Why is Stalin hated?

[blazeofglory]

I want to learn a lot about Communism and well its figures. REVLEFT has become a great help but wherever I read I find STALIN being the centre of controversy.

Now, to sum it all up, yes he caused genocides but wasn't he the one who turned the USSR into a SUPERPOWER???

I really dont know much about him but yes I am reasearching. I think you comrades can help me most!!!

[OneBrickOneVoice]

umm no, he didn't cause genocide, that's upsurd no matter what your thoughts on him. I think Stalin is viewed as a great revolutionary figure by some for his destruction of the Nazis, building the world's first socialist state, and for industrializing the worlds first socialist state into a superpower. He is hated by others mainly because of the bureacratic manner in which he handled things which led to most of the mistakes he made. Almost all socialists and communists would be critical of this in years to come

[MrDoom]

Maybe being the worst thing to ever happen to communism has something to do with it. That, or being a bigger slayer of communists than any bourgeois dictator. <_<

[Sir_No_Sir]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:19 am
umm no, he didn&#39;t cause genocide, that&#39;s upsurd no matter what your thoughts on him. I think Stalin is viewed as a great revolutionary figure by some for his destruction of the Nazis, building the world&#39;s first socialist state, and for industrializing the worlds first socialist state into a superpower. He is hated by others mainly because of the bureacratic manner in which he handled things which led to most of the mistakes he made. Almost all socialists and communists would be critical of this in years to come
I&#39;m pretty sure that he&#39;s widely seen as a brilliant ndividual, but by most comrades misguided or just plain wrong.

[Janus]

Right or wrong about what?

As for why he&#39;s hated, well, his policies did cause irrevocable damage to the leftist movement then and now.


but wasn&#39;t he the one who turned the USSR into a SUPERPOWER???
Stalin didn&#39;t turn the USSR into a superpower, it was the effort and achievement of over 150 million Soviets. But using that arguement, you could just as well say that Hitler turned Germany into a major power as well; something that detrimentally affected millions of people. Besides, does that really justify the actions of Stalin and the USSR?

[Question everything]

Communism= Power to the People
Stalinism= Power to the Stalin

[redcannon]

perhaps the AUTHORITARIANISM and the mass murders, and that a bad light will forever be shined on communism and socialism...

[blazeofglory]

Number of victims

Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin&#39;s regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence, and their estimates range from a low of 3 million to as high as 60 million.[15][25] But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, evidence from the Soviet archives finally became available. The government archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin, while another 1.7 million died of privation[citation needed] or other causes in the Gulags and some 389,000 perished during kulak resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims.

[Aurora]

Stalin was the figure head of the bureaucracy within the Communist party.


I really dont know much about him but yes I am reasearching. I think you comrades can help me most&#33;&#33;&#33;
The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/) is a good source of information.Have a look through it and post some comments here if ya like.


:lol: @ QE

[Prairie Fire]

LeftyHenry:

umm no, he didn&#39;t cause genocide, that&#39;s upsurd no matter what your thoughts on him. I think Stalin is viewed as a great revolutionary figure by some for his destruction of the Nazis, building the world&#39;s first socialist state, and for industrializing the worlds first socialist state into a superpower. He is hated by others mainly because of the bureacratic manner in which he handled things which led to most of the mistakes he made. Almost all socialists and communists would be critical of this in years to come

I agree with a lot of what Lefty Henry said, but Bureaucracy is not the major point of contention with most people and Stalin. This is the Maoist (and Trotskyist) criticism of Stalin, which is much more logical than most, as Maoism doesn&#39;t reject Stalin.

The major criticisms of Stalin revolve around trumped up, and fabricated charges of "crimes against humanity", charges of authortarianism, misconceptions that Stalin betrayed socialism in USSR and/or the world ( of course, that last point is only applicable to socialists), and the notorious "Persynality cult" that Stalin is accused of initiating and perpetuating.

Now, I&#39;ll concede that to some extent logical arguments can be made against the bureacracy of the USSR, but that&#39;s pretty much where the logic train ends as far as Anti-Stalin sentiments are concerned. It is also noteworthy that much of the bureacratic apparatus of the USSR was strengthened AFTER Stalins death, not before.

Blaze of Glory:


Number of victims

Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin&#39;s regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence, and their estimates range from a low of 3 million to as high as 60 million.[15][25] But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, evidence from the Soviet archives finally became available. The government archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin, while another 1.7 million died of privation[citation needed] or other causes in the Gulags and some 389,000 perished during kulak resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims.

Word. That was very informative, comrade.

QE:

Communism= Power to the People
Stalinism= Power to the Stalin

You haven&#39;t been red very long, have you ? :D
I encourage you to keep reading, Comrade.

[R_P_A_S]

i specially love how LeftyHenry said Stalin destroyed the Nazis like some sort of Superman&#33; :lol:
funded the first ever socialist state? really? damn... :D

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Honestly, Stalin may have barked at people to kill Nazis but it was peasents in the mud who actually did it. Which is inherently classistic, in my mind.

[Tower of Bebel]

What about Stalin&#39;s influence during the civil war in Spain?

[BobKKKindle$]

It is also important to note that Stalin was perfectly willing to engage in cooperation and joint military action with Capitalist countries - including Nazi Germany in the form of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939. This is hardly fitting of a &#39;revolutionary&#39; leader. In addition, as part of his program of primitive accumulation, Stalin deprived sovereign rights from the republics of the Soviet Union.

Stalin&#39;s internal purges were not, contrary to what our resident reactionary stalinists will tell you, designed to protect the revolution from a growing bourgeois influence within the party, but simply to stabilise and strengthen Stalin&#39;s position. Allegations of Party members such as Zinoviev and Kamenev as belonging to &#39;centres&#39; in major cities were purely fabricated and resulted in and supported a centralisation of power and an absence of debate within the Party - in total opposition to the principles of Democratic centralism.


What about Stalin&#39;s influence during the civil war in Spain?

Stalin only offerred military and political support to the Stalinist Communist Party and encouraged divisions and power struggles within the united front coalition in order to reduce the influence of the growing international Trotskyist movement which could undermine his domination of Communist parties situated in Capitalist countries through the third international. George Orwell&#39;s account of his time in the POUM (The trotskyist faction in the war) gives a personal perspective on this. Because of this, It is not implausible to suggest that Stalin caused the defeat of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Having pictures of Stalin on the wall in class rooms, having massive 30 foot pictures of Stalin everywhere clearly indicates there was a need for Stalin to use such methods. Methods probably cant be justified given the ultimate failure of the USSR.

[quirk]

Originally posted by bobkindles+--> (bobkindles)It is also important to note that Stalin was perfectly willing to engage in cooperation and joint military action with Capitalist countries - including Nazi Germany in the form of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939.[/b]

The Nazi-Soviet pact was used to buy time so as the USSR could further strenthen their defences in preparation for the coming attack, which they were aware would happen. What do you suggest they should have done?


Originally posted by [email protected]
Allegations of Party members such as Zinoviev and Kamenev as belonging to &#39;centres&#39; in major cities were purely fabricated

Do you have evidence to support this assertion?


bobkindles
George Orwell&#39;s account of his time in the POUM (The trotskyist faction in the war) gives a personal perspective on this. Because of this, It is not implausible to suggest that Stalin caused the defeat of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War.

You are really saying that because of one single persons opinion it is then plausable to say Stalin caused the defeat in the Spanish civil war. What about those who held the opposite view. Are we just to ignore their opinions.

[Whitten]

If the purges hadn&#39;t taken place there&#39;s a high probability Nazi&#39;s would rule the world right now. Its just plain juvenile and utopian to condemn the man for using unfavourable methods for the greater good.

[BobKKKindle$]

The Nazi-Soviet pact was used to buy time so as the USSR could further strenthen their defences in preparation for the coming attack, which they were aware would happen. What do you suggest they should have done?

If the purges hadn&#39;t taken place there&#39;s a high probability Nazi&#39;s would rule the world right now. Its just plain juvenile and utopian to condemn the man for using unfavourable methods for the greater good.

If the purges had not taken place, there would be no necessity for bide for time through cooperation with fascists and primitive accumulation need not have been characterised by such barbarity. A large part of those purged were the staff of the armed forces of the Soviet Union, such that when war arose, there was a shortage of experienced commanders who were capable of effectively organising the Red army. An example of this is the trial and execution Mikhail Tukhachevsky as part of the &#39;Case of Trotskyist Anti-Soviet Military Organization&#39;, who played an important role during the Civil War and would have been of great value in what later became known as the &#39;great patrotic war&#39; in 1941. Stalin, through his purges, was responsible for the unnecessary deaths of large number of soviet citizens during the second world war.


Do you have evidence to support this assertion?

Support what? That the trials occured or that the allegations were fabricated? The trials certainly occurred - a large part of the purges were widely publicised as &#39;show trials&#39; in order to create a climate of fear and suspicion within which no opposition to Stalin could be organised. The actual court record of the specific case I mentioned is avaliable here : http://art-bin.com/art/omoscowtoc.html


You are really saying that because of one single persons opinion it is then plausable to say Stalin caused the defeat in the Spanish civil war. What about those who held the opposite view. Are we just to ignore their opinions.

You misunderstand me - I am not saying we should take this view simply because it was supported and documented by Orwell, I was just noting that Orwell provides a personal perspective on the internal divisions that were present during the Spanish Civil war - something that might be of interest to many comrades.

I think we can agree that one of the factors that resulted in the defeat of Socialism and Democracy in Spain - in addition to others such as the support provided by Italy and Nazi Germany to the Nationalist armies - was the presence of internal divisions and struggles within the Republican bloc. This did not allow the front to present a united and coordinated defence and conduct effective military operations. I hope you can accept that. Now, the question to ask is - who was responsible for these divisions? The answer to which is Stalin. If you can present an alternative view, I would be happy to hear it.

[quirk]

If the purges had not taken place, there would be no necessity for bide for time through cooperation with fascists and primitive accumulation need not have been characterised by such barbarity.

Maybe so but the purges were necessary as there were in fact many enemies within the party. And even at that it would still have been in the intrests of the USSR to bide more time, as more time meant better preparation.


An example of this is the trial and execution Mikhail Tukhachevsky as part of the &#39;Case of Trotskyist Anti-Soviet Military Organization&#39;, who played an important role during the Civil War and would have been of great value in what later became known as the &#39;great patrotic war&#39;

Tukhachevsky was found guilty and there was much evidence against him. He would have been of no value during the second world war as he was an enemy of the Soviet Union who intended to overthrow socialism. Him and those around him would have acted as a fifth column.Source (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node114.html#SECTION001034000000000000000)


Stalin, through his purges, was responsible for the unnecessary deaths of large number of soviet citizens during the second world war.

On the contrary the purges meant that many internal enemies had been dealt with before the war started. To have failed to do this would have been criminal and could have possibly led to the defeat of the Soviet Union.


Support what? That the trials occured or that the allegations were fabricated? The trials certainly occurred - a large part of the purges were widely publicised as &#39;show trials&#39; in order to create a climate of fear and suspicion within which no opposition to Stalin could be organised.

What I asked was do you have evidence to support your assertion that "Allegations of Party members such as Zinoviev and Kamenev as belonging to &#39;centres&#39; in major cities were purely fabricated " I have heard such claims many times but it is just that I have seen no evidence to support them.


I think we can agree that one of the factors that resulted in the defeat of Socialism and Democracy in Spain - in addition to others such as the support provided by Italy and Nazi Germany to the Nationalist armies - was the presence of internal divisions and struggles within the Republican bloc. This did not allow the front to present a united and coordinated defence and conduct effective military operations. I hope you can accept that. Now, the question to ask is - who was responsible for these divisions? The answer to which is Stalin. If you can present an alternative view, I would be happy to hear it.

I agree with you completely that internal divisions did help lead to the defeat of the Republican forces. To tell you the truth I am not as well acquainted with the Spanish civil war as I should be. I will go study up on it and get back to you. However I am not going to take at face value that it was all the fault of Stalin as the majority of claims such as this I have heard in the past have turned out to be untrue after I studyed them more deeply.

You make the assertion that it was Stalins fault so the onus is on you to back this up with evidence.

[kurohata]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:44 pm
Allegations of Party members such as Zinoviev and Kamenev as belonging to &#39;centres&#39; in major cities were purely fabricated...
i dont quite get what you&#39;re saying by this, can you elaborate?
i know who zinoviev and and kamenev are and how Stalin aligned with the rightists in the party to remove trotsky and the left opposition, but yeah i just dont get what you mean with that statement


George Orwell&#39;s account of his time in the POUM (The trotskyist faction in the war) gives a personal perspective on this.
is that homage to catalonia? or something else

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by kurohata+April 06, 2007 05:20 pm--> (kurohata @ April 06, 2007 05:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:44 pm
Allegations of Party members such as Zinoviev and Kamenev as belonging to &#39;centres&#39; in major cities were purely fabricated...
i dont quite get what you&#39;re saying by this, can you elaborate?
i know who zinoviev and and kamenev are and how Stalin aligned with the rightists in the party to remove trotsky and the left opposition, but yeah i just dont get what you mean with that statement

[/b]
He meant the name given to accused during the first Moscow Trials. It is named as the trial against the "Trotskyite-Zinonevite Terroriist center".



George Orwell&#39;s account of his time in the POUM (The trotskyist faction in the war) gives a personal perspective on this.
is that homage to catalonia? or something else
Yes.

************************************************** ****

Stalin was a Napolean of Russian Revolution. He defeated the ultimate purpose of the revolution for which he is hated.

Anarion

Stalin was the figure head of the bureaucracy within the Communist party.


I really dont know much about him but yes I am reasearching. I think you comrades can help me most&#33;&#33;&#33;
The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/) is a good source of information.Have a look through it and post some comments here if ya like.


:lol: @ QE

Apart from revolution betrayed another good source is The Workers’ State, Thermidor and Bonapartism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1935/1935-bon.htm) by Leon Trotsky is also a good analysis of Soviet State under Stalin.

[kurohata]

ok thanks, i still dont understand exactly what the "centres" thing is though

[Goatse]

building the world&#39;s first socialist state,

LOL

You&#39;re kidding, right?

Then again, you do consider yourself a "Maoist-Avakianist" so I wouldn&#39;t be surprised. :lol:

[BobKKKindle$]

On the contrary the purges meant that many internal enemies had been dealt with before the war started. To have failed to do this would have been criminal and could have possibly led to the defeat of the Soviet Union.

This is the crux of the debate. What objective evidence exists to suggest that those purged actually represented a threat to the Soviet Union and that the purges served to preserve and defend the revolution? The fact that you are supporting the persecution of these individuals means that you have to provide evidence - especially given the negative consequences that resulted from the purges, especially in the military. Let us take the case of Tukhachevsky who is perhaps, due to his military position, the most important official subject to the purges. It has to be emphasized that after Kruschchev undertook the position of General Secretary and implemented a range of political and economic reforms, Tukhachevsky was post-humously rehabilitated due to the judgement that there was an absence of the evidence of crime. This throws claims of genuine opposition and conspiracy into doubt.

As you may already know, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars in total - 30,000 members of the armed forces were purged - are you seriously suggesting that all of these individuals were plotting to overthrow the soviet union and that, through application of cost benefit analysis (taking into account the adverse military affects) the purges were beneficial?

And in any case, the entire implicit premise of the system of purges was that any debate in the post-revolutionary period represented a threat to the party (which was equated with the interests of the Proletariat). Many individuals were purged simply because they were said to display Trotskyist tendencies (even when this was not the case) - don&#39;t you agree that internal debate about the course of the revolution and the organisation of the workers&#39; state was important and should not have been considered reactionary? (given that the October socialist revolution was without precendent such that it was difficult to draw upon past experiences) I would be interested to hear your opinion on this - please deal with this point.

[Goatse]

I think the real question should be, why do some people who consider themselves leftists not hate Stalin?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 07:43 pm
I think the real question should be, why do some people who consider themselves leftists not hate Stalin?
For one, it&#39;s misguided to hate a figure-head and not the conditions which were the real cause. Stalin had the support of the bureacracy, and that is what allowed him to be in power.

[rouchambeau]

For one, it&#39;s misguided to hate a figure-head and not the conditions which were the real cause.
This has got to be my favorite way for people to excuse leaders for their wrong-doings. Just blame every single thing he did on the conditions of the time and absolve him of any responsibility he had.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:52 pm

For one, it&#39;s misguided to hate a figure-head and not the conditions which were the real cause.
This has got to be my favorite way for people to excuse leaders for their wrong-doings. Just blame every single thing he did on the conditions of the time and absolve him of any responsibility he had.
Did I excuse his actions? No, I didn&#39;t. What I did do was point out that Stalin did not get into power through some cosmic coincidence, he got into power because he had the backing of a powerful section of the Soviet Union.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

he got into power because he had the backing of a powerful section of the Soviet Union.

His positions allowed him to accept people into the bolsheviks who thought like him, and also PURGE the bolsheviks who didnt agree with him

Hardly support, more engineering.....

[Comrade_Scott]

I have a question.... can we all just shut the hell up&#33;&#33; its obvious that stalin was many things, good and bad. he was a charismatic leader who did loads of good things, or i dont dispute that, what we or i have a problem is the way it was done... on the backs of millions we cant say that the purges were good but we also cant say they were bad, who knows mabey in the purged 40% were anti revolutionary

but to say that stalin is a saint is laughable he tarnished the name of all that is left so bad we still have it, but he was not all bad no one has ever said that what we are saying is that he did things in excess yes some for his gains but some for the ussr collective farming for example, good idea badly practiced thats just me and hey hes daed and hes no god what we should be doing is taking the positves from him and each communist and trying to do better because all have positves that an be takne from them. take tham use them and mold them into something positve and stop whinning and *****ing about if stalin is god satan or anything, he was a man and man makes mistakes and geuss what man sometimes abuses power

thats my humble view anyway

[TheGreenWeeWee]

If Marx were alive to know all that went on in the Soviet Union...he would have torn up and burned all that he had written and said, "To hell with all of you&#33;" Shit written on this thread makes me more convinced to take my chances with the capitalist class in the U.S. than to allow Leninism a come back period. Perhaps a good read of Dmitri Volkogonovbut books on Lenin and Stalin based on the Soviet archives might just wake some wankers up.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:25 pm
If Marx were alive to know all that went on in the Soviet Union...he would have torn up and burned all that he had written and said, "To hell with all of you&#33;" Shit written on this thread makes me more convinced to take my chances with the capitalist class in the U.S. than to allow Leninism a come back period. Perhaps a good read of Dmitri Volkogonovbut books on Lenin and Stalin based on the Soviet archives might just wake some wankers up.
I think Fox News would be more informative...

[RNK]

Seeing how adamantly he admits he&#39;d rather support capitalism than communism, I&#39;d say he probably does get most of his information from Fox News.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:32 pm
I have a question.... can we all just shut the hell up&#33;&#33; its obvious that stalin was many things, good and bad. he was a charismatic leader who did loads of good things, or i dont dispute that, what we or i have a problem is the way it was done... on the backs of millions we cant say that the purges were good but we also cant say they were bad, who knows mabey in the purged 40% were anti revolutionary

but to say that stalin is a saint is laughable he tarnished the name of all that is left so bad we still have it, but he was not all bad no one has ever said that what we are saying is that he did things in excess yes some for his gains but some for the ussr collective farming for example, good idea badly practiced thats just me and hey hes daed and hes no god what we should be doing is taking the positves from him and each communist and trying to do better because all have positves that an be takne from them. take tham use them and mold them into something positve and stop whinning and *****ing about if stalin is god satan or anything, he was a man and man makes mistakes and geuss what man sometimes abuses power

thats my humble view anyway
Why do you claim your view is "humble" when you tell us to "shut the hell up&#33;&#33;" when we express our opinion?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Number of victims

Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin&#39;s regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence, and their estimates range from a low of 3 million to as high as 60 million.[15][25] But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, evidence from the Soviet archives finally became available. The government archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin, while another 1.7 million died of privation[citation needed] or other causes in the Gulags and some 389,000 perished during kulak resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims.

Source? I did a quick search and on the very front page all I could see was message boards.


Stalin only offerred military and political support to the Stalinist Communist Party and encouraged divisions and power struggles within the united front coalition in order to reduce the influence of the growing international Trotskyist movement which could undermine his domination of Communist parties situated in Capitalist countries through the third international.

The USSR also robbed the republican state for gold reserves (IIRC correctly, the only really relevant economic means of exchange the republican zone had). Not to mention the USSR under Stalin seemed obsessed with destroying the local comitees, which pretty much formed the backbone of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Spain.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Whitten wrote: I think Fox News would be more informative...

Than the Soviet archives....?

RNK wrote: Seeing how adamantly he admits he&#39;d rather support capitalism than communism, I&#39;d say he probably does get most of his information from Fox News.

Now ridicule is being used. No, capitalism is bad but the system you support is even worse. Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism was not communism but a blatant pretense that it existed. It was perverted from the start. You people don&#39;t even have the right to the name of "communist". The very authoritative nature of the beast you call a state would chase any worker away in support of capitalism. Yet you people think of yourselves as superior while the rest of us as inferior which makes you no better than Nazis with their superiority beliefs.

[Vargha Poralli]

Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism was not communism but a blatant pretense that it existed. It was perverted from the start. You people don&#39;t even have the right to the name of "communist". The very authoritative nature of the beast you call a state would chase any worker away in support of capitalism. Yet you people think of yourselves as superior while the rest of us as inferior which makes you no better than Nazis with their superiority beliefs.

It seems like you have a lot of homework to do. You don&#39;t know anything about materialism. I would learn some history first before go on whining about how authoritarian Lenin was...

Stalin and Mao had nothing to do with Lenin except pervert his ideas.

[quirk]

Originally posted by "bobkindles"
This is the crux of the debate. What objective evidence exists to suggest that those purged actually represented a threat to the Soviet Union and that the purges served to preserve and defend the revolution? The fact that you are supporting the persecution of these individuals means that you have to provide evidence - especially given the negative consequences that resulted from the purges, especially in the military. Let us take the case of Tukhachevsky who is perhaps, due to his military position, the most important official subject to the purges. It has to be emphasized that after Kruschchev undertook the position of General Secretary and implemented a range of political and economic reforms, Tukhachevsky was post-humously rehabilitated due to the judgement that there was an absence of the evidence of crime. This throws claims of genuine opposition and conspiracy into doubt.

Kruschchev rehabilitated many people in an effort to tarnish the name of Stalin and allow the Soviet Union to embark on a revisionist road. This is not evidence that the rehabilitated were innocent.

As to Tukhachevsky I would refer you to Another View of Stalin (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html) which presents ample evidence to show that he was in fact guilty. Do you simply dismiss the evidence presented at his trial because Stalin was leader at the time?

Journalist Alexander Werth wrote in his book Moscow 41 a chapter entitled, &#96;Trial of Tukhachevsky&#39;. He wrote:

&#96;I am also pretty sure that the purge in the Red Army had a great deal to do with Stalin&#39;s belief in an imminent war with Germany. What did Tukhachevsky stand for? People of the French Deuxieme Bureau told me long ago that Tukhachevsky was pro-German. And the Czechs told me the extraordinary story of Tukhachevsky&#39;s visit to Prague, when towards the end of the banquet --- he had got rather drunk --- he blurted out that an agreement with Hitler was the only hope for both Czechoslovakia and Russia. And he then proceeded to abuse Stalin. The Czechs did not fail to report this to the Kremlin, and that was the end of Tukhachevsky --- and of so many of his followers.&#39;

Alexander Werth, quoted in Harpal Brar, Perestroika: The Complete Collapse of Revisionism (London: Harpal Brar, 1992), p. 161.

The U.S. Ambassador Moscow, Joseph Davies, wrote his impressions on on June 28 and July 4, 1937:

&#96;(T)he best judgment seems to believe that in all probability there was a definite conspiracy in the making looking to a coup d&#39;état by the army --- not necessarily anti-Stalin, but antipolitical and antiparty, and that Stalin struck with characteristic speed, boldness and strength.&#39;

Joseph Davies, p. 99.

Churchill wrote in his memoirs that Benes &#96;had received an offer from Hitler to respect in all circumstances the integrity of Czechoslovakia in return for a guarantee that she would remain neutral in the event of a Franco-German war.&#39;

&#96;In the autumn of 1936, a message from a high military source in Germany was conveyed to President Benes to the effect that if he wanted to take advantage of the Fuehrer&#39;s offer, he had better be quick, because events would shortly take place in Russia rendering any help he could give to Germany insignificant.

&#96;While Benes was pondering over this disturbing hint, he became aware that communications were passing through the Soviet Embassy in Prague between important personages in Russia and the German Government. This was a part of the so-called military and Old-Guard Communist conspiracy to overthrow Stalin and introduce a new régime based on a pro-German policy. President Benes lost no time in communicating all he could find out to Stalin. Thereafter there followed the merciless, but perhaps not needless, military and political purge in Soviet Russia ....

&#96;The Russian Army was purged of its pro-German elements at a heavy cost to its military efficiency. The bias of the Soviet Government was turned in a marked manner against Germany .... The situation was, of course, thoroughly understood by Hitler; but I am not aware that the British and French Governments were equally enlightened. To Mr.&#092; Chamberlain and the British and French General Staffs the purge of 1937 presented itself mainly as a tearing to pieces internally of the Russian Army, and a picture of the Soviet Union as riven asunder by ferocious hatreds and vengeance.&#39;

Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War: The Gathering Storm (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948), pp. 288--289.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] April 7, 2007, 07:25 pm
a good read of Dmitri Volkogonov

I seem to remember Volkogonov once said in the introduction to his book, Autopsy for an Empire, that he was more than happy to be rid of communism, embrace "western-style" democracy. He even mentioned how he became a born-again Orthodox Christian, and when baptized described his cleansing from "Bolshevik filth."

Not someone I&#39;d take at face-value, but with extreme skepticism.

Also, I seem to remember that there was some sort of dispute between Volkogonov and other historians because he had special access to the archives and was trying to deny access to other academics. Will have to read up to confirm. Still, Volkogonov is not primary source material, and we really need to see the archival material first before comparing with his so-called "analysis."

[TheGreenWeeWee]

g.ram wrote:It seems like you have a lot of homework to do. You don&#39;t know anything about materialism. I would learn some history first before go on whining about how authoritarian Lenin was...

The material conditions was that Lenin never should have bothered in the first place.

Stalin and Mao had nothing to do with Lenin except pervert his ideas.

..and that was a very easy task to do.

CriticiseEverythingAlways wrote: I seem to remember Volkogonov once said in the introduction to his book, Autopsy for an Empire, that he was more than happy to be rid of communism, embrace "western-style" democracy. He even mentioned how he became a born-again Orthodox Christian, and when baptized described his cleansing from "Bolshevik filth."

Not someone I&#39;d take at face-value, but with extreme skepticism.

Of course he would embrace "western style democracy" because he and everyone else was tired of the bull shit. Showing that he became a born again christian just proves the bigotry and disdain you people have to those who think differently or who have changed their minds. Yup, that superiority mentality cousin Nazi has is very much a part of the communist mentality when dealing with people who hold different views or beliefs.

[Vargha Poralli]

The material conditions was that Lenin never should have bothered in the first place.

But unfortunately Lenin was a Revolutionary unlike you who is a Liberal whiner.

[Comrade_Scott]

Originally posted by Goatse+April 08, 2007 05:51 am--> (Goatse @ April 08, 2007 05:51 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 10:32 pm
I have a question.... can we all just shut the hell up&#33;&#33; its obvious that stalin was many things, good and bad. he was a charismatic leader who did loads of good things, or i dont dispute that, what we or i have a problem is the way it was done... on the backs of millions we cant say that the purges were good but we also cant say they were bad, who knows mabey in the purged 40% were anti revolutionary

but to say that stalin is a saint is laughable he tarnished the name of all that is left so bad we still have it, but he was not all bad no one has ever said that what we are saying is that he did things in excess yes some for his gains but some for the ussr collective farming for example, good idea badly practiced thats just me and hey hes daed and hes no god what we should be doing is taking the positves from him and each communist and trying to do better because all have positves that an be takne from them. take tham use them and mold them into something positve and stop whinning and *****ing about if stalin is god satan or anything, he was a man and man makes mistakes and geuss what man sometimes abuses power

thats my humble view anyway
Why do you claim your view is "humble" when you tell us to "shut the hell up&#33;&#33;" when we express our opinion? [/b]
comrade i say in my humble view because im still new but i say shut the hell up because since i joined all i seem to read is stalin is cool no no hes bad blah blah blah. we need to arguing and start up the action, thats why we are so stagnant as a movement we keep up the infighting while the cappies they may differ unite to oppress. we need to stop the bickering and start uniting

[bezdomni]

under Stalin, while another 1.7 million died of privation[citation needed]

So the biggest number of people he "killed" is unsourced? :lol:

[TheGreenWeeWee]

g.ram wrote: But unfortunately Lenin was a Revolutionary unlike you who is a Liberal whiner.

Revolutionary? No, revenge on the Tzar and to install a new government which was very easily perverted later on. No, the idea of socialism is to have the workers run the factories in a manner of industrial government which is not political in nature. This can only happen in advaced capitalist nation where workers implement methods of democratic vote to run production and distribution.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:35 am
i specially love how LeftyHenry said Stalin destroyed the Nazis like some sort of Superman&#33; :lol:
funded the first ever socialist state? really? damn... :D
I forget exactly how I worded it but c&#39;mon, lets try to be constructive here. You know what I mean. Against all odds, the strategy, tactics, and will power of the Soviet people and their government to the destruction of the nazis caused the destruction of the nazis. Stalin was the General Secretariat, and thus had a pretty big role I think, no? Also, why would any peasant partisans or worker militias fight against the nazis with hoes and pikes to crowbars and rifles if it was so evil?


The USSR also robbed the republican state for gold reserves (IIRC correctly, the only really relevant economic means of exchange the republican zone had). Not to mention the USSR under Stalin seemed obsessed with destroying the local comitees, which pretty much formed the backbone of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Spain.

I always love when people say this shizer. If the Soviet Union was so intent about killing all the workers in Spain, then explain the International Brigades which were funded, armed, and trained by the Soviet Union as well as the air support provided by the USSR?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:24 am
I agree with a lot of what Lefty Henry said, but Bureaucracy is not the major point of contention with most people and Stalin. This is the Maoist (and Trotskyist) criticism of Stalin, which is much more logical than most, as Maoism doesn&#39;t reject Stalin.
I mean that the bureaucratic manner of his handling of affairs is where critiscism stems from. IE people claim he "betrayed socialism in the USSR" because he "turned it into a bureaucracy" and etc...

[Rawthentic]

He did. Well , he was a big part of it. But before he had stolen power, the bureaucratic degeneration had already happened.

[Red October]

im so tired of stalin debates. everyone always wants to talk about stalin and we never get anywhere. he failed, now lets move on.

[Rawthentic]

Yes comrade, but there are those who think that Stalin advanced socialism and working class control.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

I want to make this clear. I don&#39;t hate anyone whatsoever. I just don&#39;t agree with the ideology of Leninism or its variants. My choice and those who follow Leninism are adult enough in making their own choices. Agree to disagree.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:50 am
Number of victims

Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin&#39;s regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence, and their estimates range from a low of 3 million to as high as 60 million.[15][25] But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, evidence from the Soviet archives finally became available. The government archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin, while another 1.7 million died of privation[citation needed] or other causes in the Gulags and some 389,000 perished during kulak resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims.
Wow. I was always under the impression from history teachers that he killed more people then Hitler. I now know that Hitler killed twice as many, thanks comrade :D

As for my history teachers, lying scum&#33; I will have a word with them regarding the matter.

[Hiero]

Is Stalin hated? and who hates Stalin?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Wow. I was always under the impression from history teachers that he killed more people then Hitler. I now know that Hitler killed twice as many, thanks comrade :D

I wonder what the source is?

[FOREVER LEFT]

What victims (besides the old Bolsheviks who were heartlessly murdered)? The only evidence that establishment historians rely upon are "Stalin&#39;s fingers." Let me explain: Churchill wrote that when he met Stalin in a summit he asked him how many victims died in the famine. To which Stalin raised both his hands as if to shrug off the question. Churchill interpreted this to mean 10,000,000 people died. Read Michael Parenti&#39;s short book Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and The Overthrow of Communism where he asserts that if so many people died and so many were in prison, where were the Nuremberg type trials prosecuting the aggressors? After the Soviet Union fell there should have been a mass judicial proceeding similar to the one in Nuremberg after World War II. Remember the western media was saying that millions were sent o the gulags and were still there when the USSR went down; that they were starving to death in concentration camps. Where was the outrage and the judicial proceedings to prosecute the criminals? All you heard were a few people tried for giving the order to shoot anyone who jumped over the Berlin Wall. Remember that after W.W. II Israel even sent agents to Argentina to kidnap some of the Nazis that were hiding there and bring them to trial for genocide and other crimes. Now where was the Russian equivalent of this????? It is nowhere to be found.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:39 pm

Wow. I was always under the impression from history teachers that he killed more people then Hitler. I now know that Hitler killed twice as many, thanks comrade :D

I wonder what the source is?
Some McCarthyist stooge no doubt.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

That was interesting what Forever Left wrote: ...where were the Nuremberg type trials prosecuting the aggressors? After the Soviet Union fell there should have been a mass judicial proceeding similar to the one in Nurmeberg after World War II. Remember the western media was saying that millions were sent to the gulags and were still there when the USSR went down; that they were starving to death in concentration camps. Where was the outrage and the judicial proceedings to prosecute the criminals?

One can only wonder why a lot of things should have happened and didn&#39;t. IMHO, the Soviet Union fell which left the country in political tormoil. It was about 70 years after the fact and that the millions sent to gulags back then only a few would remain being very old. Not many would be around for an outrage and we have to take in consideration of Russian fatalism that still prevailant...what was was and what will be will be. Also, the government of Russia is run by former KGB people and I don&#39;t think they would want a Nurmeberg type of trials which might send dad or grandpa to prision.

[blazeofglory]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:39 pm

Wow. I was always under the impression from history teachers that he killed more people then Hitler. I now know that Hitler killed twice as many, thanks comrade :D

I wonder what the source is?
WELL THE SOURCE IS THE MOST RELIABLE THERE IS&#33;&#33;&#33;

WIKIPEDIA

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:05 am
That was interesting what Forever Left wrote: ...where were the Nuremberg type trials prosecuting the aggressors? After the Soviet Union fell there should have been a mass judicial proceeding similar to the one in Nurmeberg after World War II. Remember the western media was saying that millions were sent to the gulags and were still there when the USSR went down; that they were starving to death in concentration camps. Where was the outrage and the judicial proceedings to prosecute the criminals?

One can only wonder why a lot of things should have happened and didn&#39;t. IMHO, the Soviet Union fell which left the country in political tormoil. It was about 70 years after the fact and that the millions sent to gulags back then only a few would remain being very old. Not many would be around for an outrage and we have to take in consideration of Russian fatalism that still prevailant...what was was and what will be will be. Also, the government of Russia is run by former KGB people and I don&#39;t think they would want a Nurmeberg type of trials which might send dad or grandpa to prision.
I think Michale Parenti&#39;s (and Foreverleft) point is that the reason why there haven&#39;t been any trials of Soviet politicians is because the claims are mostly based on propaganda. Surely if it is so clear cut the the USSR purposely murdered people, caused unnatural death through forced famines, gulags and mass executions people would want some justice. There really hasn&#39;t been much pressure from former Soviet citizens, apart from some in the Ukraine and Poland. Even with the opening of Soviet archives no authority has made any attempt to place balme and give trial to any Communist survivors.

This reaffirms the point I was trying to make with "Who really hates Stalin"? The bourgeois, the Trots and the Anarchist. Then there are some Polish and Ukrainian nationals.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Could be Heiro but the government is still run by the KGB and I understand the justice system is very corrupt according to people I have known who were over there to help.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:37 am
Could be Heiro but the government is still run by the KGB and I understand the justice system is very corrupt according to people I have known who were over there to help.
Well yeah that too. Ex-Soviet politicians and bureaucrats followed the line and took positions in the new governments througout the republics. Most notable Putin, no one want to put him on trial for his role in an "oppressive government"

Though I often wonder what happent to the true Communists. Especially thoughs with some influence like in journalism and arts.

But that doesn&#39;t explain why no one tried to take to trial the retired Communists who had a role in Stalin&#39;s government. Most would be dead now, but surely some would have been alive in the 1990s.

[RNK]

No country can be legitimately expected to prosecute its own officials. The Nuremburg trials were only possible because of the total destruction and occupation of Germany. Nazi leaders were arrested by the Allies and charged thusly. There was no such destruction and occupation of the USSR; I&#39;m sure some in the West would&#39;ve loved to persecute as many Soviet officials as possible, but I doubt they&#39;d risk nuclear war trying to do so. Plus, I&#39;m sure the West was too exstatic about the USSR "joining them"; the &#39;corrupt&#39; Soviet officials of the USSR simply joined the international ranks of the bourgeoisie.

[FOREVER LEFT]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 05:58 pm
No country can be legitimately expected to prosecute its own officials. The Nuremburg trials were only possible because of the total destruction and occupation of Germany. Nazi leaders were arrested by the Allies and charged thusly. There was no such destruction and occupation of the USSR; I&#39;m sure some in the West would&#39;ve loved to persecute as many Soviet officials as possible, but I doubt they&#39;d risk nuclear war trying to do so. Plus, I&#39;m sure the West was too exstatic about the USSR "joining them"; the &#39;corrupt&#39; Soviet officials of the USSR simply joined the international ranks of the bourgeoisie.
There was foreign capitalist occupation of the USSR&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; And the bourgeois who came to power could of had the authority though not the support to punish anyone they thought fit to do so. That&#39;s enough&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Pilar]

[QUOTE]Now, to sum it all up, yes he caused genocides but wasn&#39;t he the one who turned the USSR into a SUPERPOWER???[QUOTE]

Just buy this land. It&#39;s desert. It&#39;s dry. It&#39;s poluted. It&#39;s contaminated. It&#39;s trash. BUT...