Stalin's Death - Victim of his own Terror Regime

[Edelweiss]

Here's a little "anecdote" about the death of the beloved demigod of the few confused in this forum, who are willingly admiring a mad butcher, or who even denying the Stalin terror:
When Stalin was fighting his death alone in his sleeping room, he easily coild have been rescued if medical aid would have been called timely. But nobody of his body guard dared to enter his room, when he didn't left it to the usal time. Hours went by, and still nobody dared to enter his sleeping room, in fear to be punished in the usual autocratic way, because some alleged misdemeanour. Nobody dared to help the "peoples leader", who in fact lost touch with his people long time ago. And still, when finally somebody entered the room, nobody dared to even give him some first aid. Stalin was finally victim of his own terror, as he deserved it.

[Cassius Clay]

Tell me Malte is any of the above backed up by any FACTS. No it isn't.

'Mad butcher' oh stop reading Robert Conquest and do some research.

Read.

''On LAVRENTY BERIA

TL

One Criticism on Martin's "Another View of Stalin."

(Totalitarian paradigms can demonify a culture [as with Soviet] and/or excuse the masses of people within the culture [as with Nazis]. See Stalin and Yezhov, NKVD Info, and Yezhov,)

This (ON BERIA) is related to Ludo Martens' book "Another View of Stalin." It is a critique of his assessment of Beria. The rest of the Martens' book relies on facts. Here, in the analysis of Lavrenty Beria, Ludo Martens does NOT have facts, he has only theories and/or rumor or gossip which is what Kremlinologists used to create the totalitarian paradigm against of all of Soviet society! Why would he believe this or believe Khrushchev?

This is like the Forward to "The Beria Affair" where the author goes into all the things THE WEST "knew" about what "power" Beria had - and then states that even 4 months after Stalin died, Beria did not make a grab for ultimate power. They "reason" that this was so, according to this fool, is due to Beria's arrogance. Nonsense! This ONLY makes sense if you abide by the totalitarian paradigm of Soviet society which is FALSE. A more logical deduction would be that Beria never considered there to be ANY power grab and was not at odds, in that huge a way, with his Comrades. Consider it: Beria had BOTH the NKGB and NKVD under him. With all the rumors and suspicions about Stalin's death, he could easily have gotten his "rivals" arrested and shot. Therefore, one must also wonder IF THERE WERE ANY rumors or suspicions immediately after Stalin's death! Surely, if there were, they'd have made their way to the NKVD and the NKVD would have acted on it; at least arrested the people who FOUND Stalin on the floor.

Oh, but WAS Stalin found laying on the floor? Or is that more "after the fact" rumor? And why didn't Beria do away with his rivals even 4 months after Stalin's death? Apparently they were NOT his rivals, as the totalitarian paradigmists suggest.

I can't agree with Martens's arguments against Beria since it was enemies that considered Beria an enemy, enemies that were in fact capitalists, never communists, and who PROVED this of themselves, whereas there were only THEORIES or ACCUSATIONS against Beria to that effect, primarily based on his desire to return to a NEP-type system for awhile after WWII - for the same reasons Lenin did it after the Civil War; and due to Beria's desire to keep friendly with the West - who, after all, were ALLIES in WWII. In going along with the idea of Beria that Martens presents, Martens is falling INTO the same totalitarian paradigm that his entire book seeks to dismantle.

Beria did a good job for Stalin, in fact, an EXCELLENT, SUPERB job. Far from wanting to kill Stalin, Beria did everything in his power AGAINST STALIN'S ORDERS to try to prevent Stalin from wandering into mined areas of land during the time Stalin insisted on staying in Moscow in the war. Stalin could have been easily killed: Beria was trying to prevent this. Beria also had MANY occasions to kill Stalin AND get away with it!

Martens cites Thaddeus Wittlin on Beria, but does Martens know to what extent Wittlen INVENTED whole scenes in his book? I do: right out of porno books, too: it's so lurid that it's funny to bump into it in the middle of his huge book. PURE, graphic, lurid invention, pure pornography too. Fantasy! If Martens is going to believe Wittlin on Beria, why not just believe Robert Conquest on Stalin?

The data Martens has on Abakumov and Beria is not correct here. Since the creatioon of two groups, the MGB and the MVD, the MVD being the former NKVD, there was hostility. Ignatiev and Ryumen were Khrushchev's men. It is possible, as Martens and everyone else seems to believe, that Beria was "the only person" capable of eliminating Stalin's personal security, but others could have done it also. It is also possible that the personal security was no longer trusted and Stalin ordered it changed; that would go along with the "orders from the top" school of thought. But in this case, they WERE STALIN'S OWN guards and he'd have every right to have them removed. It is NOT possible to believe that Stalin didn't know they were no longer his security guards! Stalin had good eye-sight! The totalitarian paradigm presents a dualist image of Stalin: he's either a diabolical genius or he's a dull-witted idiot. People who write with a STRONG desire (emotion) to defend Stalin and trash the totalitarian paradigm, often fall right back into the paradigm when they attempt to present Stalin as either a Saint and Genius or a Duped Victim who's not to blame for anything. And these are the types of people that DO NOT want to make a "cult of personality" out of Stalin! They are doing exactly that with this attitude.

I don't think we can really know what happened in the end. It IS possible to believe that Stalin's closest people thought he was sleeping when he lay there sick or unconscious. (I was in a coma, or unconscious at least, unable to be awakened on several attempts, and my dearest friend, someone closer to me than anyone was close to Stalin, thought I was 'SLEEPING and didn't want to be disturbed': yet this was the day after I was smacked by a car going 30 mph as I sat at a stop light in my car and was knocked out cold! He thought I was sleeping! He tried to wake me up only a few times and then let me continue "sleeping." - So it IS POSSIBLE. Well, I wasn't on the floor. I was in my own bed.) But again: was Stalin really found laying on the floor? Or, as said above, is that just more after-the-fact rumor designed to make something look suspicious? Did he look as sickly as we are told? Or did he look as if he were asleep?

But herein is the puzzle that it seems NO scholar out there can see through: they don't WANT to see it clearly. The picture presented by ALL sources, pro and con, shows Stalin's closest, long-time, trusted employees afraid to go into his room!! WHY?? Rybin's account is no better ("Next to Stalin") as he'd have Stalin as Saint Josef while not grasping that his inferences lead one to think that his personal staff were so terrified that they would not even knock on Stalin's door if they had to. They waited hours yet they all thought something was wrong when Stalin didn't come out of his room on time? Or is it that they "remember" thinking something was wrong AFTER they really KNEW something WAS wrong and after they all got it into their heads to get suspicious?

Why didn't they knock or go in his room? No one has seemed to grab hold of THIS INITIAL data on the fatal day. Long BEFORE Beria was around to see Stalin sleeping ON A COUCH, WHY didn't anyone ELSE call the damned doctor? THEY found him on the floor! Beria DID NOT SEE Stalin laying on a floor, he saw him on a couch! He looked asleep. This, in any kind of U.S. investigation, even by small-town cops, would incriminate those people RIGHT THERE AT THE TIME long BEFORE Beria or the others were called, if any suspicions were held at all!

I don't like, and therefore have real criticism for, the tendency of people to trash their own appointed police chiefs, (even if they trash J. E. Hoover* for "doing a good job" against Communists - he was appointed TO DO this! So why blame him?) This smacks of shifting blame, scapegoatism and "the one who appointed him can do no wrong" mentality, it's the same old cult of personality exculpation crap that they claim doesn't exist! That the people right there that knew Stalin's habits did NOT go into his room when (IF!) they thought something "was wrong," is highly suspicious. Stalin was not known to fly off the handle at his maid or anything of that sort! (He welcomed visits from friends and relatives, as many accounts show, or as Svetlana would back up.) The maid couldn't knock on his door? WHY NOT?

IF there is something fishy about how Stalin died, I doubt the answer will be found by looking at the "obvious suspects" by hashing out theories that make them INTO "obvious suspects" AFTER THE FACT, especially by using the same old totalitarian paradigm! Everyone seems, on this subject, to have a political agenda so they invent suspects when the REAL SUSPECTS are right there, WERE there the whole while, and NEGLECTED to do a damned thing, like call a doctor when THEY found Stalin on the floor! In ANY court of law in the USA, the maid and those right there at the time would have been charged at least with negligence leading to death or "murderous indifference" in Stalin's death. (By U.S. law, if I find a person I live with laying on a bed apparently not breathing and am unable to wake that person up - if I have a REASONABLE SUSPICION that the person is in need of medical attention and I DO NOTHING - I can be charged with a crime.)

*Re J. E. Hoover. Does anyone doubt there WERE Communists in the USA at the time of the McCarthy witch hunt? EH? SURE there were Reds here. SURE there were atomic spies, too. DUH! There even were "Communist Parties" here! DUUHH!

From the literature, and here I strongly feel Martens fails too, it is made to sound like NO ONE EVER died in U.S.S.R. except by some political intrigue. Smearing Beria in this manner, after years of loyal service, is no different from what Trotsky said against Stalin, spreading a rumor that Stalin poisoned Lenin! I don't think this belongs in the book; it's not political analysis, it's theory and almost slander. It is also possible that Stalin would have died no matter what was done for him. Cerebral hemorrhage is not a common cold!

With people coming here from the Soviet Union, what would one EXPECT them to say if they ended up here? GOOD NEWS? All one ever gets to read about it are things written either by enemies or defecting spies (some of whom are double agents, to boot). The fact is that Khrushchev was a dictator, things went awful for the economy after he got into power. Whereas people (who do not write books about it) known to me personally that LIVED/WORKED in 1930's USSR under Stalin and then ended up in the U. S. A. living/working here in the post Roosevelt 1950's said it FELT the same to be there as it did to be here, with a few minor details about how economic matters are transacted.

The TOTALITARIAN MODEL of Stalin's Soviet years is permeating. Even revisionists use it, BOTH SIDES use it, and don't even REALIZE they use it: like how the maid is somehow too scared to knock on Stalin's door even tho Stalin was such a friendly guy, or how Beria is obviously out to take over the country, but he fails to do this for some unexplained, mysterious reason - that's all still totalitarian paradigm.

Check Amy Knight, Beria's biographer, for an objective view written by a capitalist.''


There are ofcourse many views surrounding Stalin's death, alot of which oppose the above view but the difference between those and what Malte posted is that they bothered to be objective and reserch into the matter.

[Edelweiss]

Well, yes it is based on facts, provided by reputable Russian historians. But of course you prefer to live in your elf village (what ever the name of those "anti-revisionist" communist sect is), were Stalin is a great beloved leader and benefactor, so keep on dreaming, fool.

[Anonymous]

bah stalin was a victim of his long nights of vodka sessions....
vodka killed stalin...

LONG LIVE VODKA!!!!!!

[Cassius Clay]

LOL, typhical go on some little rant about how evil Stalin was and how everybody who follows him belongs to a cult and is brainwashed, while ignoring the above article which attempts to give a view as to what happened.

'Reputable Russian historians' so atleast provide some names.

'Stalin is a great beloved leader' on what do you base that on? Stalin has been and is rightly criticised for his mistakes, just because I don't buy extreme right-wing (and in alot of cases Nazi) propaganda somehow makes me a member of a sect? BTW do you actually know what revisionism or a revisionist is? Come over to the 'Authoritarians' thread, us evil 'Stalinists' discussed that over there, and guess what we disagreed. So much for your 'sect' hey.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from the anarchist on 11:01 pm on Feb. 24, 2003
bah stalin was a victim of his long nights of vodka sessions....
vodka killed stalin...

LONG LIVE VODKA!!!!!!


What??? it looks like you are on more than Vodka.... late night vodka sessions? what????????? I'm not going to laugh because I wouldn't be able to stop. He died because he drank vodka?? Stalin may have drank vodka, but that isn't exactly a criticism of anything. Malte is criticising his persona, politics, and authority. You are making an attack on alcoholic drinks...............................how do you explain this?

[Edelweiss]

I'll provide names later, although it's rather unimportant, I saw the story on a new documentary about Stalin on German TV, the interviewed Russian historian was pretty young, and shurely not a "Trot", Nazi or US propagandist, as you are alleging everyone to be who is providing some historical facts about the crimes of Stalin, he was just a scientist, neutrally seeking for the historical truth.
And btw, what does it proof that you disagree with other Stalinists? That's really nothing new, and even pretty normal for all the Stalin cults, the Stalinists German sect KPD for example (not a direct follower of the German KPD who was banned in the 60's) has just split, and now one splitt-off is accusing the other side of "revisionism", it's just ridiculous...

[Eastside Revolt]

What amases me about Stalinists is that they see any critisism of him as propoganda. What people need to realize is that there was not a leader of a nation at the time who wasn't a bastard. It still deosn't excuse his conduct. It was the wrong way to set-up a vangaurd.

[CruelVerdad]

It´s strange that Stalin died in that way, but anyway he deserve it...
He was a bastard...

[thursday night]

Malte, I must ask is it really appropriate and necessary to take the authoritarian or non-authoritarian debate to a personal level? I mean, the restriction on this small group of people is quite unpopular I am finding, and while I welcome debate crude comments like “the few confused in this forum, who are willingly admiring a mad butcher, or who even denying the Stalin terror” really don’t serve a productive nature. Anyways, just saying. :)

[Edelweiss]

I'm not interested in having "productive nature" with the Stalinists any more, the Stalinists are like a cancer ulcer to the Che-Lives Community, and I haven't the least bit of respect for them.

[thursday night]

Am I included in that generalization? :)

[Edelweiss]

Quote: from thursday night on 12:24 am on Feb. 25, 2003
Am I included in that generalization? :)

Well, as you are not an unreflected blind follower to Stalin, as I supposed you to be when I restricted you to OI...no.

[thursday night]

Okay, that’s all I wanted to know. Thanks.

[Saint-Just]

Marxism-Leninism, against the univerally peaceful and liberal route to socialism may be a worthwhile debate if the one on Stalin is not.

[Edelweiss]

Alright, here's the name of the Russian historian: Oleg Khlevniuk, who btw also proofed that Stalin was personally responsable for most crimes of his regime, with actual documents with Stalin's signatures on it. Those documents are the final proof against all the babbeling of ignorant fools like CC, who are even denying that Stalin was an autoritarian.

[Cassius Clay]

''I'll provide names later, although it's rather unimportant, I saw the story on a new documentary about Stalin on German TV, the interviewed Russian historian was pretty young, and shurely not a "Trot", Nazi or US propagandist,''

But could he shock horror he be a young carrerrist for the Yelstin-Putin regime? Ofcourse it doesn't matter of what political persuation he is, on what does he base his findings? Certainly not the Soviet archives.

For numerous historians have researched the archives and do you know what they revelaed? That Stalin was far from your patholigical murder you belief. The American historain Getty revelaed that only 600,000 died in the USSR's prisons, although he still uses this in a anti-Stalin context I atleast give him credit for being objective and doing research.

"Not 'rescue Stalin,' but rescue the truth and the future". The author states "I ... reject, the Cold War lies about Stalin, the USSR, and the communist movement because they have been proven time and again to be false. My 'loyalty' here is not to Stalin, but to the truth, as demonstrated by the best contemporary research." Making clear that there is a political dimension to his argument, he goes on to say "It's the work of anti-communism -- mainly in its form of anti-Stalinism (i.e. lies about the Stalin period) -- to convince US that this is all impossible. 'Stalin was worse than Hitler' is a lesson being spread abroad to justify capitalism, imperialism, racism, and mass poverty, suffering and death!"

From a leftist who is neither pro-Stalin or pro-Trotsky.

''as you are alleging everyone to be who is providing some historical facts about the crimes of Stalin, he was just a scientist, neutrally seeking for the historical truth.''

So would you Malte like to provide some facts in the form of reliable eye witness accounts, archival data, photographic and film evidence, guards testimony etc, etc. I have stated before if I'm shown evidence that Stalin and the politburo pacificly murdered anybody who they knew to be completly innoccent then I will renounce them straight away.

''And btw, what does it proof that you disagree with other Stalinists?''

Go the the thread, it matters because we agreed to disagree and had a civilised discussion without insults and swearing. Something which you seem not be able to acheive.

''That's really nothing new, and even pretty normal for all the Stalin cults, the Stalinists German sect KPD for example (not a direct follower of the German KPD who was banned in the 60's) has just split, and now one splitt-off is accusing the other side of "revisionism", it's just ridiculous..''

Yeah that's a shame and don't you think I hate all the splits and arguing? Your right it is 'ridiculous' but you will also find that all other 'Leftist' or 'Socialist' groups do it, Trots, Anarchists and others they all split aswell yet you seem fine to not accuse them of being 'cults'.

'Revisionism' once again do you know what that is?


''Alright, here's the name of the Russian historian: Oleg Khlevniuk, who btw also proofed that Stalin was personally responsable for most crimes of his regime, with actual documents with Stalin's signatures on it.''

Well that's all great and terrific but there's one problem. Stalin couldn't order the execution of anybody, everybody who was executed had their case reviewed over by the Supreme Soviet Court. This was the case when political prisoners were shot in areas of the Ukraine in 1941 when the German's advanced, the court took three days and nights to decide to sentence a number to execution. Stalin incidently said he was against the execution of Bakhurin, did the court give a dam no ofcourse they didn't.


''Those documents are the final proof against all the babbeling of ignorant fools like CC, who are even denying that Stalin was an autoritarian.''

'Babbeling of ignorant fools like CC' oh well that did it for me. What a argument, I mean how have I been blind to the truth all this time about how evil Stalin was. Oh that's right I've been brainwashed by some cult.

Yes I deny Stalin was 'authoritarian'. Who is the authoritarian Malte? Stalin who was criticised by the party numerous times and when the politburo voted against him accepted it and wen't along with the majority or you who runs a place where people are scarred to be objectvie less they be labled a 'Stalinist-Fascist' and where you ban or restrict anybody who disagree's with you without even providing a reason?

I think the answer's obvious.

[Aleksander Nordby]

Stalin was a fucking mass murder, and a enemy of good communism

[Cassius Clay]

'Stalin was a fucking mass murder, and a enemy of good communism'

'The fucking Arabs are out to get us, they are a enemy of the freedom loving United States and are all mass murderers'

Tell me if I say the above does it make me correct? No ofcourse it doesn't even if the above were true it still doesn't matter since I've failed to provide anything to back this claim up.

Oh never mind, that's right Stalin was a 'mass murder, and a enemy of good communism' and anybody who supports him clearly belongs to a cult and has been brainwashed.

[Edelweiss]

CC, you are pathetic.
Yes, the findings of the historian are based on the soviet archives, and I'm there are of course reliable eye witness accounts, archival data, photographic and film evidence, guards testimony etc, etc. but I'm not the historian, and I can't provide that to you via the Internet. But there ARE existing, and there will be the day were even fools like you have to accept that. I entirely trust in that historian, who is certainly NOT a "young carrerrist for the Yelstin-Putin regime", he Is as I already steted a scientist seeking for the historical tuth, far away fromm all cold war propganda and ideological blinkers as you. And I'm not shure if you get me right, but there ARE those documents with Stalin signatures on it, where he orders his crimes, so what the fuck are you trying to tell me? Isn't that enough evidence for his anti-socialist cruelty? And btw, we both know that when the Politburo voted against Stalin and for Kirov, Stalin didn't care about those vote at all, and erased all votes against him.

[Cassius Clay]

'CC, you are pathetic.'

You know what surely it can't be that hard to come up with a post, just one post without personal insults. I know replying to the pacific points made previously might be hard but just try it.

''Yes, the findings of the historian are based on the soviet archives, and I'm there are of course reliable eye witness accounts, archival data, photographic and film evidence, guards testimony etc, etc. but I'm not the historian, and I can't provide that to you via the Internet.''

This has to be the biggest dodge I've ever seen. Provide some 'photographic and film' evidence then, if 'they ofcourse exist' it shouldn't be to hard to find a reliable web page that you can provide a link for. Also I would like information surrounding why these pacific people were killed, by whom and whether Stalin even knew about it.

''But there ARE existing, and there will be the day were even fools like you have to accept that.''

Well that day could be soon if all you do is provide some concrete evidence.

''I entirely trust in that historian, who is certainly NOT a "young carrerrist for the Yelstin-Putin regime", he Is as I already steted a scientist seeking for the historical tuth, far away fromm all cold war propganda and ideological blinkers as you.''

You saw this historian on German TV yes? Since when has corporate media in the west endorsed the finding's by historians who have researched the archives such as the American Getty and numerous Russian historians who also reveal the lies people like Conquest and Soljenitsyn spread?

Read.

''Gorbachev opens the archives

The collection of fantasy figures set out above, the product of extremely well paid fabrication, appeared in the bourgeois press in the 1960s, always presented as true facts ascertained through the application of scientific method.

Behind these fabrications lurked the western secret services, mainly the CIA and MI5. The impact of the mass media on public opinion is so great that the figures are even today believed to be true by large sections of the population of Western countries.

This shameful situation has worsened. In the Soviet Union itself, where Solzhenitsyn and other well-known ‘critics’ such as Andrei Sakharov and Roy Medvedev could find nobody to support their many fantasies, a significant change took place in 1990. In the new ‘free press’ opened up under Gorbachev, everything opposed to socialism was hailed as positive, with disastrous results. Unprecedented speculative inflation began to take place in the numbers of those who were alleged to have died or been imprisoned under socialism, now all mixed up into a single group of tens of millions of ‘victims’ of the communists.

The hysteria of Gorbachev’s new free press brought to the fore the lies of Conquest and Solzhenitsyn. At the same time Gorbachev opened up the archives of the Central Committee to historical research, a demand of the free press. The opening up of the archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is really the central issue in this tangled tale, this for two reasons: partly because in the archives can be found the facts that can shed light on the truth. But even more important is the fact that those speculating wildly on the number of people killed and imprisoned in the Soviet Union had all been claiming for years that the day the archives were opened up the figures they were citing would be confirmed. Every one of these speculators in the dead and incarcerated claimed that this would be the case: Conquest, Sakharov, Medvedev, and all the rest. But when the archives were opened up and research reports based on the actual documents began to be published a very strange thing happened. Suddenly both Gorbachev’s free press nor the speculators in dead and incarcerated completely lost interest in the archives.

The results of the research carried out on the archives of the Central Committee by Russian historians Zemskov, Dougin and Xlevnjuk, which began to appear in scientific journals as from 1990, went entirely unremarked. The reports containing the results of this historical research went completely against the inflationary current as regards the numbers who were being claimed by the ‘free press’ to have died or been incarcerated. Therefore their contents remained unpublicised. The reports were published in low-circulation scientific journals practically unknown to the public at large. Reports of the results of scientific research could hardly compete with the press hysteria, so the lies of Conquest and Solzhenitsyn continued to gain the support of many sectors of the former Soviet Union’s population. In the West also, the reports of the Russian researchers on the penal system under Stalin were totally ignored on the front pages of newspapers, and by TV news broadcasts. Why? (Note: Why? Who stands to lose most if the workers, who make everything we use, united? Surely, the workers would stand to win. But who’d lose? That’s why.)

What the Russian research shows

The research on the Soviet penal system is set out in a report nearly 9,000 pages long. The authors of this report are many, but the best-known of them are the Russian historians V N Zemskov, A N Dougin and O V Xlevjnik. Their work began to be published in 1990 and by 1993 had nearly been finished and published almost in its entirety. The reports came to the knowledge of the West as a result of collaboration between researchers of different Western countries. The two works with which the present author is familiar are: the one which appeared in the French journal l’Histoire in September 1993, written by Nicholas Werth, the chief researcher of the French scientific research centre, CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), and the work published in the US journal American Historical Review by J Arch Getty, a professor of history at the University of California, Riverside, in collaboration with G T Rettersporn, a CRNS researcher, and the Russian researcher, V AN Zemskov, from the Institute of Russian History (part of the Russian Academy of Science). Today books have appeared on the matter written by the above-named researchers or by others from the same research team. Before going any further, I want to make clear, so that no confusion arises in the future, that none of the scientists involved in this research has a socialist world outlook. On the contrary their outlook is bourgeois and anti-socialist. Indeed many of them are quite reactionary. This is said so that the reader should not imagine that what is to be set out below is the product of some ‘communist conspiracy’. What has happened is that the above-named researchers have thoroughly exposed the lies of Conquest, Solzhenitsyn, Medvedev and others, which they have done purely by reason of the fact that they place their professional integrity in first place and will not allow themselves to be bought for propaganda purposes.

The results of the Russian research answer a very large number of questions about the Soviet penal system. For us it is the Stalin era that is of greatest interest, and it is there we find cause for debate. We will pose a number of very specific questions and we will seek out our replies in the journals l’Histoire and the American Historical Review. This will be the best way of brining into the debate some of the most important aspects of the Soviet penal system. The questions are the following:

What did the Soviet penal system consist of?
How many prisoners were there – both political and non-political?
How many people died in the labour camps?
How many people were condemned to death in the years before 1953, especially in the purges of 1937-38?
How long, on average, were the prison sentences?
After answering these five questions, we will discuss the punishments imposed on the two groups which are most frequently mentioned in connection with prisoners and deaths in the Soviet Union, namely the kulaks convicted in 1930 and the counter-revolutionaries convicted in 1936-38.

Labour camps in the penal system

Let us start with the question of the nature of the Soviet penal system. After 1930 the Soviet penal system included prisons, labour camps, the labour colonies of the gulag, special open zones and obligation to pay fines. Whoever was remanded into custody was generally sent to a normal prison while investigations took place to establish whether he might be innocent, and could thus be set free, or whether he should go on trial. An accused person on trial could either be found innocent (and set free) or guilty. If found guilty he could be sentenced to pay a fine, to a term of imprisonment or, more unusually, to face execution. A fine could be a given percentage of his wages for a given period of time. Those sentenced to prison terms could be put in different kinds of prison depending on the type of offence involved.

To the gulag labour camps were sent those who had committed serious offences (homicide, robbery, rape, economic crimes, etc.) as well as a large proportion of those convicted of counter-revolutionary activities. Other criminals sentenced to terms longer than 3 years could also be sent to labour camps. After spending some time in a labour camp, a prisoner might be moved to a labour colony or to a special open zone.

The labour camps were very large areas where the prisoners lived and worked under close supervision. For them to work and not to be a burden on society was obviously necessary. No healthy person got by without working. It is possible that these days people may think this was a terrible thing, but this is the way it was. The number of labour camps in existence in 1940 was 53.

There were 425 gulag labour colonies. These were much smaller units than the labour camps, with a freer regime and less supervision. To these were sent prisoners with shorter prison terms – people who had committed less serious criminal or political offences. They worked in freedom in factories or on the land and formed part of civil society. In most cases the whole of the wages he earned from his labour belonged to the prisoner, who in this respect was treated the same as any other worker.

The special open zones were generally agricultural areas for those who had been exiled, such as the kulaks who had been expropriated during collectivisation. Other people found guilty of minor criminal or political offences might also serve their terms in these areas.

454,000 is not 9 million

The second question concerned how many political prisoners there were, and how many common criminals. This question includes those imprisoned in labour camps, gulag colonies and the prisons (though it should be remembered that in the labour colonies there was, in the majority of cases, only partial loss of liberty). The Table below shows the data which appeared in the American Historical Review, data which encompass a period of 20 years beginning in 1934, when the penal system was unified under a central administration, until 1953, the year Stalin died.

Table - The American Historical Review USSR Custodial Population 1934-1953

Costodial population January 1st Gulag Working Camps Counter- revolutionary Counterrev. % Died Died % Freed Escaped Gulag Labor Colonies Prisons Total
1934
510,307
135,190
26.5
26,295
5.2
147,272
83,490
510,307

1935
725,438
118,256
16.3
28,328
3.9
211,035
67,493
240,259
965,697

1936
839,406
105,849
12.6
20,595
2.5
369,544
58,313
457,088
1,296,494

1937
820,881
104,826
12.8
25,376
3.1
364,437
58,264
375,488
1,196,369

1938
996,367
185,324
18.6
90,546
9.1
279,966
32,033
885,203
1,881,570

1939
1,317,195
454,432
34.5
50,502
3.8
223,622
12,333
355,243
350,538
2,022,976

1940
1,344,408
444,999
33.1
46,665
3.5
316,825
11,813
315,584
190,266
1,850,258

1941
1,500,524
420,293
28.7
100,997
6.7
624,276
10,592
429,205
487,739
2,417,468

1942
1,415,596
407,988
29.6
248,877
18
509,538
11,822
360,447
277,992
2,054,035

1943
983,974
345,397
35.6
166,967
17.0
336,135
6,242
500,208
235,313
1,719,495

1944
663,594
268,861
40.7
60,948
9.2
152,113
3,586
516,225
155,213
1,335,032

1945
715,506
283,351
41.2
43,848
6.1
336,750
2,196
745,171
279,969
1,740,646

1946
600,897
333,833
59.2
18,154
3.0
115,700
2,642
956,224
261,500
1,818,621

1947
808,839
427,653
54.3
35,668
4.4
194,886
3,779
912,794
306,163
2,027,796

1948
1,108,057
416,156
38.0
27,605
2.5
261,148
4,261
1,091,478
275,850
2,475,385

1949
1,216,361
420,696
34.9
15,739
1.3
178,449
2,583
1,140,324
2,356,685

1950
1,416,300
578,912
22.7
14,703
1.0
216,210
2,577
1,145,051
2,561,351

1951
1,533,767
475,976
31.0
15,587
1.0
254,269
2,318
994,379
2,528,146

1952
1,711,202
480,766
28.1
10,604
0.6
329,446
1,253
793,312
2,504,514

1953
1,727,970
465,256
26.9
5,825
0.3
937,352
785
740,554
2,468,524


From the above Table, there are a series of conclusions which need to be drawn. To start with we can compare its data to those given by Robert Conquest. The latter claims that in 1939 there were 9 million political prisoners in the labour camps and that 3 million others had died in the period 1937-1939. Let the reader not forget that Conquest is here talking only about political prisoners! Apart from these, says Conquest, there were also common criminals who, according to him, were much greater in number than the political prisoners! In 1950 there were, according to Conquest, 12 million political prisoners! Armed with the true facts, we can readily see what a fraudster Conquest really is. Not one of his figures corresponds even remotely to the truth. In 1939 there was a total in all the camps, colonies and prisons of close to 2 million prisoners. Of these 454,000 had committed political crimes, not 9 million as Conquest asserts. Those who died in labour camps between 1937 and 1939 numbered about 160,000, not 3 million as Conquest asserts. In 1950 there were 578,000 political prisoners in labour camps, not 12 million. Let the reader not forget that Robert Conquest to this day remains one of the major sources for right-wing propaganda against communism. Among right-wing pseudo-intellectuals, Robert Conquest is a godlike figure. As for the figures cited by Alexander Solzhenitsyn – 60 million alleged to have died in labour camps – there is no need for comment. The absurdity of such an allegation is manifest. Only a sick mind could promote such delusions.

Let us now leave these fraudsters in order that we may ourselves concretely analyse the statistics relating to the gulag. The first question to be asked is what view we should take about the sheer quantity of people caught up in the penal system? What is the meaning of the figure of 2.5 million? Every person that is put in prison is living proof that society was still insufficiently developed to give every citizen everything he needed for a full life. From this point of view, the 2.5 million do represent a criticism of the society.''

The above is just a small part of one of numerous sources and article's which deals with the lies and propaganda and deals with FACTS. Something you Malte have failed to provide.


''And I'm not shure if you get me right, but there ARE those documents with Stalin signatures on it, where he orders his crimes, so what the fuck are you trying to tell me? Isn't that enough evidence for his anti-socialist cruelty?''

'What the fuck are you trying to tell me?' read that part of my post again it's quite simple.

''And btw, we both know that when the Politburo voted against Stalin and for Kirov, Stalin didn't care about those vote at all, and erased all votes against him.''

Kirov won a election in Leningrad that Stalin wasn't even standing for, oh know the horror. All that happened was Kirov apparently got a larger applause than Stalin. Good Kirov probably deserved the applause, how did the opposition react when Kirov refused to go along with their plans to kill Stalin? Oh yeah by killing him, some 'democrats'.

Here is how the election process worked in the USSR and from it we can tell that Stalin has absoblutly NO power to affect who votes for who or 'erase' votes that he didn't like.

''The Party elections in 1937: a `revolution'

Finally, in February 1937, a crucial meeting of the Central Committee addressed the question of democracy and the struggle against bureaucratization. It was that same meeting that decided upon the organization of the purge against enemy elements.

It is important to note that several days of the February 1937 Central Committee dealt with the problem of democracy within the Party, democracy which should reinforce the revolutionary character of the organization, hence its capacity to discover enemy elements that had infiltrated it. Reports by Stalin and Zhdanov dealt with the development of criticism and self-criticism, about the necessity of cadres to submit reports to their respective bases. For the first time, secret elections were organized in the Party, with several candidates and after a public discussion of all candidatures. The February 27, 1937 Central Committee resolution indicates:

`The practice of co-opting members of party committees must be liquidated .... each party member must be afforded an unlimited right of recalling candidates and criticizing them.'

.

The Preparation of Party Organizations for Elections to the USSR Supreme Soviet under the New Electoral System and the Corresponding Reorganization of Party Political Work (27 February 1937). McNeal, p. 187.


When the German fascists occupied the Soviet Union, they discovered all the archives of the Party Committee for the Western Region of Smolensk. All the meetings, all the discussions, all the Regional Committee and Central Committee directives, everything was there. The archive contains the proceedings of the electoral meetings that followed the Central Committee meeting of February 1937. It is therefore possible to know how things actually took place, at the local level.

Arch Getty described a number of typical examples of the 1937 elections in the Western Region. For the positions of district committee, thirty-four candidates were first presented for seven positions. There was a discussion of each candidate. Should a candidate wish to withdraw, a vote was made to see if the members accepted. All votes were secret.

Finally, during the May 1937 electoral campaign, for the 54,000 Party base organizations for which we have data, 55 per cent of the directing committees were replaced. In the Leningrad region, 48 per cent of the members of the local committees were replaced.

.

Ibid. , p. 158.

Getty noted that this was the most important, most general and most effective antibureaucratic campaign that the Party ever effected.

But at the Regional level, which constituted the main level of decision-making, very little changed. In the Regions, since the beginning of the twenties, individuals and clans had solidly entrenched themselves and held a virtual power monopoly. Even this massive antibureaucratic campaign could not budge them. The Smolensk archives contain the written proof.

The Party Secretary of the Western Region Committee was named Rumiantsev. He was a Central Committee member, as were several other regional leaders. The report of the meeting electing the Regional Secretary is in the Smolensk archive. Five pages state that the situation was good and satisfactory. Then follow nine pages of harsh criticism that indicate that nothing was working well. All the criticisms that the Central Committee had formulated against bureaucracy within the Party were taken up by the base against Rumiantsev: arbitrary expulsions, worker complaints that were never treated by the Regional Committee, lack of attention to the economic development of the region, leadership with no connection with the base, etc. The two opposing lines within the meeting were clearly expressed in the proceedings. The document shows that the base was able to express itself, but that it was incapable of getting rid of the clans that held a firm grip on the regional apparatus.

.

Ibid. , p. 162.


The same thing took place in almost all the big cities. Krinitskii, the first secretary of Saratov, had been criticized by name in the Party press by Zhdanov. However, he succeeded in getting himself re-elected. Under fire from both the central leadership of the Party and from the base, the regional `fiefdoms' were able to hold on.

.

Ibid. , p. 164.

They would be destroyed by the Great Purge of 1937--1938.''

[Edelweiss]

The material from the Soviet archives which contain the documents I spoke off is as far as I know only available since a short time, and not yet published to the Internet. But I hope it will be soon, and make an end to lyers like you, who are only able to respond with cynical Stalinist propaganda material, whch is evalutaing if Stalin's terror killed "just" hundreds of thusands or millions. I'll quit this discussion now, it's not worth my energy.

[Edelweiss]

"In the summer of 1932 Joseph Stalin became aware that opposition to his policies were growing. Some party members were publicly criticizing Stalin and calling for the readmission of Leon Trotsky to the party. When the issue was discussed at the Politburo, Stalin demanded that the critics should be arrested and executed. Kirov, who up to this time had been a staunch Stalinist, argued against this policy. When the vote was taken, the majority of the Politburo supported Kirov against Stalin."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSkirov.htm

[Edelweiss]

Let me add that Oleg Khlevniuk is working for the State Archive of the Russian Federation, as I already said, he's shurely no Trotzkyite, no Nazi, and no US propagandist.

[Cassius Clay]

Malte, reading the above reply I'm reminded of a quote from a Historian who put a end to the myth regarding Richard III of England who supposedly had the two princes murdered in the tower.

'"It's an odd thing but when you tell someone the true facts of a
mythical tale they are indignant not with the teller but with you. They don't
WANT to have their ideas upset. It rouses some vague uneasiness in them, I
think, and they resent it. So they reject it and refuse to think about it. if
there were merely indifferent it would be natural and understandable. But it is
much stronger than that, much more positive. They are annoyed. Very odd, isn't
it?"


'cynical Stalinist propagada materail' read the first article again. It's the complete oppossite as it stated, it is just what people who have researched the archives have found and concluded.

'Available since a short time' comeon they've been open for a dozen years this excuse is getting tired.

Contray to what you may believe Malte I'm not some 'Authoritarian', or a little kid who want's to piss you off and I am NOT brainwashed by some cult like you maintain. I belief in socialist democracy. That you'll 'quite this discussion now' merely shows that for the moment atleast you can't provide anything which proves those two article's and alot of the other facts I've posted to be wrong or a lie.


'It's not worth my energy' you started this thread did you not Malte? You had the 'energy' to criticise Stalin and accuse him of the most foul thing's but when you are shown this to be a lie suddenly you have no 'energy'. Strange indeed.


Well leave the thread if you wan't, just don't delete it.

[Cassius Clay]

''In the summer of 1932 Joseph Stalin became aware that opposition to his policies were growing. Some party members were publicly criticizing Stalin and calling for the readmission of Leon Trotsky to the party. When the issue was discussed at the Politburo, Stalin demanded that the critics should be arrested and executed. Kirov, who up to this time had been a staunch Stalinist, argued against this policy. When the vote was taken, the majority of the Politburo supported Kirov against Stalin."

Sorry you posted this after. Anyway for a moment I'll accept that what this says about Stalin is true (that he wanted some people executed) I will ask how this is different from when Stalin nominated Malenkov to head of the NKVD while the politburo procedded to vote in Beria regardless?

Like I said before Stalin was no dictator, his vote counted as much and no more than any other politburo member. If they disagreed with him, that's not only fine but healthy for democracy. Ofcourse 'his policies were criticised' you expect everybody to agree with him and the majority in the party (they voted for the party's line and the opposition got less than 6000 votes)? Bakhurin was editor of Ivesta throughout the 30's and launched scathing attacks on Collectivisation.


''Let me add that Oleg Khlevniuk is working for the State Archive of the Russian Federation, as I already said, he's shurely no Trotzkyite, no Nazi, and no US propagandist''

When did I ever accuse him of being a 'Trotskyite, Nazi or U$ propagandist'? Never, although thankyou for the above I may of misunderstood this and if I have did don't bite my head of but from the above it's apparent that Mr Klenivuk works for the government of the Russian Federation. The same government that massacred hundreds of democraticly elected Communist canditates and thousands of there working class supporters in 1993.

I for one don't view the above government as reliable for a accurate portrayal of the Soviet Union and Stalin. Neither should any Leftist who claims to be anti-Capitalist.

Ofcourse next Malte will tell me that people are more free and have a better life under Putin than Stalin.

[Edelweiss]

ok, finally a work on Stalin, published by the University of Toronto, where Oleg Khlevniuk is one of the authors, which proofs that he is just as what I have desribed him: a neutral scientist. I really hope that interview with him will ever be aired in the US. And btw: It was aired on public TV in Germany, not on the corporate media.

http://www.utoronto.ca/serap/wp1.htm

And if you believe in socialist democracy you shouldn't make Stalin your demigod. I admit there have been published a lot of lies about him by the US propaganda, but now where the cold war is over, and thank to ideology-free historians like Oleg Khlevniuk the actual truth will be more and more revailed, nobody with a brain in the head can deny the anti-socialist, autocratic, power hungry and cruel nature od Stalin.

[American Kid]

bah stalin was a victim of his long nights of vodka sessions....
vodka killed stalin...

LONG LIVE VODKA!!!!!!

lmao, anarchist, we used to be Luke Skywalker/Darth Vader-caliber enemies, somewhere along the line I grew to like you.

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

The Kid's 2 cents on Stalin:

Fuck Stalin.

-ak

[American Kid]

Also, for the fuck of it, this is one of the best threads I've read in a long time.

-Ak

[Mazdak]

Cassius completely wipes the floor with malte and malte says "i dont want to waste my energy" roflmao.

i must say, it is so sad to see someone respect che and turn a blind eye to che having people executed but to somehow see all of stalin's "crimes" is a joke. it is contradictory. On one hand, we claim che did no wrong and the sources that say he did lie, yet when the same sources claim stalin was a mass murderer we embrace them.

[Edelweiss]

Mazdak, I don't deny that Che did any wrong things, nor do I say he never have people executed. No freedom for the former oppresors and exploiters, I'm pretty fine with that. But there's a HUGE difference beween executions as part of a progressive revolution, and repressions and executions against any inner socialist opposition, as Stalin did it. But I know, that's what you sicko admiring him for, at least you are honest about Stalin's crimes, not like CC who's disorting the historical truths for his Stalinist fairytale land.

[Cassius Clay]

''ok, finally a work on Stalin, published by the University of Toronto, where Oleg Khlevniuk is one of the authors, which proofs that he is just as what I have desribed him: a neutral scientist. I really hope that interview with him will ever be aired in the US. And btw: It was aired on public TV in Germany, not on the corporate media.''

Well I for one would like to see it aired in the UK :)

You describe him as 'neutral' yet he works for a government department for the Russian federation. Okay so I accept for a second he is 'neutral' but my source (which you have not responded to yet) provides accounts from around half a dozen or so historians and scientists who cannot be accused of being pro-Stalin.

'Before going any further, I want to make clear, so that no confusion arises in the future, that none of the scientists involved in this research has a socialist world outlook. On the contrary their outlook is bourgeois and anti-socialist. Indeed many of them are quite reactionary. This is said so that the reader should not imagine that what is to be set out below is the product of some ‘communist conspiracy’.

''http://www.utoronto.ca/serap/wp1.htm''

I skimmed read this and frankly it doesn't provide anything. It goes into the usual tirade about 'Soviet-Beuracracy' and how ineffective the Soviet government was and how power was supposedly restricted to a few, who merely 'Rubberstamped' the democratic process (which I belief my article can disprove).

It also of note, describes 'the brilliant' sources given by Trotsky (a man who is a proven liar and whose supporters have written forgories in the past, so one can hardly trust him). It fails to provide any real concrete data or facts. It does though breifly go into Katyrn,. which is interesting.

Even if the NKVD did this (which has not been proven and there are article's to back up that the Nazis did it) it gives us a example of one mass grave, archival data, photographic evidence. All this has been used to criticise (and rightly so if he did order it) Stalin since 1990, but there is nothing similar, or another example which can be used to criticise Stalin.

My point is if one relativly small grave (which more than likely was commited by the Nazis), with some dodgy evidence from the archives can be used to reveal Katryn why can we not see even similar circumstancial evidence for tens of millions of others allegedly killed?


''And if you believe in socialist democracy you shouldn't make Stalin your demigod. I admit there have been published a lot of lies about him by the US propaganda, but now where the cold war is over, and thank to ideology-free historians like Oleg Khlevniuk the actual truth will be more and more revailed, nobody with a brain in the head can deny the anti-socialist, autocratic, power hungry and cruel nature od Stalin.''

A bit of a contradiction there Malte. You begin by saying that you admit the U$ has lied then you proceed to repeat the precise same lies the U$ has used for the past 70 years. Anyway a post without an insult, there you see maybe we can have a civilised discussion.

[Edelweiss]

So what do your sources proof? I don't know why you post that source at all, because it still says that Stalin's terror killed hundreds of thosands of political prisinors, but not millions as stated by other sources. Those kind of evaluations are, as said before, not more than pure cynism. It's like saying Charles Manson was a decent man because he killed only 5 people instead of 20.

[Cassius Clay]

No Malte they do not say that. As the Redcomrades site sais in one of it's article's 'it does not matter whether Stalin murdered 40,000,000 million or 40,000 innocent people it would still be equally morally bad' (from the Yezhov and Stalin articles).

The problem you still have Malte is that you belief that every death in the USSR had to be because of some 'Political' reason. This is ofcourse wrong, the vast majority of those held in USSR's prison's were infact criminalls like rapists or murderers. FACT is 799,445 people died in the USSR's prisons from the early 1930's right up till 1953, this was for all reasons such as suicide, natural causes like old age, murders by other prisoners, discease (note that when penicilin and other modern medicines were introduced the death rate falls) and finally execution (capital punishment abolished between 1945-49 btw).

Anyway the U$ currently has three million more prisoners in jail than the USSR ever did, why do we not ask the American's on this board whether or not there familes are being deported, freinds being sent of to labor camps and people being executed for simply not agreeing with the government? Afterall if it supposedly happened in the USSR it must surely be happening in the U$ today which has 2.8% of it's adult population in jail comparing compared to the USSR which only ever had a maximum of 2.4% (which was right after the war which had caused enourmous destruction and poverty which naturally mean't more people turned to crime).

[Palmares]

I love this argument.

Keep the good work up!

[Cassius Clay]

Cthenthar, your the third person to say that, can I ask why?

[Saint-Just]

Could I ask what this means exactly, Cassius Clay?
I cannot see which figures correspong to which titles.

"% Died Died % Freed Escaped Gulag Labor Colonies Prisons Total
1934
510,307
135,190
26.5
26,295
5.2
147,272
83,490
510,307"

[Mazdak]

Malte, i never claimed stalin killed and dont admire him for killing! I agree with Cassius. I acknowledge he had people executed however i take the same stance as Clay. Neither of us deny people died under stalin. We simply refuse to believe the lies about the figures and the reasoning. Frankly, although i don't believe stalin killed any more than .5-1.5 million people(and i use the term "Stalin killed" loosely), if he had 60 million or 100 million executed, it wouldnt matter. IT IS NOT HOW MANY DIE, BUT WHY THEY DIE. But the point is, not only didn't Stalin kill anywhere near that number, he only had executed those who rightly deserved it. No judicial system is perfect, if a few innocents were sent to the gulag, it wouldnt make a difference because, as i said, no one can ever be 100% sure of the guilt of someone. Until we have cameras everywhere and barcodes on everyone's neck, there will always be a chance a convicted man is innocent. Deal with it.

[suffianr]

'Stalin was a fucking mass murder, and a enemy of good communism'

'The fucking Arabs are out to get us, they are a enemy of the freedom loving United States and are all mass murderers'

What is this? Creative writing class?

You quote two random concepts, totally unrelated topics. You try to establish a connection, however fatuous, to form a unified, meaningful idea. Sounds like free association to me...

[Cassius Clay]

suffianar, If you qoted the entire post you will see it's quite obvious what my point was. That was to point out that that person's post was backed up by nothing in the way of facts or evidence, much like a ignorant American saying what I quoted, does that make the ignorant American right? No it doesn't.

Chairman Mao, sorry that's just the way it came out in the post. Go here http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lies.html

scrowl down the page and there will be a table which will make sense of the figures I posted.

Mazdak, excellent post. Perhaps we should ask for this thread to be made a sticky.

[Edelweiss]

No more question, no more discussions. Mazdak's post, and CC agreeing to it entirely proofs how deeply anti-human and anti-socialist your Stalinist worldview is. Again, it's pure involuntary cynism of you two bumbles, and an open insult to all the victims of Stalin's terror. Thank you for finally admitting the crimes od Stalin, CC. (Or what else would you call .5 to 1.5 million mudered people? Oh, I forgot they deserved to die...)
btw: I'm shure if Stalin would rule in today's time, everyone WOULD have a barcode on their neck.
p.s.: Sticky my ass!

[Cassius Clay]

Quote: from Malte on 12:29 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
No more question, no more discussions. Mazdak's post, and CC agreeing to it entirely proofs how deeply anti-human and anti-socialist your Stalinist worldview is. Again, it's pure involuntary cynism of you two bumbles, and an open insult to all the victims of Stalin's terror. Thank you for finally admitting the crimes od Stalin, CC. (Or what else would you call .5 to 1.5 million mudered people? Oh, I forgot they deserved to die...)
btw: I'm shure if Stalin would rule in today's time, everyone WOULD have a barcode on their neck.
p.s.: Sticky my ass!


Oh and here was me thinking that you were capable of a decent post, oh well. Why not make it a sticky, if you've supposedly proven what a monster I am? 'Anti-Socialist and Anti-Human' rightttttttt, how many times Malte I support the Soviet Union and Stalin because I belief in democracy.

You can twist my words and misinterprate the facts all you wan't but this thread has proved that the truth is on my side. Ignorance is no excuse Malte, the facts and the evidence have been presented to you and you haven't responded to any of it. You haven't provided one ounce of evidence to support your claims and accusations about Stalin.

Once again who is the authoritarian Stalin who was criticised by the party, often voted against by the members of the politburo and had plays in Moscow ridiculing and criticising the purges or you who bans or restricts anybody whom disagree's with you and runs a board where people are scarred to objective for fear of being labbled a 'Fascist' or member of a 'Cult'?

[Edelweiss]

I'm NOT restricting everyone who I disagree with into this forum, I disagree with a lot of people ouside this forum. Actually beside the cappies, I have only restricded 4 right-wing communists, including you, to SvsC. I admit that I'm a bit autocratic and even egoistic with doing this, but it's a mesure to increase the quality of this board, it's worth nothing for Che-lives to have spammers like you here, who are just here to have endless redundant debates about your demigod Stalin, debates of the past, which are actually irrelavant for today's leftist, emancipatory movement. You contribute nothing to it, you probaply will still discussing with "revisionists" on a Internet BB when the revolution breaks out, but i doubt that you are even really intersted in any social change, rather you are a bumble, who is obsessed by the absurd idea to proof everyone that beside you and a few other enligthned people know the entire truth about the Stalin era.

[Cassius Clay]

''I'm NOT restricting everyone who I disagree with into this forum, I disagree with a lot of people ouside this forum. Actually beside the cappies, I have only restricded 4 right-wing communists, including you, to SvsC. I admit that I'm a bit autocratic and even egoistic with doing this, but it's a mesure to increase the quality of this board, it's worth nothing for Che-lives to have spammers like you here, who are just here to have endless redundant debates about your demigod Stalin, debates of the past, which are actually irrelavant for today's leftist, emancipatory movement. You contribute nothing to it, you probaply will still discussing with "revisionists" on a Internet BB when the revolution breaks out, but i doubt that you are even really intersted in any social change, rather you are a bumble, who is obsessed by the absurd idea to proof everyone that beside you and a few other enligthned people know the entire truth about the Stalin era.''

'Right-wing communists' please what are you talking about? You accuse me of 'spaming' when it was you who started this thread. You once again go on about how I'm supposedly worshiping 'my demi god', what do you base this on? It's clear you have no other arguement.

It has nothing to do 'with increasing the quality of this board' (not to mention it acheives the opposite) you allow a Trotskyite to say it's okay to throw workers into concentration camps but because he's anti-Stalin that's opkay, you allow a Anarchist to remark that he/she thinks that Hitler was right in regard to the Jews but because they are not a 'Stalinist' it's okay, you allow Peacenicked to support a Fascist dictator and NATO puppet in Albania but because they are very much anti-Stalin it's okay.

You know I still think you have a certain point, with what your saying about every thread turning into 'Stalin devil or saint debate'. Here's what I posted when I was let back in.

''Malte, while I appreciate the responsbility's, difficulties and above all I suppose a certain enjoyment you have in running this place, I still fail to see why I pacificly was banned?

I appreciate you letting me back and believe it or not I can understand you not wanting to have this whole board become mired in the 'Stalin saint or devil' debate. Afterall this place you set up as a forum for admirers of Che.

But it was one Peacenicked who continously set up threads full of insults, swearing and the theory 'If I shout the loudest that means I'm right', he was then met with a counter-argument and would then set up another such thread a few days later.

We felt obliged to offer at the least a counter-argument to the rather stupid threads that were allways started by someone else.

Why was I banned Malte? I made no anti-semitic, homophobic or rascist remarks on the contray infact, all the nice Register form says is 'Stalinists will not find many friends here' and as such I didn't but I broke none of the rules.''

Did I get a response from you? No ofcourse I didn't, tell me what was so offensive from what I posted above?

I put up with your insults and petty name calling throughout this entire thread and again and again I offer to have a civilised discussion with you about Stalin, like I have before with people on this board like Redstar 2000 and ArgueEverything.

'But I doubt you are really interested in any social change' just who the hell are you to tell me that? You haven't even talked to me on these boards before let alone know me. I can tell you though that I think there's more to contributing to socialism than gathering around annually to smash up McDonalds and Starbucks while getting high the rest of the year. Hmm sounds pretty much like a 'cult' to me.

Ofcourse you won't reply to this, like you've ignored everything written in this thread. You will just go on a tirade about 'evil Stalinists' 'Right-wing authoritarians' and 'Bumbles' (whatever that means).

[Mazdak]

Malte, you are a rather pathetic individual. Right wing communists? LOL. of all people, i would expect you to realize "right wing communists" dont exist. The political spectrum is four sided. However, since i see you view the world as black and white, this will never get through to you.Cassius SPAMS? If anything Peaccenicked spams, they start debates, we finish them. You have a distorted view of history. Both in the real world, and at this discussion board.

So you can make an anti stalin thread sticky but a thread in which you get refuted every step of the way you refuse to keep?

I admit i have spammed here, and i have made it clear. But cassius and other have not. That is a blatant lie.

[Saint-Just]

Thank you for showing me those figures and their correctly corresponding explanations Cassius Clay. It is interesting to see how many were in prisons or Labour camps in such a period of war and ceaseless consruction.

[FAB]

i have seen the documentation of stalin too.
the german tv start a curious campaign.
sunday start still a doku with 3 parts. i think this become because at March the 5th ist Stalins 50. anniversary of his death.

But as germans we must thankfull to Stalin because he make us free from nazis! but we also must criticise his crimes!

(Edited by Molotow at 12:58 am on Feb. 28, 2003)

[RedComrade]

Stalin died on March 5th man, how do I know you might add because its my birthday ironically enough...

[Cassius Clay]

''but we also must criticise his crimes!''

Excellent point Molotow, you have appeared to take a fairly neutral ground and see both sides from your posts and you are indeed correct. As Marxists it is our job to crticise and Stalin certainly made mistakes. In terms of crimes well the deportations of the Chechens and Crimean Tartars have certainly been criticised and justifiably so, although it was in circumstances bought about entirely by the Fascist invasion it's still wrong and a crime.

In terms of ideological mistakes, Stalin I feel allowed the growth of too much nationalism during the war what with emphasis on 'Mother Russia'. Also after the war he sought of fell into the trap of believing socialism had been fully constructed in the Soviet Union and that the opportunists and careerists did not pose a threat.

[Mazdak]

Remember, there were few countries during WW2 that didn't commit such acts. Look at the US arrests and detainment of japanese, not to mention what the Germans did.

[Edelweiss]

Well, of course it wasn't only you stalinists who turned this board into "stalin-Lives" a while ago, and maybe I'm even a bit unfair by restricting you, but still, unlike you CC, members like peaceknicked have shown to be important for Che-Lives, who can contribute more than just by having redunadant discussions and randomly copy and paste Stalinist propaganda (=spam). CC, I think I never have seen you said anything to REALLY relavant topics, like the current situation in Venezuela or the upcoming war on Iraq. But you are probaply not even interested in that. Your, without queationing good rhetoricly abilities, and your willingness to discuss that topic to death again and again, backed by Stalin kiddies like Mazdak or B88, turned Che-Lives into a total shithole, and members like peace or vox invested all their energy in discussions with you, instead of pointing their attention on really important topics, and contibute in the way they used to. Something had to be done, and something was done, and unfortnetly it wa to your disadvantage.

And I think I have stated several times that I respect Stalin's historical achievement to stop the Nazi hordes in Stalingrad, although one could say that the USSR won the war not because of Stalin, but despite of Stalin. I also see ceratin social achivemnts which were made by Stalin, although the prize of millions of dead workers was a much tot high price for the industrialisation, but that's of course another "revisionist" lie...

And what's so wrong about the term right-wing communists? Stalin was on the far right-wing of the CP, and so are you right-wing communists. I think that is a political scientificly correct description about Stalinists like you.

The reason why I am so shure about that you are not really interested in any social change is, that even if it's all true, and Stalin wasn't a cold-blooded mass murderer (whcih he was), still todays's working class in the western world is not a bit interested to hear your agitations. They will stop listening to you as soon they even the word Stalin, and someone like you, who blindly and unreflectedly admires Stalin, who runs around to tell everyone how great he was, and that everything written in today's history books is wrong, who persists on your othodox dogmatic "anti-revisionist" Marxist-Leninist world view, will never acieve anything for the leftist movement. Your views will never be more than a religion for some tiny political sects, that's for shure, and that is the reason why people like you are sickening me so much.

[Palmares]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 7:26 pm on Feb. 26, 2003
Cthenthar, your the third person to say that, can I ask why?


Sorry bout answering this late. It is just because both you (and Mazdak, Chairman Mao) are having a argument with Malte (and others) which is fought with passion. Though both viewpoints are stubborn (not being open about the others ideas), it is very educational to see such arguments from both sides especially when they are fought on both sides vigourously. The arguments aren't one sided, they are fairly even. Everyone loves a close fight.

[Mazdak]

I have been doing research on the subject of Venezuela and what else can be said? I support Chavez 100%.

Spamming? I defended stalin when necessary. My views were drastically different from yours(on drugs and prostitution specifically). I really doubt myself and B88 ever could have had such a tremendous impact on a website like this. Peacce did nothing but post links and i never recall a time when i came into conflict with vox.

In fact, many of my posts are defending my specific viewpoints, many stalinists don't share them. So how exactly is having a different opinion turning a DEBATE message board into a shithole?

Peacenicked contributes because you made him moderator. If you made American Kid moderator he would contribute to the site just the same.

I rarely copied and pasted, and only in cases when discussing stalin.

And it would be easier to discuss topics of relevance if we werent LOCKED AWAY IN THIS SHITHOLE. How can i say anything of relevance when half the topics on this portion of the site are shit?

And speaking of not doing anything for the world, i havent seen any anarchist uprisings. Nor any successful trotskyist states. Why? They dont exist. For such a weak group that never intends to achieve anything, we sure as hell have done alot more than your side Malte. Unless you can name a revolution that i dont support that has actually achieved its goals for longer than a year or so?

It is as simple as this. If a revolution is fought and won, the rule immediatly afterwards will be a dictatorship. If it isn't, the revolution disintegrates immediatly. Why turn a blind eye to history? The idea is to look at the mistakes made and why they were made and attempting to correct them in the future.

And CC, i am not sure, but is it not true that Khrushchev was part of the right? I am almost positive Stalin was NOT "right wing" communist as malte has stated.

[synthesis]

If a revolution is fought and won, the rule immediatly afterwards will be a dictatorship. If it isn't, the revolution disintegrates immediatly.

Castro would have won the popular vote if he had installed democracy. Shit, over 60% of Cuba still supports the revolution. What's your justification?

[Edelweiss]

Let me add one more thing which illustrates what's the problem with you Stalinists, and why I'm so upset about you: On the Liebknecht-Luxemburg memorial march in Berlin this Januarry, there were of course all kind of commnist sects, including Stalinists. A few Stalinists had big portaits of their big leader carrying with them. The march is one of the biggest communist manifestations worlwide (more than 10,000 participants), and of course also the corporate/bourgeois media is reporting about the march, not much, but they are of course noticing it. In a few sentences they always mention that Stalin was supported by the whole march, in their usal truth twisting way. The support of Stalin by a few misguided idiots, is a forward pass to the reactionary media to discredit the whole communist movement, and it prevents to really reach the working class and the youth, Stalinists are a big hindrance to a modern, emanciptory communist movement, beyond from sectarism, and so a bless for the reaction.
You could apply those to che-lives, and that's why it needs a clear anti-Stalinist stamp, which is made with resticting hardcore Stalinists to OI.

[Edelweiss]

Quote: from Mazdak on 4:59 am on Feb. 28, 2003
I have been doing research on the subject of Venezuela and what else can be said? I support Chavez 100%.

Spamming? I defended stalin when necessary. My views were drastically different from yours(on drugs and prostitution specifically). I really doubt myself and B88 ever could have had such a tremendous impact on a website like this. Peacce did nothing but post links and i never recall a time when i came into conflict with vox.

In fact, many of my posts are defending my specific viewpoints, many stalinists don't share them. So how exactly is having a different opinion turning a DEBATE message board into a shithole?

Peacenicked contributes because you made him moderator. If you made American Kid moderator he would contribute to the site just the same.

I rarely copied and pasted, and only in cases when discussing stalin.

And it would be easier to discuss topics of relevance if we werent LOCKED AWAY IN THIS SHITHOLE. How can i say anything of relevance when half the topics on this portion of the site are shit?

And speaking of not doing anything for the world, i havent seen any anarchist uprisings. Nor any successful trotskyist states. Why? They dont exist. For such a weak group that never intends to achieve anything, we sure as hell have done alot more than your side Malte. Unless you can name a revolution that i dont support that has actually achieved its goals for longer than a year or so?

It is as simple as this. If a revolution is fought and won, the rule immediatly afterwards will be a dictatorship. If it isn't, the revolution disintegrates immediatly. Why turn a blind eye to history? The idea is to look at the mistakes made and why they were made and attempting to correct them in the future.

And CC, i am not sure, but is it not true that Khrushchev was part of the right? I am almost positive Stalin was NOT "right wing" communist as malte has stated.




I was mainly speaking to CC, he copies and pasts a lot and also rarely says anything besides the Stalin discussions. If you wouldn't be such a spammer, which tries to dominate the board, and just tries to piss us of with statements like "execute all prostitutes" I wouldn't have locked you.

And Mazdak, I'm speaking of the working class in the western capitalist world, which you can't reach with Stalinism, because they never will be willing to give up bourgeois democracy and fight for a totalitarian repressive state, which you Stalinists openly adcocate. Without a revolution in the industrial nations, there can't be a communist society, Marx and Trotzky were totally right about that, and history has prooven them right. Although I'm not a Trotzyite, I share those viewpoint, just like I share ceratin viewpoints of Maoism for example.

[Cassius Clay]

''Well, of course it wasn't only you stalinists who turned this board into "stalin-Lives" a while ago, and maybe I'm even a bit unfair by restricting you, but still, unlike you CC, members like peaceknicked have shown to be important for Che-Lives, who can contribute more than just by having redunadant discussions and randomly copy and paste Stalinist propaganda (=spam). CC, I think I never have seen you said anything to REALLY relavant topics, like the current situation in Venezuela or the upcoming war on Iraq. But you are probaply not even interested in that. Your, without queationing good rhetoricly abilities, and your willingness to discuss that topic to death again and again, backed by Stalin kiddies like Mazdak or B88, turned Che-Lives into a total shithole, and members like peace or vox invested all their energy in discussions with you, instead of pointing their attention on really important topics, and contibute in the way they used to. Something had to be done, and something was done, and unfortnetly it wa to your disadvantage.''

I have allready said that I understand this and your perspective. I said it when I was first let back in. However you still call me a 'spamer' who started this thread Malte? Who started all the other threads, full of insults and swearing? Certainly not me.

You say I contribute nothing, well first of all I wasn't aware I had to, second of all that's your opinion. A few people told me the oppossite, most of them being indifferent or anti-Stalin.

Your assumption that I'm not interested in anything else is wrong, recently I gave CI a list of a number of German Capitalist company's who directly benefited from the Holocaust, not my fault I got no reply (like I usually get no reply when I post in Iraq topics, which sought of deters one). Go to the China thread. Before I was banned I discussed the flaws and criticisms of Soviet, British, French and Polish foriegn policy during the 30's in response to Hitler, I discuss Cuba with Redstar 2000, I also remember putting a rather long post in one of the Isreali-Palestinian threads way back.


''And I think I have stated several times that I respect Stalin's historical achievement to stop the Nazi hordes in Stalingrad, although one could say that the USSR won the war not because of Stalin, but despite of Stalin. I also see ceratin social achivemnts which were made by Stalin, although the prize of millions of dead workers was a much tot high price for the industrialisation, but that's of course another "revisionist" lie...''

So go ahead and prove it Malte? I've given you evidence refuting that claim and you've just ignored it. Anyway do you honestly think that any right-minded person would support Stalin (that includes Che btw) if he murdered even one person let alone the tens of millions you claim.


''And what's so wrong about the term right-wing communists? Stalin was on the far right-wing of the CP, and so are you right-wing communists. I think that is a political scientificly correct description about Stalinists like you.''

Stalin was left-wing, 'right-wing communists' are people like Deng Xia Ping, Tito and Ceascescu people whom are hardly Communists, more like Fascist dictator's. If Stalin was 'right-wing' then he would of stood up for the Kulaks, NEP men, beuracrates and massive inequality in society.

''The reason why I am so shure about that you are not really interested in any social change is, that even if it's all true, and Stalin wasn't a cold-blooded mass murderer (whcih he was), still todays's working class in the western world is not a bit interested to hear your agitations. They will stop listening to you as soon they even the word Stalin, and someone like you, who blindly and unreflectedly admires Stalin, who runs around to tell everyone how great he was, and that everything written in today's history books is wrong, who persists on your othodox dogmatic "anti-revisionist" Marxist-Leninist world view, will never acieve anything for the leftist movement. Your views will never be more than a religion for some tiny political sects, that's for shure, and that is the reason why people like you are sickening me so much.''

I hate to admit it but you have a certain point. Your right about the west and that 'Stalinist' parties will likely remain small.

But once again Malte you can't stop with the insults can you, what's so difficult about making a post without them? You make alot of interesting and worthwhile points there and although I don't agree with it all I'd still like to discuss it.

As I said before you are right about the 'Stalinist' parties in the west, so ignoring them what do you think are the flaws and good points about the various leftist movements in western Europe and America?

Do you think as I do that while alot of the mass protests and turn outs on May-Day are great there is to much emphasis on smashing up McDonalds? This is great that alot of students and young people (I'm one of them) see the injustices in Capitalism and wan't to do something about it but they are hardly putting any emphasis on the working classes.

It's the workers who will lead a revolution and there disconent has to be equal to that of the idealistic students. I take it you belief that it's very important for a revolution to happen in the west, I would disagree. I don't believe there is enough disconent and inequality's (with ironically perhaps America being the exception, 10% are obese while 10% don't have enough to eat) for there to be a revolt. No I think Capitalism will collapse at it's weakest links such as Africa, Latin and South America and South East Asia, Russia is also hopefull.


So Malte once again I've offered a olive-branch, all you have to do is leave the insults (alot of them personal) and swearing behind and respond to the above. Afterall if you can disagree and have discussions with others why not me?

[ThunderStrike]

ah well.. seems i got unbanned here, still not agree with the stance of the forum against Stalin here but ok..

nice discussion you have here cassius.. read it all, Malte you keep repeating Stalin is a horrible dictator etc etc enlighten me please.. explain me what really happend?
the problem is the sources..

i'm not blindly following anything (for example, i dont support a lot of things that happend after 1955 inside the USSR) i'm studying history myself and i think there was a big historical factual revisionism..(concerning Stalin) the propaganda started by the Gestapo against the USSR and communism (led by the evil dictator stalin) was systematically taken over by western historians and political leaders.. because by attacking a person like Stalin, (who was a faithfull marxist-leninist > http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/stal-ml.html )
the western capitalist world took over these lies and slander about the USSR, because this way a lot of people think there is no good alternative to the capitalist system..
- concerning all kinds of sources about the so called crimes in the USSR.. most sources are from: Robert Conquest (who was a leading figure inside the british intelligence agency, who had a anti-communist department which he was a prominent member from.. this certainly should shed some doubt about the number of people he claims to be killed by the "evil" dictator stalin.. he even exceeds the numbers from the ones that the Gestapo was claiming > which were false or course) other sources are mostly from Trotstyite sources (who was very anti-stalin and systematically disagreed with everything where maxism-leninism was all about > thats a different discussion but too long to type right now ) or other sources are mostly from guys like Solzjenitsyn (who were so openly fascist that they were kicked out of the party.. or course these guys like Trotsky and Solzjenitsyn, make ideal tools for the CIA which took over the psycological warfare against communism which the CIA took over from the Gestapo after WW2) all with the ultimate goal: to make the people believe there is no good alternative to Capitalism..

of course i don't agree to everything which Stalin did, but by studying the rules and laws that were in the USSR during those times and what the people say about him now (a lot of people still live today that were living in the USSR during Stalin) makes a pretty good image about how it really was during those days, and remember most of the support to the current russian communist party come from the people that were living during the Stalin era.. i personally believe that Stalin, wasnt a dictator and that soviet democracy was at best during the time he was the big man in USSR.. he simply didn't have the rights to get everyone arrested.. if he went to the head of NVKD (secret service) and said to their chief that they should arrest that and that guy, they would have laughed him in the face.. simply because he didn't have that kind of power. Stalin was a political genius imo and it was because of his militairy insights and his ability to consult and make a conclusion about plans, amonst the high ranking commanders inside the red army that we are not all speaking German right now.. after WW2..

lets not forget the words of Ernesto "Che' Guevara himself: "In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don’t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context … I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Seri of things that are very good."

Che saw that the revisionism of Chroetsjov was not only bad for the Soviet-Union but also for the revolutionary movements in his continent. Except for Colombia, all guerrilla-activities in the Latin-American countries were condemned by Moscow. When Che started his guerrilla in Bolivia, he was betrayed by the Bolivian CP, which lead to the isolation and the elimination of his guerrilla force.

hope i contributed something to the thread, not just Stalinist SPAM.. because i actually wrote that down myself (except the quotes of Che) sigh.. btw malte doesn't it occur to you that guys like Cassius are triggered to posts in threads which are about Stalin, because people are filled with crap concerning the history during the Stalin era.. you yourself are an example of that resulting in constant name-calling and swearing..

ah well wrote enough :)

[Saint-Just]

'The support of Stalin by a few misguided idiots, is a forward pass to the reactionary media to discredit the whole communist movement, and it prevents to really reach the working class and the youth, Stalinists are a big hindrance to a modern, emanciptory communist movement, beyond from sectarism, and so a bless for the reaction.'

I don't mean to criticise what you are saying here Malte. However, it could be articulated that, if Cassius Clay and all Marxist-Leninists are largely correct about Stalin then it is possible for many working class people and left-wing youths to support them.

'even if it's all true, and Stalin wasn't a cold-blooded mass murderer (whcih he was), still todays's working class in the western world is not a bit interested to hear your agitations. They will stop listening to you as soon they even the word Stalin'

You could say that it is the reactionary media who paints these pictures of Stalin. It would then not be the fault of those who support Stalin in gaining leftist support but rather the media who created this image which deters people from Marxism-Leninism. Therefore, it would be productive to reveal the truth, if it is true, of Stalin.

The media tend to paint negative pictures with any leftist movement, they'll quickly criticise and label those who do things such as Cassius said 'smashing up McDonalds' as violent minority movements with little message, simply a passion for violence.

The real enemy of the leftist movement may not be from within the leftist movement intself but rather our common enemy, the bourgeois media.

[Mazdak]

Yes, Malte, how is it the fault of the Stalinists that the media portrays them in a bad light. It simply gives us another reason to discuss him.

And thank you CC for clearing that up.

[Cassius Clay]

Thankyou Thunderstrike.

Ofcourse if Lenin had lived another 20 years the media and 'historians' or 'experts' would be writing the precise same things they do of Stalin.

Anyway I guess the workers were somehow 'brainwashed' by the 'Stalinist cults' in Ecuador where they just elected a coalition which includes the PCMLE (Marxist-Leninists) who played a key role in the left's victory.

[guerrillaradio]

It's almost impossible to discuss Stalinist USSR with total accuracy, simply cos there are no legitimate or unbiassed sources. Therefore I won't take any sides in this 'debate'.

[Cassius Clay]

Guerrillaradio as much as I would of liked you to join the 'Stalinist' perspective of the 'debate' on the whole you are correct. Your right there is ofcourse no source that isn't totally unbiased.

But my opinion is that a American worker who works in the Soviet Union for a decade and testifies in a book 'In Search of Soviet Gold' that there was sabotage and that corruption (and alot worse) ran straight to the top in the cases of Zinoviev, Kamenev etc is about as unbiased as you can get. As the American Ambassador present at the Moscow Trials is.

Anyway today's it's 50 years since 'Stalin's Death'.

[革命者]

I post this at the day in history Stalin died(i will add nothing personal to the debate, tho.; i agree with most of you that it's hard to tell the exact things that happened in the Stalin-era.)
but nonetheless.. an article:
[urlhttp://www.boston.com/dailynews/062/world/In_Russia_Stalin_still_carries%3A.shtml[/url]

(Edited by Scotty at 11:40 am on Mar. 5, 2003)

[bolshevik1917]

http://www.marxist.com/History/stalin_death1.html

[Cassius Clay]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 2:57 pm on Mar. 5, 2003http://www.marxist.com/History/stalin_death1.html

I don't see anything about his death in here just the usual Trotskyite lies, distortion and fabrication.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 10:11 am on Mar. 5, 2003
Guerrillaradio as much as I would of liked you to join the 'Stalinist' perspective of the 'debate' on the whole you are correct. Your right there is ofcourse no source that isn't totally unbiased.

But my opinion is that a American worker who works in the Soviet Union for a decade and testifies in a book 'In Search of Soviet Gold' that there was sabotage and that corruption (and alot worse) ran straight to the top in the cases of Zinoviev, Kamenev etc is about as unbiased as you can get. As the American Ambassador present at the Moscow Trials is.

Interesting...I haven't heard that source. There's an interview in The Telegraph (right wing UK paper) today with Stalin's grandson, whose broke in Georgia. It's quite interesting.

[Mazdak]

What a sad day in the history of socialism. Long Live Stalin.

[El Brujo]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 6:05 am on Mar. 5, 2003
It's almost impossible to discuss Stalinist USSR with total accuracy, simply cos there are no legitimate or unbiassed sources. Therefore I won't take any sides in this 'debate'.


Good point. Ive tried finding unbiased info myself and if its not the typical, mainstream-media, "Stalin was a mass murderer" rhetoric, its the admirers of Stalin. I admire Mao and Hoxha but I haven't developed an opinion on Stalin yet.

[Cassius Clay]

El BruJo, you admire Hoxha and Mao but you have yet to form an opinion on Stalin?

If you don't mind me asking how is this so?

Guerrillaradio didn't see the particular article but about Stalin's grandson. I believe he is currently a leading member of the new CPSU which is actually led by Victor Anpilov.

[bolshevik1917]

Stalin = turd floating in the toilet, with a bit bogrol stuck to it, and a pubic hair

[bolshevik1917]

not that i dont like the guy...

[Cassius Clay]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 5:49 pm on Mar. 6, 2003
Stalin = turd floating in the toilet, with a bit bogrol stuck to it, and a pubic hair



Well I'm sure that convinced everybody. And I get accussed of 'spamming'. Oh well guess some here just read to much of Mein Kampf.

[El Brujo]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 1:37 am on Mar. 7, 2003
El BruJo, you admire Hoxha and Mao but you have yet to form an opinion on Stalin?

If you don't mind me asking how is this so?


I am anti-revisionist so I obviously am anti-Trotsky and tend to agree with Stalin's policies in various areas, but its Stalin as a leader that Im unsure about. Almost all sources (weather pro or anti) Ive seen pertaining to Mao and Hoxha have convinced me that they were benevolent leaders dedicated to working for the people. All sources pertaining to Stalin, on the other hand, are either extremely pro-Stalin or extremely anti-Stalin and I can't tell weather the truth is being stretched (or is actually unknown) or if the source is reasonably credible. Im looking for completely unbiased information on Stalin (that is, information pointing out both his virtues and his flaws, disregarding the belief system the author belongs to) so I myself can interpret weather he is somebody to admire or not.

[Cassius Clay]

Ah El Brujo you've asked for the impossible. 'Completly unbiased' sorry Comrade but this doesn't exist.

Although the PLP webiste might just be what you are looking for. They criticise just about everybody, including Stalin.

Go here http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html for all the pro-Stalin stuff which is based on from what I would say are unbiased accounts and search the site for anti-Stalin stuff. For example they criticise the mistakes made in the Spanish Civil War and the growth of Nationalism in the GPW.

Also go to the Redcomrades site and read the Stalin and Yezhov article's here http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/jsny.html

The above may be just what your looking for, you can't tell if it's been written by Pravda or a broadcast by CNN.

Hope that help's you out and I'm not trying to 'brainwash' you into a 'cult'.