented by the buracratic caste that grabbed power in the soviet union after the revolution was isolated after the revolutions in the west were crushed.

Facism: A ultra-right social movement based in the petty-capitalist middle class. usualy takes power when capitalism is in crises of and the ruling class fears worker uprising.

just tired of hearing facism and stalinism called the same thing.