Stalin: His accomplishments and failures

[Geddan]

Everyone with an opinion on ol' Joe could tell me please, and I will tell you mine:

Joseph Stalin indeed had all the power in the Soviets, and everybody had to follow his orders. He exterminated the Trotskyites and some party members, and that is indeed questionable. However, I think that he deserves some respect, due to the things he actually did.

He industralized Russia and brought it up from the dust, and made it an economic power to be reckoned with. He dealt with the counter-revolutionary bourgeoise in an effective way I have to say, and he collectivized the farms of all Soviet and stole the kulaks' non-deserved power. And at last, Joseph Stalin did some mistakes in the defence questions, but he was the one who awoke the Russian bear and made it smash the Nazi enemy once and for all.

However, his mistakes mustn't be forgotten. He had all power in his hands, and since he was a man like everyone else he made mistakes. I think that expelling trotskyites, Lev Trotsky himself, purging different ethnicity in Soviet and purging political opponents were fatal mistakes. This might have caused the Soviet reverting to capitalism, with him destroying the worker's democracy, but it could also have begun when Lenin stunted the freedom of opinion in the Russian party.

Joseph Stalin's ideology is something which I don't know (as many other people's ideologies) but I see that he had some ideology about "Socialism in one country". Did this mean that he wanted to concentrate on building socialism up in Russia before spreading the revolution? What other traits are Stalin's political traits?

To summarize:

Joe Stalin did something good, but he did something bad too. Every dead man in a revolutionary state is a failure.

Now what is your opinion? Correct me if I stated something wrong. I'd like to say that I am not "Stalinist" if someone would like to put it that way.

[Saint-Just]

"Socialism in one country"

He believed it was possible to operate an autonomous economic system. An economic system which did not reyl on outside trade to survive and grow. This is entirely possible in a large country with great resources.

[chamo]

Russia did have a large amount of resources, especially coal and steel so Stalin was completely right to think that he could achive socialism within national boundries and without outside trading. The 5 year economic plans were quite spectacular in that they gave a huge boost to the country's economy.
One failure of Stalin was his purgings. One different between Stalin and Hitler is that Hitler's attrocities were based on hate. He hated Jews, blacks, communists and homosexuals. Stalin's attrocities were done to the people that stood in his way, Stalin purged his oppressors, Hitler purged who he hated and his oppressors. I am not saying that I support either, I hate each of them as much as I hate the other, I am just stating the facts.

[Rastafari]

If Trotsky could have followed instead of Stalin, as Lenin intended, the USSR would probably be the most powerful nation in the world. Stalin found the Lenin's will before anyone else, and changed it. Stalin did some good things, however, and much of the Russian country that lived during his tenure still remembers and loves him. Stalin killed millions of people, though, and did not form an alliance with Mao, which made it easier for capitalism to destroy the seperated nations.

[Iepilei]

My question is, how well would have Trotsky performed in WW2? Would his experience helped Russia to grow and take out the Nazi threat before they pushed too far in - destroying most of the countryside? Would he have trusted the Germans initially - as Stalin did? Afterwards, would he have turned the Red Army to a labour army, like he had wanted?

Alot of questions come to mind whenever you think about the what-if's of history...

[VI Koba]

Stalin was responsible for keeping the USSR inline with Marxist principles and ensuring the class traitors didnt seize power. His five year plans industrialized the nation and prepared the nation for the inevitable war... If it wasnt for Stalins shrewed understanding of politics and peoples it would be most likely The Great Patriotic war would initially only be fought by Germany and the USSR with Britian and USA only coming in to 'liberate' the defeated nation.

I have spoken to countless peoples who were alive during the Stalin era and they have said their lives were the best during Stalins tenure... they were given many things in which they never thought possible.

Hardships in the Stalin era revolve around the reactionary Kulaks and their exploitation of peoples hunger so they could become wealthy on the peoples needs. Stalin however organized the plan to enforce collectivisation and ensure this bribery could not continue as it did throughout the early years of the USSR.

[Spartaco]

I'd like to point out we're talking about somebody who killed more people than Hitler did!

plus stalin set up an extremely burocratic state with no transparency, in which the people had absolutely no say, where there was only one party in which there was no dialogue but only one official line which had to be followed. Because of that also now there are some people who associate communism with dictatorship (of course im not saying capitalist media doesn't have a part in it).

i also think that socialism in one state especially when that state was russia that, also if rich in resources, was practically a pre-capitalist country, is completly absurd. Only one socialist country will easily we crushed by outside capitalist forces.

An important merit i have to give stalin is that of having industrialized the country.

[Geddan]

Spartaco, new research say that the people killed in a way Stalin was partially responsible (assassinations, overworking) were 3 million people. A failure indeed, but only half of Hitler's jew pogroms.

[Spartaco]

Geddan the number of people killed by stalin has never been calculated with precision and so depending on where you look you'll find different numbers. However the most accredited numbers right now are around 8-9 million.

[Saint-Just]

To some extent, anyone that died as a direct result of Stalin is more likely to have been a bourgeois reactionary than any individual killed by Hitler.

[Edelweiss]

I'm strictly anti-Stalinist, but I would never deny the most important accomplishment of Stalin and the glorious red army: Stopping the Nazi's in Stalingrad.

[Edelweiss]

#Moderation Mode



Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=1488)

[El Brujo]

The thing about the Soviet Union is that it wasn't created through the transitions Marx had predicted and Lenin acknowledged (feudalism - capitalism(industrialization, more explicitly) - socialism), it went directly from feudalism to socialism. What Stalin tried to do is make up for the skipped industrialization period while moving the system into a socialist economy. Lenin couldn't have done this because there was civil war through most of his rule and he died not very long after it ended so he concentrated all his efforts in maintaining a stronghold over the country.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Regarding the death resulting from Stalin's reign... he may not have directly killed everyone; however, his policies resulted in great losses of life. Stalin himself admitted to Churchill at Yalta that his policy of Collectivisation had done greater damage to Russia than the Second World War! And this does not even consider industrialisation, the purges, the gulags, etc. Moreover, although Stalin helped the war effort, he also hindered it by purging the army in 1937, signing to non-agression pact with Hitler, and refusing to believe that Hitler was planning an assult on Russia...

[Cassius Clay]

As they say ignorance is bliss, since it appears that I've been let back in I will respond with a proper reply in a few hours.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from VI Koba on 10:32 am on Jan. 28, 2003
Stalin was responsible for keeping the USSR inline with Marxist principles and ensuring the class traitors didnt seize power. His five year plans industrialized the nation and prepared the nation for the inevitable war... If it wasnt for Stalins shrewed understanding of politics and peoples it would be most likely The Great Patriotic war would initially only be fought by Germany and the USSR with Britian and USA only coming in to 'liberate' the defeated nation.

I have spoken to countless peoples who were alive during the Stalin era and they have said their lives were the best during Stalins tenure... they were given many things in which they never thought possible.

Hardships in the Stalin era revolve around the reactionary Kulaks and their exploitation of peoples hunger so they could become wealthy on the peoples needs. Stalin however organized the plan to enforce collectivisation and ensure this bribery could not continue as it did throughout the early years of the USSR.


Stalin did not Follow marxist theory! Marx wanted all men to be equil socialy, politicaly and economiacly. Stalin had more riches than anyone else, more POWER than any one else and murdered half his army (according to some sources at 60 million) and stripped the people of their rights such as free speach.

Not really following the Marxist theorys or any kind of left wing theorys. More Hard Right wing, seem's more like a Nazi to me.

[Invader Zim]

Malte: Posted on 10:58 pm on Jan. 28, 2003:

I'm strictly anti-Stalinist, but I would never deny the most important accomplishment of Stalin and the glorious red army: Stopping the Nazi's in Stalingrad.


Stalin and the Red Army did not defeat Hitler. The famous Russian Winter did. It is estimated that 75% of German losses in the invasion of Russia was through desease malnutrition and freezing to death. I heard on TV that During the siege of Stalingrad the temperature dropped to -40 degree's celsius.

[Cassius Clay]

Well I'm back and it's time to stop these lies.

''Joseph Stalin indeed had all the power in the Soviets, and everybody had to follow his orders.''

Obviously a statement by someone reading to much of Robert Conquest. If everybody had to follow his orders then why id the politburo vote against him when he nominated Malenkov to be head of the NKVD and the politburo voted in Beria?

And do you seriesly expect anybody to believe that Stalin somehow controlled elections to local Soviets in some Siberian village? Hell he didn't even controll Leningrad considering something like 50% of the local party officials were replaced in 1937 elections.

''He exterminated the Trotskyites and some party members, and that is indeed questionable.''

Why is it questionable to get rid of criminall terriorists? They murdered Serige Kirov and more importantly dozens of innocent workers.

Read.

''On September 23, 1936 a wave of explosions hit the Siberian mines, the second in nine months. There were 12 dead. Three days later, Yagoda became Commissar of Communications and Yezhov chief of the NKVD. At least until that time, Stalin had sustained the more or less liberal policies of Yagoda.

Investigations in Siberia led to the arrest of Pyatakov, an old Trotskyist, assistant to Ordzhonikidze, Commissar of Heavy Industry since 1932. Close to Stalin, Ordzhonikidze had followed a policy of using and re-educating bourgeois specialists. Hence, in February 1936, he had amnestied nine `bourgeois engineers', condemned in 1930 during an major trial on sabotage.

On the question of industry, there had been for several years debates and divisions within the Party. Radicals, led by Molotov, opposed most of the bourgeois specialists, in whom they had little political trust. They had long called for a purge. Ordzhonikidze, on the other hand, said that they were needed and that their specialties had to be used.

This recurring debate about old specialists with a suspect past resurfaced with the sabotage in the Siberian mines. Inquiries revealed that Pyatakov, Ordzhonikidze's assistant, had widely used bourgeois specialists to sabotage the mines.

In January 1937, the trial of Pyatakov, Radek and other old Trotskyists was held; they admitted their clandestine activities. For Ordzhonikidze, the blow was so hard that he committed suicide.

Of course, several bourgeois authors have claimed that the accusations of systematic sabotage were completely invented, that these were frameups whose sole rôle was to eliminate political opponents. But there was a U.S. engineer who worked between 1928 and 1937 as a leading cadre in the mines of Ural and Siberia, many of which had been sabotaged. The testimony of this apolitical technician John Littlepage is interesting on many counts.

Littlepage described how, as soon as he arrived in the Soviet mines in 1928, he became aware of the scope of industrial sabotage, the method of struggle preferred by enemies of the Soviet régime. There was therefore a large base fighting against the Bolshevik leadership, and if some well-placed Party cadres were encouraging or simply protecting the saboteurs, they could seriously weaken the régime. Here is Littlepage's description.

`One day in 1928 I went into a power-station at the Kochbar gold-mines. I just happened to drop my hand on one of the main bearings of a large Diesel engine as I walked by, and felt something gritty in the oil. I had the engine stopped immediately, and we removed from the oil reservoir about two pints of quartz sand, which could have been placed there only by design. On several other occasions in the new milling plants at Kochkar we found sand inside such equipment as speed-reducers, which are entirely enclosed, and can be reached only by removing the hand-hold covers.

`Such petty industrial sabotage was --- and still is --- so common in all branches of Soviet industry that Russian engineers can do little about it, and were surprised at my own concern when I first encountered it ....

`Why, I have been asked, is sabotage of this description so common in Soviet Russia, and so rare in most other countries? Do Russians have a peculiar bent for industrial wrecking?

`People who ask such questions apparently haven't realized that the authorities in Russia have been --- and still are --- fighting a whole series of open or disguised civil wars. In the beginning they fought and dispossessed the aristocracy, the bankers and landowners and merchants of the Tsarist régime .... they later fought and dispossessed the little independent farmers and the little retail merchants and the nomad herders in Asia.

`Of course it's all for their own good, say the Communists. But many of these people can't see things that way, and remain bitter enemies of the Communists and their ideas, even after they have been put back to work in State industries. From these groups have come a considerable number of disgruntled workers who dislike Communists so much that they would gladly damage any of their enterprises if they could.''


''If Trotsky could have followed instead of Stalin, as Lenin intended, the USSR would probably be the most powerful nation in the world.''

Sorry please tell me where Lenin said he wanted Trotsky to succeed him? Even if he did it's NOT up to Lenin to decide who should follow him, it's up to the people of the party and they chose Stalin, Trotsky incidenly got 2% of the vote. Oh and what was the USSR in 1945, a superpower.

''Stalin found the Lenin's will before anyone else, and changed it.''

Evidence for this. How did he change it when it is being read out by the oppostion (Zinoviev read it out in 1926 party congress, but incidently only the bit about Stalin forgetting everything else) in their vicious campaign against the party and Stalin himself published the whole thing in a Pravda article in 1927? He even declared he was proud to be 'Rude'.

''Stalin killed millions of people, though, and did not form an alliance with Mao, which made it easier for capitalism to destroy the seperated nations.''

'millions of people', well 799,445 people died in the Soviet prison system between 1934 and 1953. How many Stalin is responsible for I don't know, probably none.

Oh and Stalin did form a alliance with Mao, the split happened when the USSR became revisionist under Khruschev and Brezheve and Mao set about his own ideology. So they were both responsible.


''My question is, how well would have Trotsky performed in WW2?''

Well judging by his behaviour in real life he probably would of sacraficed the Ukraine to the Nazis.

''Would he have trusted the Germans initially - as Stalin did? Afterwards, would he have turned the Red Army to a labour army, like he had wanted?''

Yes that's precisly what he would of done. Just see some of his quotes,

here.

'the working class...must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded just like soldiers. Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps'

and

'The unions should discipline the workers and teach them to place the interests of production above their own needs and demands.'

Well how anyone can call Trotsky a Marxist I don't know.

''I'd like to point out we're talking about somebody who killed more people than Hitler did!''

Says who? The New York Times? Or Joseph Goebbels? Read and learn.

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lies.html

''plus stalin set up an extremely burocratic state with no transparency,''

This is why in 1953 when Stalin died there were no millioniares throughout the entire USSR yet after a former Trotskyite takes over there are over 13,000.

''in which the people had absolutely no say, where there was only one party in which there was no dialogue but only one official line which had to be followed.''

See the Leningrad elections in the 30's, people had no say? Sorry but that's rubbish, if you can name me a state where workers would walk into their factory managers or local party officials office and demand their resignation and actually get it then please do.


''i also think that socialism in one state especially when that state was russia that, also if rich in resources, was practically a pre-capitalist country, is completly absurd. Only one socialist country will easily we crushed by outside capitalist forces.''

Did you miss something, because in 1924 Socialism was restricted to the USSR yet by 1953 it spread from the Korean penisular to Berlin, this was without the USSR launching any imperialist invasion. So much for 'Permanet Revolution' being the only way to spread revolution. Yet the fact that socialism was spreading suddenly makes Joseph Stalin a Imperialist (Ive heard this arguement on this board numerous times before) seems to me that you would swear at your own mothers if it meant criticising Stalin.


''Regarding the death resulting from Stalin's reign... he may not have directly killed everyone; however, his policies resulted in great losses of life. Stalin himself admitted to Churchill at Yalta that his policy of Collectivisation had done greater damage to Russia than the Second World War! And this does not even consider industrialisation, the purges, the gulags, etc. Moreover, although Stalin helped the war effort, he also hindered it by purging the army in 1937, signing to non-agression pact with Hitler, and refusing to believe that Hitler was planning an assult on Russia...''

Stalin said no such thing to Churchill, what he said was that the struggle for collectivisation and with it the fight against the Kulaks and beuracrates was just as hard as the fight against the Nazis. The non-agression pact was signed when there were NO OTHER options, the Red Army wasn't ready and would of been slaughtered. Yet despite this it was the USSR who offered to aid the people of Czechslovakia in their anti-fascist struggle and oppose Hitler right from the start. Tell me something did not Marx and Lenin predict that the Capitalists would fight eachother? the pact ensured that they did just that instead of all ganging up on the Soviet Union.

Oh and I wasn't aware it was Stalin's fault for not being able to predict the precise date and time of the invasion. As for the purges.

'The Führer explained one more time the Tukhachevsky case and stated that we erred completely at the time when we thought that Stalin had ruined the Red
Army. The opposite is true: Stalin got rid of all the opposition circles within
the army and thereby succeeded in making sure that there would no longer be any defeatist currents within that army" (Goebbels notes, May 8, 1943).'

Also ask President Benes of Czechslovakia, it was Czech intelliegent servcies who helped tip of the NKVD about the plans for the coup and Churchill in his book the 'Gathering Storm' admits that a conspiracy existed. And most that were 'purged' simply returned to civilian life, and the trials of those executed were presided over by their own officers NOT the NKVD.


''Stalin had more riches than anyone else, more POWER than any one else and murdered half his army (according to some sources at 60 million) and stripped the people of their rights such as free speach.''

'Free speech' read the Soviet Consitution I think your find freedom of speech is very much allowed. As a Marxist Stalin knew the value of freedom of speech as he explained criticism and self-criticism are all part of socialist democracy. As John Reed once said 'If you purge dissent you purge the revolution'.

Oh and Stalin slept on the couch most of the time and when he died they couldn't even find a spare pare of boots for him to put on.

[Tavarish Spetsnaz]

What more can I say after the excellent post by Comrade Clay??? Very little...but here are just some additional facts...


First, someone here accused that Stalin had riches and so forth...thus going against the equality Marx preached. Stalin had no riches...When he died he had next to nothing to his name. He slept in his office mostly...in a sofa in his office.

Second, someone here said Stalin killed half his military. Obviously capitalist propaganda. Nothing of the sort!! This comes directly from Robert Conquest. Conquest...as usual...BSs on things he does not know. he tells us in 1937 USSR had 70.000 officers...and that half of these were arrested. Nothing of the sort happened. In 1937...in fact...the USSR had 144.300 officers. By 1939...this had increased to 282.300...meaning DOUBLED!!! In 1937-1938 period...34.300 officers were removed. This does not mean necessarely arrested...simply removed. According to data from others like Koniev, the number of offciers actually arrested was somewheer around 7000. Anyway...by 1940...11.596 of these officers were already taken back into the Army. So overall...22.705 officers were premanently removed from their posts. This translates to around 7% of officers...not 50%!!!

This was not necessarly a bad thing...it was in fact a good thing. Most of the officers arrested were most likely real traitors who would have defected tot he German side. One for example...the infomous Vlasov...was actually arrested in 1937 as a fascist-sympathizer...he was put back into service in 1940 however...But it turns out the NKVD had been right about it all along.

Second...about Stalin "trusting" Hitler. I don't know what that means...or how Stalin supposedly trusted Hitler...but this is something which is completely untrue. The Soviet-German non-aggression pact was a brillinat move...that delayed the war by 18 months. It gave the USSR a 200-300km stip of land to build fortifications and defensive lines. This is esactly what it was doing...However...by June 22 these were not complete. In fact, the order to occupy those already finished was given only on June 21...one day before!!! Nevertheless...this is no fault of anyone...no one could have predicted.

Also...in the meantime...USSR started production of many new types of weapon systems...a reorganization of the army...the calling of reservists...a true preperation for war. The time bought with the non-aggression pact was crucial!!

Now some of you will say Stalin didn't expect war to come. Not true...he defenately expected it...and I suggest you read either Zhukov's or Molotov's memoirs for details on that.

Anyway...no time now...maybe I'll continue this latter. Comrade Clay is doing an excellent job..and so are some others here...but I fear no one is listening here...

[Cassius Clay]

Good to see you here Comrade Spetsnaz, your probably right about people not listening. To them Stalin is literally the Antichrist and we are nothing more than Nazis for supporting him.

[Mazdak]

Wow. I dont think it is necessary to say anything, but it appears there are more stalinists here at che lives/stalin sympathizers then even before the attempt to weed them out.

i advise all the stalinists/anyone who is not completely against stalin to watch himself here, you will find a blank screen next time you try to load a page if you don't play your cards right.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Mazdak on 11:31 pm on Jan. 30, 2003
Wow. I dont think it is necessary to say anything, but it appears there are more stalinists here at che lives/stalin sympathizers then even before the attempt to weed them out.

i advise all the stalinists/anyone who is not completely against stalin to watch himself here, you will find a blank screen next time you try to load a page if you don't play your cards right.

Doesn't everyone have a right to their own opinon? A view that conflicts with yours will only correct your thinking, or make your exsisting thinking more stronger(by proving them wrong).

[Mazdak]

??? I agree 100% with you.

[RedComrade]

Wow, were to begin... Stalins policies both economically and militarily turned out to be complete disasters. Malte you mentioned the glorious feat of Stalin stopping the Nazis at Stalingrad. If it was not for Stalins enormous military blunders the Germans would have never gotten anywere close to Stalingrad. In 1937-1938 Stalin purged over half of the red army's officers. Thousands of the Red Armys best and brightest died by firing squad or in the gulags, no because they were counter revolutionaries or all that dogmatic shit but as part of a known campaign by Josef Stalin to terrorize society into complianca with his absolute power. The man was a sick counter revolutionary, he was an admitted admirer of monarchial scum such as Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great. The possibility of the thousands of officers actually being counter revolutionaries is of course absurd but new documents have proven their innocence showing that the officers were arrested based on qouta systems. A certain number officers would be arrested or executed from each company. People were arrested regardless of guilt to meet enormous death qoutas set by Stalin to secure his position as an unchallenged despot. At the same time Stalin was purging thousands of party members and replacing them with loyal minions or terrified cowards who would do his bidding. This climate of fear cultivated by Stalin added fuel to the fire as local party officials competed to purge as many people as possible so as to save their own necks. Those who did not meet qoutas were quietly exceuted. His economic policies (first five year plan etc,) which were designed to increase grain production by 30% in 1932 resulted in a 20% decline in output. The reason was in Stalins uninformed rush to collectivize farms he had forced all peasants to meet alloted grain qoutas before they could be fed. The qoutas were unrealalistically high and as a result their was no surplus grain for the peasants to eat. As a result the peasant workforce starved and was two weak to grow food; while some died from the bullets of NKVD police nearly 2 million died from Stalins horribly inneficient economic policies. Back to the military; half of the USSR's most talented fighters and tacticians were dead at the hands of murder qouta systems. The international communist parties were coming up on elections and most took orders from the comintern. Stalin "convinced"(with his NKVD thugs) the parties to campaign not against the rising right wing parties of national socialism but against moderates. The inability of the German Communists and Social Democrats to unite do to Moscows strong-arming is arguably the cause of the National Socialists rise to power. Communist attempts to mobilize in other countries were not assisted by moscow who abandoned its comrades on Stalins wishes so that he could maintain buddy buddy with the capitalist powers whom he should have been combating. Stalins abandonment of Internationalist policies concerning Italy and Germany quite possibly stopped a world communist revolution. With enormous social unrest in Italy it is possible that with Soviet assistance that we would have seen the Red Flag flying over Rome instead of the Black one of Mussolini. Now let us jump to the months leading up to wwII. The agriculture was in shambles barely at pre WWI levels as a result of horrible economic mismanagement and the famine/purges that went with it, the military was severely weakened do to a massive personnel purge. Stalin was buddy buddy with the Nazis who were jailing and exterminating fellow communists. Numerous Soviet agents as well as British Intell gave the exact time and date of Germanys coming invasion. Stalin refused to acknowledge his fascist friends would be betray him despite numerous communiques adressed directly to him that sited numerous sources telling of it. Stalin prevented his generals from even going on a state of alert for fear it would alarm his nazi friends. Despite numerous opportunities to secure the borders and set up defensive peremeters all were blocked by Stalin. These refusals to ready the army are the cause of enormous soviet defeats untill the winter. Stalin had the chance to crush Germanys offensive with ease, he had the intelligence to have laid the largest most powerful ambush ever and completely stop the Nazi offensive in its tracks. Instead he refused to abandon his fascist friends who were the murderers of thousands of German communists. This is nothing to Stalin though the greatest murderer of communists of all, the heretic of lenin as lenin himself said in his testimony, admirer of Ivan the Terrible the mass murderer imperial religious fanatic, and quite possibly the greatest murderer of all time.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from RedComrade on 3:11 am on Jan. 31, 2003
The possibility of the thousands of officers actually being counter revolutionaries is of course absurd but new documents have proven their innocence showing that the officers were arrested based on qouta systems. A certain number officers would be arrested or executed from each company. People were arrested regardless of guilt to meet enormous death qoutas set by Stalin to secure his position as an unchallenged despot.

RedComrade, i do not quite understand how murdering officers who were in a army in which he controled, benfit him. Killing them would only weaken his ability to use force on his enimies.

I read somewhere(sorry i forgot where) that stalin was an internationlist, he wanted a communist revolution everywhere in the world, if he was so smart to make econimic plans and mulipate a whole country then surely he would be smart enough to know that he needed a large and strong army for his method of revolution.
From what i read, Stalin wasn't extactly a peaceful non-voilent guy, therfore I am sure he knew the value having a strong army.

Please correct any thing i am misinformed in, thanks.

take care

[Cassius Clay]

''Wow, were to begin... Stalins policies both economically and militarily turned out to be complete disasters.''

Wow, did you read any of page two of this thread?

''Malte you mentioned the glorious feat of Stalin stopping the Nazis at Stalingrad. If it was not for Stalins enormous military blunders the Germans would have never gotten anywere close to Stalingrad.''

And you would of been a terrific general wouldn't you I suppose? Not to mention politician and international statesman at the same time working on average 20 hours a day. By your logic if Stalin is responsible for every cock up of the Red Army then surely he is responsible for every victory.

Ofcourse it's slightly more complicated than that, Stalin sometimes messed up and he sometimes insisted on offensives that would of made Napolean proud. Ofcourse the Generals at Stavka would of had more of a say in the military decisions, most often Stalin just gave them his approval.

''In 1937-1938 Stalin purged over half of the red army's officers. Thousands of the Red Armys best and brightest died by firing squad or in the gulags, no because they were counter revolutionaries or all that dogmatic shit but as part of a known campaign by Josef Stalin to terrorize society into complianca with his absolute power.''

Oh dear, ignorance is no excuse since Tavarish Spetsnaz gave you the correct data on those 'purged'. Stop reading Robert Conquest and do some research (or just read page two of this thread) during this time when Stalin is supposedly murdering half his army the number of officers is DOUBLING.

7% of officers were 'purged' which usually meant returning to civilian life. And there was a conspiracy in the army, if the authorities hadn't acted we would all most likely be speaking German now. With the benefit of hignsight I'm sure you would not have a go at Allende if he had had Pinochet and co arrested, tried and shot on September 9th 1973 so please tell what is the difference with Stalin and the Red Army?


''The man was a sick counter revolutionary, he was an admitted admirer of monarchial scum such as Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great. The possibility of the thousands of officers actually being counter revolutionaries is of course absurd but new documents have proven their innocence showing that the officers were arrested based on qouta systems. A certain number officers would be arrested or executed from each company. People were arrested regardless of guilt to meet enormous death qoutas set by Stalin to secure his position as an unchallenged despot.''

OMG this has to be the most stupid thing I've ever read, 'From new archives' you say, funny it sounds just like a Robert Conquest or Alexander Soljenitsyn book from the 1960's.

'Unchallenged despot' tell me something does a unchallenged despot get booed by the party in the late 30's when the crimes of Zinoviev and Kamenev were revelaed?

''At the same time Stalin was purging thousands of party members and replacing them with loyal minions or terrified cowards who would do his bidding. This climate of fear cultivated by Stalin added fuel to the fire as local party officials competed to purge as many people as possible so as to save their own necks. Those who did not meet qoutas were quietly exceuted. His economic policies (first five year plan etc,) which were designed to increase grain production by 30% in 1932 resulted in a 20% decline in output. The reason was in Stalins uninformed rush to collectivize farms he had forced all peasants to meet alloted grain qoutas before they could be fed. The qoutas were unrealalistically high and as a result their was no surplus grain for the peasants to eat. As a result the peasant workforce starved and was two weak to grow food; while some died from the bullets of NKVD police nearly 2 million died from Stalins horribly inneficient economic policies.''

No correction this has to be the most stupid thing I've ever read. What was going on in the Soviet Union in the early 30's was in effect a second civil war, there is one document in the Soviet archive, repeat ONE document throughout the enite Soviet archive that in any possible way supports the above and that is the local authorities holding back grain to five villages whom they believed were being held by Kulaks. Hardly two million.

Oh and while your peasants are all 'starving as a result of Stalin's economic policies' let's see what is happening to production figures for food.

1935 was 98.4 million tons

1937 was 120.9 million tons

1940 was 118.8 million tons!!!

So it almost double...from 69-70 million tons to 121 million tons!!!!!!

Food consumption as a precentage increased 120% for bread and what products; 180% for patatoes; 147 % for fruit and vegetables; 148% or milk and dairy products; 179% for meat products!!!

Source, L'économie soviétique (Paris: Éditions Recueil Sirey, 1950)



''Back to the military; half of the USSR's most talented fighters and tacticians were dead at the hands of murder qouta systems. The international communist parties were coming up on elections and most took orders from the comintern. Stalin "convinced"(with his NKVD thugs) the parties to campaign not against the rising right wing parties of national socialism but against moderates.''

Right course he didn't, this is why the KPD called for a General strike the moment Hitler was declared Chancellor.

''The inability of the German Communists and Social Democrats to unite do to Moscows strong-arming is arguably the cause of the National Socialists rise to power. Communist attempts to mobilize in other countries were not assisted by moscow who abandoned its comrades on Stalins wishes so that he could maintain buddy buddy with the capitalist powers whom he should have been combating.''

Wait a second weren't you a moment ago criticising Stalin for not allowing the KPD to unite with the SPD (which is totally wrong anyway) and yet know you have a go at him for allying with some Capitalists in the fight against Fascism. As usual a typhical Trotskyite contradiction.

Obviously you have never heard of Georgi Dimitrov or the Comintern's policy of fighting extreme Fascism throughout the 30's.


''Stalins abandonment of Internationalist policies concerning Italy and Germany quite possibly stopped a world communist revolution. With enormous social unrest in Italy it is possible that with Soviet assistance that we would have seen the Red Flag flying over Rome instead of the Black one of Mussolini.''

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Mussolini come to power in 1922? Once again it seems to me that you would insult your own mothers if it meant Stalin could be blamed for something. And for crying out loud what could the KPD do apart from call a General Strike, which they did? Let me guess Stalin should of invaded.

''Now let us jump to the months leading up to wwII. The agriculture was in shambles barely at pre WWI levels as a result of horrible economic mismanagement and the famine/purges that went with it, the military was severely weakened do to a massive personnel purge. Stalin was buddy buddy with the Nazis who were jailing and exterminating fellow communists. Numerous Soviet agents as well as British Intell gave the exact time and date of Germanys coming invasion. Stalin refused to acknowledge his fascist friends would be betray him despite numerous communiques adressed directly to him that sited numerous sources telling of it. Stalin prevented his generals from even going on a state of alert for fear it would alarm his nazi friends. Despite numerous opportunities to secure the borders and set up defensive peremeters all were blocked by Stalin. These refusals to ready the army are the cause of enormous soviet defeats untill the winter. Stalin had the chance to crush Germanys offensive with ease, he had the intelligence to have laid the largest most powerful ambush ever and completely stop the Nazi offensive in its tracks. Instead he refused to abandon his fascist friends who were the murderers of thousands of German communists. This is nothing to Stalin though the greatest murderer of communists of all, the heretic of lenin as lenin himself said in his testimony, admirer of Ivan the Terrible the mass murderer imperial religious fanatic, and quite possibly the greatest murderer of all time.''

Really this isn't worth replying to, just read page two of this thread again.

[RedComrade]

"And you would of been a terrific general wouldn't you I suppose? Not to mention politician and international statesman at the same time working on average 20 hours a day. By your logic if Stalin is responsible for every cock up of the Red Army then surely he is responsible for every victory."

Thats exactly the problem, Stalin was a fanatical despot who tried to have as much power as possible in his hands and his alone. The enormous responsibilites were to much for any man and helped to create a psychosis already there do to his childhood and the fate of his two wives. No one can handle that much responsibility and no individual should have the right to that much responsibility. Communism should be an ideology of the masses based around peoples control of forces not a leadership cult were the show is being run by one man and the power is concentraited in the hands of an extremely centralized government. All the power not in Stalins hands was placed in the hands of his minions to do his bidding. This clientalism and centralism is the cause of much of the ussr's overall failures.

"Ofcourse it's slightly more complicated than that, Stalin sometimes messed up and he sometimes insisted on offensives that would of made Napolean proud. Ofcourse the Generals at Stavka would of had more of a say in the military decisions, most often Stalin just gave them his approval. "

How true many times his stubborn refusal to allow retreats cost thousands of red army soldiers as they were encircled waiting to evacuate to more desirable defenses.

"Oh dear, ignorance is no excuse since Tavarish Spetsnaz gave you the correct data on those 'purged'. Stop reading Robert Conquest and do some research (or just read page two of this thread) during this time when Stalin is supposedly murdering half his army the number of officers is DOUBLING.

7% of officers were 'purged' which usually meant returning to civilian life. And there was a conspiracy in the army, if the authorities hadn't acted we would all most likely be speaking German now. With the benefit of hignsight I'm sure you would not have a go at Allende if he had had Pinochet and co arrested, tried and shot on September 9th 1973 so please tell what is the difference with Stalin and the Red Army?"

I have never read Spetznaz nor have I read Conquest most of my information comes from Robert Service so far he is the most objective historian I know of on the topic. I am very interested to know were and fromwhom you rely on for your information.


"OMG this has to be the most stupid thing I've ever read, 'From new archives' you say, funny it sounds just like a Robert Conquest or Alexander Soljenitsyn book from the 1960's."
If I do it is merely coincidence all sources I have seen agree that the NKVD on Stalins order imposed a qouta system for the arrests and executions of an alloted amount of soldiers nothing I have seen contradicts this. These sources are supported by document from the archives of the secretary, central comitee, and the kgb. Once again were is it that you get your sources Clay? Who is objective in your opinion?

"'Unchallenged despot' tell me something does a unchallenged despot get booed by the party in the late 30's when the crimes of Zinoviev and Kamenev were revelaed?"

This is because they knew the charges were falsified they were aware of Stalins methods, being an opportunist they had witnessed Stalin ally with (bukharin) someone only to execute them once they had served there purpose. This rare resistance from the party was because many of them knew if they got zinoviev and kamenev it was only a matter of time before they got to them.

[RedComrade]

"No correction this has to be the most stupid thing I've ever read. What was going on in the Soviet Union in the early 30's was in effect a second civil war, there is one document in the Soviet archive, repeat ONE document throughout the enite Soviet archive that in any possible way supports the above and that is the local authorities holding back grain to five villages whom they believed were being held by Kulaks. Hardly two million.

Oh and while your peasants are all 'starving as a result of Stalin's economic policies' let's see what is happening to production figures for food.

1935 was 98.4 million tons

1937 was 120.9 million tons

1940 was 118.8 million tons!!!

So it almost double...from 69-70 million tons to 121 million tons!!!!!!

Food consumption as a precentage increased 120% for bread and what products; 180% for patatoes; 147 % for fruit and vegetables; 148% or milk and dairy products; 179% for meat products!!!

Source, L'économie soviétique (Paris: Éditions Recueil Sirey, 1950)"

Whoa i said grain production dropped 20% in 1932, furthermore i said the economic dips happened in the early 1930's that does not mean anything after 1935 like the figures you listed above. Furthermore i said they were low compared to the pre 1913 level, and that is true. Despite increased technology stalins centralized policy of collectivization resulted in a horrible agricultural crisis. The power was to centralized those making the descisions were to far away and to inexperienced with agriculture to implement sucessful agricultural polic. More slack should have been given to the local officials and peasants to adapt the farms to the local circumstances, the universal prescripition of the kholkozes was inefficient.




"Right course he didn't, this is why the KPD called for a General strike the moment Hitler was declared Chancellor. "
Thats the problem they failed to act before decisevly before Hitler was elected. They were to busy following the policies as directed by the Russians to engage the social democrats when they should have been attacking the right




"Wait a second weren't you a moment ago criticising Stalin for not allowing the KPD to unite with the SPD (which is totally wrong anyway) and yet know you have a go at him for allying with some Capitalists in the fight against Fascism. As usual a typhical Trotskyite contradiction."

Your right I stand by my claim he should have united the KPD and the SPD and then there would have never been the said problem. As for Stalin allying with capitalist powers i am mainly criticizing his alliance with Nazi Germany although no communist state should bow to the Burgeois when it is possible to be avoided. It is preferable to work with the idiginous communist and labor forces instead of directly interacting with the capitalist nation. While I dont call myself a trotskyist I would certainly endorse him ahead of Stalin. I am not ashamed of my beleifs that Trostky was brillant and ten times the man Stalin was.




"Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Mussolini come to power in 1922? Once again it seems to me that you would insult your own mothers if it meant Stalin could be blamed for something. And for crying out loud what could the KPD do apart from call a General Strike, which they did? Let me guess Stalin should of invaded. "

No he should have armed the population, sent in brigades of international "volunteers", fueled the class struggle, indoctrinate population, stir up economic unrest, and every other measure to bring Italy red as soon as possible. Italy had one of the most opressed and sympathetic populations of all the nations in Europe that had the potential to go red.



(Edited by RedComrade at 8:29 pm on Jan. 31, 2003)

[Cassius Clay]

''Thats exactly the problem, Stalin was a fanatical despot who tried to have as much power as possible in his hands and his alone. The enormous responsibilites were to much for any man and helped to create a psychosis already there do to his childhood and the fate of his two wives. No one can handle that much responsibility and no individual should have the right to that much responsibility. Communism should be an ideology of the masses based around peoples control of forces not a leadership cult were the show is being run by one man and the power is concentraited in the hands of an extremely centralized government. All the power not in Stalins hands was placed in the hands of his minions to do his bidding. This clientalism and centralism is the cause of much of the ussr's overall failures.''

Okay then comrade your covering way to much ground here. Your of the opinion that Stalin was this evil power hungry despot, regretably your above post fails to provide any evidence for that view and instead relies upon worn out rhectoric, rhectoric which Capitalist historians are now leaving behind and instead choosing to research the FACTS.

''How true many times his stubborn refusal to allow retreats cost thousands of red army soldiers as they were encircled waiting to evacuate to more desirable defenses.''

'many times', the only times I can see was the pre-emptive offensive after the sucess at Moscow in 41 and where the Germans retook Kharkov in March 43. These are the only times Stalin pacificly ordered offensives which ended in fiasco. Again we criticise him with the great benefit of hignsight, if you were in that situation would you not of messed up sometimes? Ofcourse you would of, in your opening reply you have a go at Stalin for having all that power (which is a flawed view anyway) but in a time of war when the nation is fighting for it's life the leader has to take on the responsibility of International statesman, general and politician. If Joe and even dare I say Churchill hadn't acted like that then the Fascists would of won the war.


''I have never read Spetznaz nor have I read Conquest most of my information comes from Robert Service so far he is the most objective historian I know of on the topic. I am very interested to know were and fromwhom you rely on for your information.''

Well to read Spetsnaz all you have to do is go to page two of this thread, I'm sure he will also if your especially nice tell you what a living hell it was in 'Stalinist Albania' under the 'Despot' Hoxha.

Robert Service LOL. The 'historian' who has declared it his intention to 'Discover a new darker side of Lenin'. I get my information from a wide range of sources.

The Red Comrades site is excellent, if you have the time read this.

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lies.html


''If I do it is merely coincidence all sources I have seen agree that the NKVD on Stalins order imposed a qouta system for the arrests and executions of an alloted amount of soldiers nothing I have seen contradicts this. These sources are supported by document from the archives of the secretary, central comitee, and the kgb. Once again were is it that you get your sources Clay? Who is objective in your opinion?''

I ask you to read the article before you pass any more judgement on Stalin. It's not just sources, it comes down to basic common sense sometimes. I will point out again as I have done before on this board that a fairly large majority of those who vote for the Communists in present day Russia happen to be those who grew up under Stalin in the 1930's, 40's and 50's. If life was so bad this would not be happening, when Stalin died surely the population would of breifed a sigh of relieve. Do they? No tens of millions mourned his death. When Khruschev attacked him, did the Soviet people congratulate him? No they were prepared to fight in Stalin's name against revisionism and Capitalism and in defence of socialism and democracy.


''This is because they knew the charges were falsified they were aware of Stalins methods, being an opportunist they had witnessed Stalin ally with (bukharin) someone only to execute them once they had served there purpose. This rare resistance from the party was because many of them knew if they got zinoviev and kamenev it was only a matter of time before they got to them.''

This comrade I regret to say has no basis what so ever. You are merely speculating and in those parts you aren't speculating you are just plain wrong. 'Falsified' read the American Ambassador's account of the trials in 'Mission to Moscow' he was there unlike Robert Conquest and he was firmly convinced that the trials were fair and the accussed guilty as charged. Not to mention on page two of this thread I gave you just one article which shows the Trotskyites and Rightists crimes, that of blowing up innocent workers.

As for allying with Bakhurin, Stalin did no such thing and if he did it was NOT because he was a 'Opportunist'. Stalin stuck firmly to Marxist princeples throughout, he wrote to Bakhurin in 1925 'The Slogan enrich yourself is not ours'.


''Whoa i said grain production dropped 20% in 1932, furthermore i said the economic dips happened in the early 1930's that does not mean anything after 1935 like the figures you listed above. Furthermore i said they were low compared to the pre 1913 level, and that is true. Despite increased technology stalins centralized policy of collectivization resulted in a horrible agricultural crisis. The power was to centralized those making the descisions were to far away and to inexperienced with agriculture to implement sucessful agricultural polic. More slack should have been given to the local officials and peasants to adapt the farms to the local circumstances, the universal prescripition of the kholkozes was inefficient.''

You are right there were shortages in the early 30's this was because the Kulaks were literally holding the cities to ransom. Collectivisation solved that problem and as you can see made sure everybody was fed and had much more food than they had ever had before. What those figures show you is that your claim that 'millions were starving' or whatever as a 'direct result of Stalin's policies' is rubbish.

As for the rest of your post, there perhaps is some fair criticims in there although made with the benefit of hignsight. Perhaps you ought to read this though for a opposing view as to what happened.

''The 25,000 against the bureaucracy

Upon arrival, the 25,000 immediately had to fight against the bureaucracy of the local apparatus and against the excesses committed during the collectivization.

Viola wrote:

`Regardless of their position, the 25,000ers were unanimous in their criticism of district-level organs participating in collectivization .... The workers claimed that it was the district organs which were responsible for the race for percentages in collectivization.'

.

Ibid. , p. 103.


Zakharov, one of the 25,000, wrote that no preparatory work had been done among the peasants. Consequently, they were not prepared for collectivization.

.

Ibid.

Many complained of the illegal acts and of the brutality of rural cadres. Makovskaya attacked `the bureaucratic attitude of the cadres towards the peasants', and she said that the functionaries spoke of collectivization `with revolver in hand'.

.

Ibid. , p. 109.

Baryshev affirmed that a great number of middle peasants had been `dekulakized'. Naumov allied himself with the peasants attacking the Party cadres who `appropriated for themselves the goods confiscated from the kulaks'. Viola concluded that the 25,000ers `viewed rural officials as crude, undisciplined, often corrupt, and, in not a few cases, as agents or representatives of socially dangerous class aliens'.

.

Ibid. , p. 141.

By opposing the bureaucrats and their excesses, they succeeded in winning the confidence of the peasant masses.

.

Ibid. , p. 135.


These details are important, since these workers can be considered to have been direct envoys from Stalin. It was precisely the `Stalinists' who fought bureaucracy and excesses most consistently and who defended a correct line for collectivization.''


''Thats the problem they failed to act before decisevly before Hitler was elected. They were to busy following the policies as directed by the Russians to engage the social democrats when they should have been attacking the right''

First of all how were they supposed to predict that Hitler was to elected? The moment he was made Chancellor they called for a General strike, what else could they of done? Stalin was right to describe the SPD as 'Social Fascists' since they were only to happy to colloborate with the Nazis in banning the KPD and throwing Communists into camps.

You should also read up on Dmirtrov and the Comintern's policies in the fight against Fascism during these years, it was preicisly their intention to ally with other progressive forces against the 'right'.


''Your right I stand by my claim he should have united the KPD and the SPD and then there would have never been the said problem. As for Stalin allying with capitalist powers i am mainly criticizing his alliance with Nazi Germany although no communist state should bow to the Burgeois when it is possible to be avoided. It is preferable to work with the idiginous communist and labor forces instead of directly interacting with the capitalist nation. While I dont call myself a trotskyist I would certainly endorse him ahead of Stalin. I am not ashamed of my beleifs that Trostky was brillant and ten times the man Stalin was.''

Trotsky that 'brilliant' man whom Lenin called 'Judas', the man who got less than 6000 votes out of over 725,000 votes cast in a perfectly fair election, a man who wanted to impose military discipline on workers and a man who collobarted with everyone from the FBI to the Gestapo.

Trotsky said the following,

''the working class...must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded just like soldiers. Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps'

and

'The unions should discipline the workers and teach them to place the interests of production above their own needs and demands.'

But let's be fair actions speak louder than words.

''In December 1919, Trotsky proposed the `militarization of economic life' and wanted to mobilize the workers using methods he had applied for leading the army. With this line, the railroad workers were mobilized under military discipline. A wave of protests passed through the union movement. Lenin declared that Trotsky committed errors that endangered the dictatorship of the proletariat: by his bureaucratic harassment of the unions, he risked separating the Party from the masses.

.

V. I. Lenin, The Trade Unions, the Present Situation, and Trotsky's Mistakes (30 December 1920). Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1960--1970), vol. 32, pp. 19--42.


Trotsky's outrageous individualism, his open disdain for Bolshevik cadres, his authoritarian style of leadership and his taste for military discipline frightened many Party cadres. They thought that Trotsky could well play the rôle of a Napoléon Bonaparte, effecting a coup d'état and setting up a counter-revolutionary authoritarian régime.''

I will once again ask how anyone can call this man (Trotsky) a Marxist?


''No he should have armed the population, sent in brigades of international "volunteers", fueled the class struggle, indoctrinate population, stir up economic unrest, and every other measure to bring Italy red as soon as possible. Italy had one of the most opressed and sympathetic populations of all the nations in Europe that had the potential to go red.''

Erm some of this ignores reality, some of it suggests doing precisly what you have a go at Stalin for supposedly doing and some of it if you did some research you will discover was done in places like Spain and China.

A bit of a ultra-leftist are we Redcomrade?

[Tavarish Spetsnaz]

OK...let me get this streight...Stalin working 20 hours a day during the initial stage of WW2...was a BAD thing...because ti shows how he wanted to control everything. On the other hand...if he had done nothing...that would also have been BAD...becasue he did nothing.

Well you can't have it both ways...

First...collectivization started in 1929. In 1929...grain production was 71.7 million tons. 1931-32 were the hardest years for collectivization...becasue the Kulaks started thier resistance by destroying collectives, threatening or even killing peasants and party officials, destroying food deliveries and such. Also there was a drought at the time. Production fell to 69.5 million tons and 69.9 million tons during those two years...A drop of 1-2 million tons from pre-collectivization years.

Nevertheless...By 1933...when Kulaks had been defeated...and collectivization was at full speed...production increased to 89.8 million tons...an increase of 18 million tons compared to pre-collectivization years!!!!

And of course...as Clay has presented...by 1940...production had DOUBLED.

Not only did production increase DRAMATICALLY when collectivization won...but also food distribution was increased much more. Even though in 1929 production was 71.7 million tons...only about 14% of that ever made it to the cities. This was becasue of small scale agriculture could not provide more...the peasants ate the rest...adn the lack of proper transportation means also inhibited distribution. Also...the Kulaks often withheld food deliveries to the cities in order to increase the price.

However...collectives were far more efficient...and as much as 45% of the food they produced went to the cities...with proper tranportation and no price factor to prevent the sale of the food.

Collectivization was simply a GREAT SUCESS!!! Oh yes...there were problems in the begining...HOW DO YOU THINK THE KULAKS WILL BE DEFEATED???? With flowers and nice words...they will voluntarely give up their land to the peasants??? Or do you think they will resist...and fight...and will have to be foguth against...in order for socialism to be worked.

I thought you were a revolutionary...but if you can't see what happened in the countryside was a revolution...and in a revolution there is upheavel...than maybe you are not much of a revolutionary.

As for Stalin and the military officers...LOL...ACCORDING TO THE SECERET STATE ARCHIVES OF THE USSR...the number of officers permamently removed fromt he Army was around 20.000...whihc is about 7% of the army officers. At the same time...the overall number of officers INCREASED by nearly 100%. Of the 7% that were removed...as Koniev tells us...most were simply RETIRED to civilian life. Only about 7000 were arrested...probably only the top leaders of the military plot were executed.

Now you can quote any historian you want...it does not matter. The only numbers that matter are those from the Archives...everything else is opinions and estimations. But why make estimateions...on numbers that we already know the precise figure off????

[Tavarish Spetsnaz]

Furthermore on Italy...I don't know what you are saying!!

Mussolini came to power in 1922...the communists in Italy were crushed...went underground and many of them went to the USSR.

There was only one time when what you propose could have been done...after WW2!! Problem however...is that the US and British Army were advancing up Italy...destroying the communists as they came along. At the same time...USSR was in the middle of a little war we call WW2. After the war...USSR sending weapons to the Italian communists...whatever was left of them...would have meant war with the US!!! Also there wasn't much of a communist movement left in Italy at that point...CIA did a good job at destroying them.

No...I disagree...Italy did not have the ability to become socialist. The capitalist and imperialist armies were too powerful for Italian communist partizans to fight off.

In Spain on the other hand...it was a totally different story...And so in China.

In Eastern Europe too...free from western imperialist armies threating their revolutions...and with Soviet aid...the socialist revolutions were sucessful in them.

The point being...by the time Stalin died...socialism had spread from Vietnam to Berlin. How can you say he was not an internationalist??? Maybe it is becasue you are not aware fo the work done in Spain, China, Eastern Europe, Korea, Vietnam and so forth.

But you look at Italy and say...HA...he wasn't an internationalist becasue he did not aid Italy. There was little to aid in Italy....the conditions were not right...the Imperialist armies were IN Italy at the time. What could be done??? Again...the same old trotskyist ultra-left idea...lets jump on the throats of imperialists..even if it means our certain and complete destruction!!! Trot proposed it in 1917 to keep fighting Germany...and his desciples keept proposing it in 1945 and so on.

Never looking at what was achieved...always looking at what could never be achieved.

[lostsoul]

Hey, What do you guys think would be different in the world if stalin never exsisted?

I read in a few places, that during WW2 hilters biggest mistake was attacking Stalin's russia, if he did not there could have been a chance he would have won. But in this thread i read that the winter fucked up German forces. So i don't know if our livies would be the same with or without stalin.

This tread had talked about his accomplimishments and failures in Russia(mostly), but what about his influence over the world?

thanks in advance, take care

[Tavarish Spetsnaz]

Winter never defated anyone. Those people who say winter...don't know what they are talking about. Weather plays a part..of course...It slows you down. It slows you down as much as sandy terrain or muddy terrain or hot weather would slow you down. Weatehr and terrain play their part in ANY battle...but they never stop a battle.

Becasue sure the weather SLOWED DOWN the German adavnce towards Moscow...but that is not what stopped them. Troops from Siberia brougth to defend moscow, along with brillinat defensive plans...are what stopped the germans. And of course...Winter ends...spring comes...What stopped the Germans than?? Red Army did...What broke the German's back at Kursk??? It was July...

No...winter played the role of terrain...just as terrain played its role in Africa or in Normandy...its all the same.

And of course the Germans have funny claims. Their thermometers say -40 deg C...Soviet thermometers say -10 deg C...LOL

If Stalin had not existed...Hard to tell. The developmento f the USSR was the result of the revolution...of the work of the party cadres and so forth. If whoever had repalced Stalin had folowed Marxism-Leninism as he did...than the USSR would have turned out the same. If it was Molotov, or Kaganovich or Zhdanov or whoever...it would have been very similar...if not the same. After all...the decisions were made by the CC in general...not by Stalin himself...and they were based on Marxism-Leninism...not on Stalin's personal thoughts.

[Mazdak]

Lavrenti Beria or Molotov were more or less willing to follow the same course as stalin. Whatever leader took over after lenin, be it trotsky, Dzerzhinksy, or any other leader, it would have made little difference. They would still be viewed as mass murdering monsters in the eyes of the west.

[Sirion]

Excellent point Mazdak...

Before we continue, I would like to say ot everyon, that while I do not support everything Stalin did, it was probably meant as a way to true communist. There is no blueprint on how to achieve this, and as we know, Stalins hard method's, while costing many human life's (this again, unlike what is told by western propaganda, was seldom his faul, and he was seldom involved in it at all), showed how a "socialist" country can outproduce advanced capitalist countries.

This is also a thing most captalists overlook when they bash communism; USA was about 100 years more developed than Russia. USSR NEARLY became equal within 28.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Indeed, you're remarks on Stalin are somewhat accurate. But when looking at him in terms of a Communist, I like to say that Stalin never did acheive Communism. And obviously many agree that he ruined it. His constant asking for financial help from USA after the War showed that Stalin was a hypocrit. Claiming to be communist is therefore claiming to be isolationist. Therefore, going to the motherland of capitalism for economic aid is going against ideals. Russia was never a real communist state after Lenin. Stalin...another imperialist beast.

[Tavarish Spetsnaz]

Russia was never a communist state after Lenin??? That makes little sense. Russia was never a communist state...before, during or after Lenin.

Of course the USSR was not communist...no nation is or has ever been communist.

They were SOCIALIST...the first stage of communism as Marx called it...or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as Lenin called it.

Yes Stalin never achieved communism...he achieved socialism...and was well on its way towards communism.

Under Lenin...USSR was not even socialist...becasue the construction of socialism begun a few years latter...In the 20s, the USSR did not have the ability to embark on building socialism.

Some would agree Stalin destroyed communism...Many would disagree...

Stalin asked US for financial aid????? This sounds compeltely WRONG to me...as IT NEVER HAPPENED. I would like to hear some sources and some facts of this supposed "asking of financial aid" by Stalin after WW2??? It never happened...as Stalin was the main opponent of US finanical "aid" to any country...the Marshall Plan...as it was of course just a way of getting nations within the US sphere of influence.

Again I stress it never happened...

Seems to me your information on Stalin is greatly flawed!!

Sirion...Stalin's achievements...or rather the achievements of the USSR at the time...range far beyound outproducing the west. The MOST IMPORTANT achievment...was the development of socialist realtions in society and socialist realtions in labor. THAT...was the true development of socialism...