Why did Stalin kill so many ppl?? - historians specialised i

[革命者]

?

[Wenty]

how did he get into power? by out manovering trotsky, the rightful successor of lenin. I assume he was paranoid about those around him trying to overthrow him, thats a widely held belief from what i've read. I'm reminded of a quote from kurt cobain, 'Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you'.

Appropriate i think seeming as many believe he was poisioned on berias orders now?!

[Show me the Money]

i don't buy the paranoid stuff, but can't think of anything else, tho.

[CheViveToday]

It was a combination of him feeling he had to kill people to keep a firm control of the USSR, and him just being a crazy bastard. That's my opinion anyways.

[chamo]

He was not crazy, however a bit paranoid. He felt that he had to kill those who were in his way to make his time run smoothly and to scare people into becoming good, monotonous workers.

[ComradeJunichi]

I suggest this be posted in OI, considering the stalinists and supporters of Stalin are restricted. Here you will get a one sided response.

Frankly, I don't know much about it. I'm researching right now. I'll be back if I find my own opinion.

[BenitoMussolini]

I think he was just some bum trying to make a name for himself.

[ComradeJunichi]

Yes, Mr. Hammer and Sickle Benito Mussolini.

[BenitoMussolini]

.....

[Comrade Trave]

SO HOW BOUT THAT VODKA!

[Comrade Trave]

Stalin killed all the people because THEY MADE FUN OF VODKA!

[InnocentCivilian]

he was simply just extremely paranoid....and he felt that such behaviour was necessary in order to get the USSR together.

i think he did go more or less mad before he died. he was trying to develop plans for world domination involivng huge nuclear missiles. his apparent plan was to eridicate capitalist europe and america by developing various weapons.....however, he died 3 months before all this stuff was to be put into practice

i think thats right anyway....there was a very detailed tv programme on the other day and i've heard stuff like that before....make of it what you will

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Yes, Stalin was paraniod, and he fucked up bad. However, I think that too much blame is placed on him. I am neither a Stalinist nor, generally, an apologist for Stalin, but I feel that he has be maltreated. He made a calculated risk that it was worth the lives of many Russians to bring about rapid development. Along with great achievments comes a great cost, which Stalin considered reasonable. Overall I think his measures were wrong and unneccessarily draconian, bur I must admit that he managed an amazing and unprecedented feat: he industrialised a backward nation in fifteen years.

[Xvall]

I have to go with Uhuru on this. I have had varied opinions of Stalin throughout my life in communistic and socialistic ideology. These views have ranged from support to extreme dislike. Now I am sort of neutral.

[MJM]

#Moderation Mode



Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=1729)

[Hate Your State]

"I'm reminded of a quote from kurt cobain, 'Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you'."

This matters very little, but I must clear something up. The line is "Just because you're paranoid. Don't mean they're not, AFTER YOUUU! *unintelligible screaming*"

[Mazdak]

Stalin did not kill "so many people." I think we have gone through this dozens of times. Trotsky was the "rightful successor." LOL! What do you think the Soviet Union was, a monarchy or an empire?? There is no "succesion" so to speak. Stalin was in a powerful position, but no one man could control the party. As said by Stalin himself, when churchill asked if he was dictator, "No, I am not dictator, Those who use the word do not understand the Soviet system of government and the methods of the Communist Party. No one man or group of men can dictate. Decisions are made by the Party and acted upon by its organs, the Central Committee and the Politburo. "

Stalin was not crazy. Far from it. He was cautious, but not crazy.

And The Kurt Cobain quote is "Just because you're paranoid, don't mean i'm not after you!" from Territorial Pissings, Track 7 on Nevermind ;)

[Hate Your State]

"they're"

Listen to the song again Mazdak :P

[Cassius Clay]

Is this thread actually trying to be serious?


If Stalin wen't up to the NKVD and told them to execute a given number of people you know what the NKVD would do? Laugh in his face and more than likely arrest Stalin, or atleast tell him to go and see a doctor.

[bolshevik1917]

Tens of millions starved to death after Stalins lunatic idea of forced collectivisation

[Cassius Clay]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 12:52 pm on Mar. 9, 2003
Tens of millions starved to death after Stalins lunatic idea of forced collectivisation


Reading to much of Mein Kampf again 'Bolshevik 1917'?

No one starved, collectivisation tripled the amount of protein a peasant got to eat.

[bolshevik1917]

Im only repeating what Stalin said himself to Churchill, dont shoot the messenger!

[Cassius Clay]

Oh and ofcourse Churchill is so reliable for a opinion on Socialism. What Stalin said was that the struggle against the Kulaks and to collectivise was a 'tougher' struggle than the war.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

It's not merely a matter of opinion. I myself have already (partially) defeneded Stalin on this thread; however, he DID admit to Churchill at Yalta that his policy of collectivisation had done more damage to Russia than WWII. Yes, Churchill could have invented this, but there seems no good reason to believe that seeing as he and Stalin were on good terms personally at the time.

[Cassius Clay]

Erm 'collectivsation had done more damage to Russia than WW2'? Stalin never said this. Not to mention it is complete rubbish.

As I said collectivsation tripled food production and was part of a wider struggle to introduce genuine democracy into the villages, which it did.

[peaccenicked]

The impact of collectivisationPrime Minister Churchill in a conversation with Stalin during the War in Moscow (1944)³Tell me, I asked, have the stresses of this war been as bad to you personally as carrying through thepolicy of the Collective Farms ?The subject immediately roused the Marshal. Oh no, he said, thecollective Farm Policy was a terrible struggle. I thought you would have found it bad, said I, because youwere not dealing with a few score thousands of aristocrats or big landowners, but with millions of smallmen.Ten millions, he said, holding up his hands. ³It was fearful. Four years it lasted. It was absolutelynecessary for Russia, if we were to avoid periodic famines, to plough the land with tractors. We mustmechanise our agriculture. When we give tractors to the peasants they were all spoiled in a few months.Only collective farms with workshops could handle tractors. We took the greatest trouble to explain intothe peasants. It was no use arguing with them. After you have said all you can to a peasant he says hemust go home and consult his wife, and he must consult his herder(bouvier).² This last was a newexpression to me in this connection. After he has talked it over with them he always answers that he doesnot want the Collective Farm and he would rather do without the tractors. These were what you calledKulaks ?Yes, he said, but he did not repeat the word. After a pause, It was all very bad and difficult - butnecessary.What happened? I asked? Oh well, he said, ³ many of them agreed to come in with us. Some of themwere given land of their own to cultivate in the province of Tomsk or the province of Irkutsk or farthernorth, but the great bulk was very unpopular and were wiped out by their labourers. There was aconsiderable pause. Then, Not only have we vastly increased the food supply, but we have improved thequality of the grain beyond measure. All kinds of grain used to be grown. Now no one is allowed to sowany but the standard Soviet grain from one end to the country to the other. If they do they are severelydealt with. This means another large increase in the food supply. I record as they come back to me thesememories , and the strong impression I sustained at the moment of millions of men and women beingblotted out or displaced for ever. A generation would no doubt come to whom their miseries wereunknown, but it would be sure of having more to eat and bless Stalin¹s name. I did not repeat Burke¹sdictum: If I cannot have reform without injustice, I will not have reform.
Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 3:46 pm on Mar. 9, 2003
Erm 'collectivsation had done more damage to Russia than WW2'? Stalin never said this. Not to mention it is complete rubbish.

As I said collectivsation tripled food production and was part of a wider struggle to introduce genuine democracy into the villages, which it did.

Beyond the reference already kindly provided by peaccenicked, I can tell you that mention is made of this event in Piers Brendon, Winston Churchill: A Brief Life. Before you refute this once again as bullshit, please provide a serious historical source which refutes this claim specifically (ie. regarding the conversation with Churchill).

[Cassius Clay]

Exactly Stalin refers to it being a 'Terrible struggle'. It did not kill tens of millions but involved tens of millions in the struggle going on. That Churchill put's his own take on this and twists it into anti-Communism is not Stalin's fault.

Uhuru na Umoja I'm not refuting the conversation, what I am refuting is that Collectivsation killed even a few innocent peasants let alone 'Tens of millions' as alledged by bolshevik1917.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Sorry... my misinterpretation. I'm not about to get into a debate on numbers, I was just emphasising that his reference to Churchill was mostly (though not completely) correct. As for collectivising... I don't believe that a policy can 'kill', per se. Famines did kill people at this time; however, what must be ascertained is whether these were a result of collectivisation or an inevitablity.