Stalin: A Fascist? [Archive]

Gleb

1st October 2008, 06:39

No, he did not. What specific incidents are you talking about?

Have you seen any Volga Germans lately? In autonomous republics, discrimination based on ethnic backgrounds was flourishing.

I'm not exactly master on the subject but I've been studying history of Karelia and Soviet Karelia, and it's quite nasty stuff unless you're willing to believe that basically every single Finnish communist leader who were leading revolution down here in 1918 were nothing but fascist spies - expect for people like Kuusinen, basically all Finnish social democrats who migrated to Soviet Russia after reds lost the civil war, were executed during the 1930's.

But fate of the Finnish vanguards is just tip of the iceberg and only a minor crime when compared to the random massacre that occurred during those years in Soviet Karelia amongst Karelian and Finnish civilians; Stalinist regime dreamed of Russian Karelia and Finnish-speaking majority didn't fit really well to that dream. But you all know how this kind of problem is usually solved: lots of lead.
During Czarist era, 70% of population were Karelians - now there's something like 10-15%; largest leap happened during Stalin's era. There are plenty of mass graves of Finns and Karelians in Karelia nowadays, for example Krasny Bor (http://heninen.net/punakangas/english.htm).

I've ben reading quite much about the subject, but really don't have time at the moment, so I'll leave it there for now.

communard resolution

1st October 2008, 09:43

While Stalin may not have been a fascist, it is a fact that today he is idolised by some explicitly neo-fascist and neo-National Socialist groups and parties in Russia. I'm leaving it up to you to decide what may be the reasons for this.

communard resolution

1st October 2008, 09:51

Communist Party of Australia, the Communist Party of AustraliaTwo organisations of the same name? Confusing.

Stalinist League of Australia support and idolize the great leader.I hope you're aware that the Stalinist League is a pisstake?

Why do you think is it completely irrelevant that neo-fascists idolise Stalin?

More importantly: what do you imagine is it that those groups like about Stalin?

Robespierre2.0

1st October 2008, 12:20

Two things, tovarisch-

Stalin didn't use 'concentration camps'- they were Gulags; Labor camps. The people in them were NOT exterminated. Deaths in the camps were related to food shortages during the war, because getting food to the non-traitorous sections of society was more of a priority.

Also, there WAS a cult of personality, but the small clique of revisionists who were most associated with building it were later the ones who used it to denounce him in the secret speech.

The reason the Nazbols admire Stalin is because they, as opposed to the older generations, grew up with the media telling them how 'BRUTAL' Stalin was. They have the same false assumptions as the OP, only except Fascism looks appealing in Russia after their humiliation at the hands of the west. It's a childish infatuation with the cartoonish western caricature of Stalin rather than a genuine admiration of the man's leadership.

Hiero

1st October 2008, 12:24

Stalin was a Russian Nationalist

And he used State control of enterprise to further the power of the nation.

The nation? Which nation, Russia?

I should have said
Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Australia
Stalinist League of Australia

Who in the fuck are the Stalinist League of Australia?

communard resolution

1st October 2008, 12:45

Stalin didn't use 'concentration camps'- they were Gulags; Labor camps.

NS concentration camps were basically slave labour camps. Only some Nazi camps were death camps that were designed for systematic extermination. Therefore, the Gulags were concentration camps. Same as those concentration camps that were used for people of Japanese origin in the US during WW2. Same as the Dachau camp in Germany. But different to Auschwitz, Treblinka, or Majdanek.

The reason the Nazbols admire Stalin is because they, as opposed to the older generations, grew up with the media telling them how 'BRUTAL' Stalin was. They have the same false assumptions as the OP, only except Fascism looks appealing in Russia after their humiliation at the hands of the west. It's a childish infatuation with the cartoonish western caricature of Stalin rather than a genuine admiration of the man's leadership.Say what you will about the NazBols, but their leadership are very intelligent and well-informed people. I doubt most strongly that their sole sources on Stalin are cartoonish caricatures from the Western media.

According to a recent opinion poll, Stalin is one of the most popular historic personalities in Russia. Have all those Russians only ever been exposed to Western caricatures of Stalin? Are they all merely impressed with Stalin's brutality? Or may it have something to do with the fact that in these days, a vast majority of Russians hold authoritarian, nationalist views?

By the way, I wasn't referring exclusively to the NazBols although they seem the most obvious example. More openly and unmistakably neo-Nazi groups such as the Russian National Unity have a soft spot for Stalin too.

Robespierre2.0

1st October 2008, 13:40

No, I'm not making a blanket statement about all of Russia's population.

The generation that grew up under Stalin obviously liked him; there are tons of photos of communist rallies in Russia in which elderly people are carrying pictures of Stalin.

The Kruschevite leadership tried to eliminate Stalin from the Russian consciousness, capitulating to western propaganda in an opportunistic power-grab (or in your opinion, exposed the truth). The new generations could be swayed by their views, but the Stalin generation still made up a significant part of the population.

If you look at the Brezhnev era, the leadership kept on their revisionist course, but you'll find many concessions to the older generation; a return to a more hardline appearance (though not economically), and the first mention of Stalin in a positive light since the 50s.

It was a gradual shift in the collective consciousness. Russia's beliefs about Stalin are not uniform. I doubt the vast majority of the population have a good understanding of Marxism-Leninism, so there is a potpurri of different interpretations of Stalin. I suspect the reason he's so popular, though, is because even the west admits that under Stalin, the USSR was powerful- able to stick it to the western powers who had for centuries viewed Russia as the most backwards European power. He's interpreted as a sort of 'Peter the Great' modernizing figure.

Perhaps the Nazbols may have a better understanding of Stalin than one who knows only western propaganda. However, if they were genuine Marxist-Leninists, they would drop the silly national chauvinism and join a real Bolshevik party.

Panda Tse Tung

1st October 2008, 20:58

Nero: you have provided the reason for Stalins popularity amongst neo-nazi's yourself. The simple fact that he is popular amongst the people. Here in Western Europe the Nazi's are taking the piss at muslims, because thats the easiest target at this point and could make them popular. Of course for Nazbols it's obvious. The Nazbol ideology was founded on the idea that Bolshevism might just be what is best for Russia on the basis of the acceptance of 'Socialism in one country'. Since Stalin was chairman at the time of acceptance, and himself a great proponent, he is obviously hauled by their leadership.

communard resolution

2nd October 2008, 01:03

Could be. But if we're being honest, I think there is a bigger overlap between the left wing of the NSDAP and a certain section of Marxist-Leninists than some of us would care to admit.

If I look at the GDR and particularly the People's Republic of Poland, for instance, I think these countries were fairly close to the National Socialism that people such as Gregor and Otto Strasser had in mind.

Chapter 24

2nd October 2008, 01:43

I think that, even after all of the bad things said about Stalin said by his opponents, he could not qualify as a fascist.

spartan

2nd October 2008, 04:28

That is false because there was a massive denazification programme after the war in the Soviet occupation zone. Plus, it was more tough then in the capitalist occupation zones.
There was also a denazification by the western powers, but that didn't stop both the west and the USSR from using former Nazi officials for their own benefit (never mind the fact that these officials were involved in some sick shit like happily using slave labour from concentration camps in their work).

DiaMat86

2nd October 2008, 04:41

Read R. Palm Dutt's, Fascism and Social Revolution.

spartan

2nd October 2008, 05:22

So what, the German Democratic Republic was one of the best socialist countries in eastern Europe. They had the highest living standard in eastern Europe outside of the Soviet Union. It was socialist to the bone. Most of the original leadership of the republic fought against and suffered under fascism. For example, Erich Honecker was arrested by the Nazis and served most of the third Reich years in gaol (jail as you Americans would say).
"So what"!

So you have no problem with ex-Nazis who once dutifly served the Third Reich then serving a self-described Socialist state later on?

Also did it cross your mind that the Socialists who suffered at the hands of the Nazis were suffering at the hands of a state that worked only by these Nazis (who later went on to serve the GDR) hard work, hard work which the later Socialist states were only to happy to make use of?

spice756

2nd October 2008, 07:30

On the other hand, a firm hand was needed to deal with the threat posed by revisionist traitors like Trotskyists, social democrats, and anarchists. There is plenty of evidence to show that most revisionists were working on behalf of western imperialistic capitalist governments to destabilize the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Stalin government had a right to defend the socialist revolution of the proletariat at all costs even if that resulted in the mass deportations of millions of criminals and traitors. Thus, the concentration camps under Stalin were justified.

The where not all criminals and traitors.Many high up communist party members and generals where killed or sent to the gulag.

What about people who did not meet their work quota?

communard resolution

2nd October 2008, 09:48

That is false because there was a massive denazification programme after the war in the Soviet occupation zone.

That may well have been the case, but all I'm saying is that I think the GDR and Poland were pretty much what some NSDAP left-wingers had in mind. I'm not saying Heinrich Himmler was the same as Erich Honecker. But I'm suggesting that the Strasser brothers would probably have approved of these countries.

Most of the original leadership of the republic fought against and suffered under fascism. For example, Erich Honecker was arrested by the Nazis and served most of the third Reich years in gaol (jail as you Americans would say).

You could also say that a lot of Nazis suffered under fascism, esp. the left-wingers that I mentioned: Gregor Strasser was murdered, Otto Strasser went into exile, and the entire SA leadership around Ernst Roehm was massacred. That doesn't mean that these people weren't capable of the utmost brutality themselves. After all, it was the SA that was running the Dachau camp until 1934, routinely torturing and beating to death socialists of the internationalist, anti-fascist persuasion.

The GDR may have had a fairly decent standard of living, but it also had one of the most meticulous political police apparatuses in the world. It was virtually impossible to utter even the slightest criticism of the political leadership and get away with it. The GDR's idology was quasi-nationalist with its celebration of both Bolshevism and the militarism and discipline of Prussia. Hell, they even reintroduced the 'feldgrau' color of the old Prussian military uniforms. The GDR was essentially a country where orders were given and obeyed. This was very much in line with what Oswald Spengler had envisioned as 'German Socialism' and what parts of the NSDAP had picked up on.

I could say very similar things about Poland. Given that Communist Poland added antisemitic rhetoric and anti-Jewish purges to its nationalism, it should come as no surprise that there are now Polish neo-fascist groups that idolise Jaruzelski, Gomulka, and especially Moczar, and who uphold the People's Republic of Poland as a "true Polish National Socialist" country.

Since we can observe similar phenomena in regards to Russian neo-fascism and Stalin worship, I was merely wondering whether the jump from one to the other may be much smaller than is commonly assumed on here.

communard resolution

2nd October 2008, 10:29

Here's an interesting chart that I copied from another forum. The three columns furthest to the left represent those Nazi tendencies that were largely purged from the NSDAP within a year after Hitler took power. Many party members within these groups expressed great admiration of Stalin's political system and desired an alliance between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. So the fascist infatuation with Stalin is not a new phenomenon and not exclusively based on post-war Western accounts of Stalin.

http://i406.photobucket.com/albums/pp144/nerotheemperor/NSgroupleft-rightchart.jpg

EDIT: According to the the author, "racist" refers to genocidal antisemitism. I believe this chart is inaccurate insofar as the NSDAP leadership (1945) should be placed in the 'racist' category while the SA leadership (1934) belongs in 'antisemitic' rather than 'folkish'.

communard resolution

2nd October 2008, 13:21

and the first mention of Stalin in a positive light since the 50s.

True, Stalin was very positively mentioned by Putin, who also happens to be the most right-wing and most authoritarian Russian leader since... you decide since who.

bayano

2nd October 2008, 16:57

I think Stalin was kind of a National Bolshevik, but that's besides the point. Personally, if I ever actually met one of these supposed National Bolsheviks or National Anarchists, I'd kick their ass worse than any other neonazi or kkk.

But, Stalin did greatly further the fascist cause. He pulled back on the reigns of so many leninists in europe who wanted to fight fascism, he had a terrible line on the Spanish Civil War, promoted a Popular Front that by and large attacked worker organizing (squandering support), and perhaps most importantly, killed hundreds of thousands who would have been central to the struggle against fascist invasion. From Hungary to Romania to Bulgaria to everywhere, he killed tons of Leninist activists, militants and leaders that would have led the partisan resistance. The entire Romanian party was virtually killed in Stalin's purges (3,000 Communists!!!), another five thousand Polish Communists, thousands of Hugarians, Yugoslavs etc etc etc.

It boggles the mind how people defend Stalin. Boggles the fucking mind. How can people defend a fake communist ruler who killed ENTIRE LENINIST PARTIES of other countries???

Wanted Man

2nd October 2008, 17:49

Why do you think is it completely irrelevant that neo-fascists idolise Stalin?

More importantly: what do you imagine is it that those groups like about Stalin?
No idea, but this is just cheap guilt by association. Nazi scumbags (of the Strasserite variety) here walk around with antifa flags and chant 'We are the true anti-fascists'. They call themselves 'Autonomous National Socialists' and they're copying the black bloc thing, except that they dutifully obey the cops, even while chanting 'no justice, no peace - fuck the police'. They also carry banners saying 'You can't ban ideals - squatting goes on'. Hey, maybe anarchism, anti-fascism, autonomism, squatting and black blocs are infected now. :rolleyes: Pictures of what I'm talking about: http://www.weblogzwolle.nl/content/view/8556/1/

Out of curiosity, how do nazis in former Yugoslavia feel about Tito? They probably thought that he was some sort of evil race-mixer, right? Well, if Russian nazis read up about Stalin, they would surely say the same thing. On Stormfront, you sometimes see speculation that Stalin was Jewish, or at least they call him a 'Georgian mongrel' or whatever. Russian nazis probably adore Stalin because they feel that he 'made Russia great'. People who were in charge in a nation's golden age always end up as the poster children for nationalists of all stripes, even if their actual policies had nothing to do with (or were in complete opposition to) fascism.

Holden Caulfield

2nd October 2008, 17:59

No idea, but this is just cheap guilt by association. Nazi scumbags (of the Strasserite variety) here walk around with antifa flags and chant 'We are the true anti-fascists'. They call themselves 'Autonomous National Socialists' and they're copying the black bloc thing, except that they dutifully obey the cops, even while chanting 'no justice, no peace - fuck the police'. They also carry banners saying 'You can't ban ideals - squatting goes on'. Hey, maybe anarchism, anti-fascism, autonomism, squatting and black blocs are infected now. :rolleyes: Pictures of what I'm talking about: http://www.weblogzwolle.nl/content/view/8556/1/

Out of curiosity, how do nazis in former Yugoslavia feel about Tito? They probably thought that he was some sort of evil race-mixer, right? Well, if Russian nazis read up about Stalin, they would surely say the same thing. On Stormfront, you sometimes see speculation that Stalin was Jewish, or at least they call him a 'Georgian mongrel' or whatever. Russian nazis probably adore Stalin because they feel that he 'made Russia great'. People who were in charge in a nation's golden age always end up as the poster children for nationalists of all stripes, even if their actual policies had nothing to do with (or were in complete opposition to) fascism.

although we have massive ideological differances i think that this is a great post, although i would say Stalins own nationalist policies spur things along as well,

(im not starting an argument, it will only go circular, im just adding my opinion for clarity)

ComradeOm

2nd October 2008, 22:12

But, Stalin did greatly further the fascist causeReally? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr45ZBlpzN0)

Russian nazis probably adore Stalin because they feel that he 'made Russia great'.That is after all the essence of National Bolshevikism and has been since the current first emerged following 1917. While Stalin was obviously not a National Bolshevik himself, it could be easily argued that his accomplishments represent the pinnacle of National Bolshevik ambitions

Wanted Man

2nd October 2008, 22:49

That is after all the essence of National Bolshevikism and has been since the current first emerged following 1917. While Stalin was obviously not a National Bolshevik himself, it could be easily argued that his accomplishments represent the pinnacle of National Bolshevik ambitions
But of course, a major point of nationalism is to uphold those historical figures that 'made the country great', with a very great focus on individual political or military leaders. This does not just go for nazis or nazbols, even mainstream nationalism represented by Putin is riding high. What kind of nationalist would walk around with portraits of some wimp who surrendered half the country to evil foreigners?

although we have massive ideological differances i think that this is a great post, although i would say Stalins own nationalist policies spur things along as well,

(im not starting an argument, it will only go circular, im just adding my opinion for clarity)
I'll argue anyway, but not now. :p

spartan

2nd October 2008, 23:50

What kind of nationalist would walk around with portraits of some wimp who surrendered half the country to evil foreigners?

Lenin?

Didn't he attempt to remedy the problem by trying to reconquer Poland (who to be fair were being pricks in Belarus and Ukraine and deserved a good kick in), the Baltic states and Finland (all failures) after successfully reconquering Ukraine and the Caucasus?

After all the evil foreigners whom he surrendered half the country to were in no place to try and stop him as they had their own problems to deal with.

Also Stalin tried again by invading the Baltic states (successfully this time) and Finland (yet again a failure).

bayano

3rd October 2008, 01:03

Really? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr45ZBlpzN0)

yes really. great job responding to my points. so, helping defeat Germany after Germany had invaded the Soviet Union and killed millions of Ukrainians and Russians and others in no way defeats my point that he enabled the rise and spread of the third reich

ComradeOm

3rd October 2008, 09:28

yes really. great job responding to my points. so, helping defeat Germany after Germany had invaded the Soviet Union and killed millions of Ukrainians and Russians and others in no way defeats my point that he enabled the rise and spread of the third reichAgain, really? Your post contained nothing that suggested that Stalin was responsible for the rise of fascism or the Third Reich. In fact you didn't mention Germany or Italy at all. You even missed out on the most damning accusations often levelled at Stalin - 'social-fascism' and the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact

If you believe that all Europe needed was more Communists to oppose fascism then you have completely misread the nature of this movement. Fascism is a non-revolutionary ideology that requires both the support of the bourgeoisie and the enabling powers of the state. Battling fascists in the streets is of extremely limited use. Once fascists manoeuvre themselves into power they are free to employ the extensive powers of the state to devastating effect. As they did in Germany and Italy - effectively wiping out the CP, and socialist parties, in these countries. Now how did Stalin aid Hitler in conquering this state power?

Do you really think that with a few thousand more Communists taking a more sectarian line Europe would have exploded in revolution? Or that the Romanian CP would have halted the Wehrmacht?

(Incidentally, I'd like some sources as to the thousands of CP members that Stalin purged outside of the USSR. AFAIK when a foreign CP's leadership was changed on Moscow's insistence it was typically a bloodless purge)

But of course, a major point of nationalism is to uphold those historical figures that 'made the country great', with a very great focus on individual political or military leaders. This does not just go for nazis or nazbols, even mainstream nationalism represented by Putin is riding highNot entirely. The original National Bolsheviks (those Tsarists who joined the Bolsheviks out of Russian nationalism) were not particularly enamoured with any one Bolshevik leader or individual. Rather they realised the structural deficiencies of the Tsarist regime and the corresponding strengths of the soviet movement. These ultra-nationalists then bet that it was the latter that would once again forge Russia into a great power

But that's just me splitting hairs, I wasn't disagreeing with your either of your posts :)

Lenin?

Didn't he attempt to remedy the problem by trying to reconquer Poland (who to be fair were being pricks in Belarus and Ukraine and deserved a good kick in), the Baltic states and Finland (all failures) after successfully reconquering Ukraine and the Caucasus?Huh? Where to start...

Poland: A response to a Polish invasion seeking the (re)creation of a Commonwealth stretching from the Baltic to Black sea

Finland: Its independence was unilaterally recognised by the Soviets in December 1917. No effort was made to conquer it. In the resulting civil war success for the Whites was only made possible by support from Imperial Germany

Baltic States: Extremely messy conflicts borne out of the collapse of the Tsarist and German empires. Soviet intervention in these (often converging with actions in the Polish-Soviet War) were generally in support of revolutionary factions against a combination of German and native bourgeois groups. The question was not whether the states would become independent but what form of government (soviet v nominally-parliamentary) the new nations would adopt

Caucasus: Again an example of competing factions emerging from the wreckage of the empire. After the collapse of the Transcaucasian Federation the region fell into infighting with Mensheviks and reactionaries supporting the creation of independent bourgeois states. The very substantial Bolshevik presence in the area (the Georgian branch of the party had always been very strong) naturally objected and another messy conflict began. Of course by this time, and with regards this crisis in particular, Lenin was on the way out. He was, as always, a firm supporter of the rights of 'oppressed nations' and by 1922 he was a firm supporter of those Georgian Bolsheviks who desired some degree of independence from Moscow

Ukraine: Being a German or Polish puppet state hardly counts as independence

communard resolution

3rd October 2008, 15:26

No idea, but this is just cheap guilt by association. Nazi scumbags (of the Strasserite variety) here walk around with antifa flags and chant 'We are the true anti-fascists'.

OK, I can see what you're saying. I'm aware of the Autonomous Nazi movement and I didn't think of it. But what do you say about the historic National Bolshevik overlap (National Socialists who admired Stalin's system back in the 30s and aspired to a strong bond between Germany and Russia)?

Also, I still believe that at least some of the Eastern Bloc countries, especially the ones I already mentioned, were more National Socialist in an early, left-wing NS sense than socialist.

Out of curiosity, how do nazis in former Yugoslavia feel about Tito?
They probably thought that he was some sort of evil race-mixer, right? There's a Croatian neo-nazi website somewhere which is entirely dedicated to slagging off/ridiculing/cursing/damning/hating Tito, so I think it's probably true they think of him as an "evil race mixer" - and of course a communist pig.

In fairness, neo-Nazis in Serbia and Croatia are extremely nationalist due to the conflict in the 90s - unlike most neo-Nazis elsewhere, who in these days adhere to a sort of 'white power internationalism'. So who knows, had the Balkan conflict not occured that recently, perhaps there would be Yugoslav National Bolsheviks upholding Tito. In other words: I'm taking your point.

Femme_Fatale

17th March 2009, 02:32

this topic is quite controversial..i think
im doing a papare on whether stalinism could be called "red fascism"
* note not nazism...
could some one give me some fresh ideas? please?:blushing:

Jack

17th March 2009, 02:33

this topic is quite controversial..i think
im doing a papare on whether stalinism could be called "red fascism"
* note not nazism...
could some one give me some fresh ideas? please?:blushing:

I just got yelled at for using the phrade "red fascist" in another thread!

Jack

17th March 2009, 02:34

Oh, and bumping these old threads can be counted as span I think.

DiaMat86

17th March 2009, 04:17

proudhon10

17th March 2009, 13:19

:confused:Stalin was not a fascist, he had a differnent philosophy. But Stalin was an evil dictator who in no way shape or form helped Soviet Russia or the leftist movement. He crushed all opposition, anarchists, left communists, and moderate socialsits. He was a despot!! Fascist? technically not. But his governing style was close to Hitler, Mussselini, and Franco. Who in this day and age, after all the truths have been exposed, support Stalin

Bilan

17th March 2009, 13:24

Socialism preserves Nationalism and wage differentials.

What the fuck? No it doesn't.

Femme_Fatale

17th March 2009, 14:13

ok so..hmm... didnt hitler and mussolini crush all opposition too? also, can i possibly compare gulags to concentration camps, after all gulags WERE created to kill all the political memebers whom stalin basically sent there to get rid of any possible opposition?
their economic policies were different though...
ughh i dont know which stance i should take because i dont have any strong proof that stalnism could be simalar to fascism, i dont have any solid arguments to support a point that they were different... ohhh i was a moron to pick such a controversial topic for a paper:(
I personally think that Stalinism should not be confused with leninism, marxism and original bolshevism... im not saying stalinism was based on fascist ideologies, however it was close to it since it was very dictatorial

ComradeOm

17th March 2009, 16:21

I personally think that Stalinism should not be confused with leninism, marxism and original bolshevism... im not saying stalinism was based on fascist ideologies, however it was close to it since it was very dictatorialBy which logic Stalinism was "close to" the French Ancien Régime or Papal ultramontanism. There have been countless dictatorships throughout the ages but denying the very real differences between them is ridiculous

x359594

17th March 2009, 23:21

The documentary record shows that Stalin subordinated the party to his will and created a personality cult around himself in much the same way as the classical fascist dictators who were his contemporaries. Both Hitler and Mussolini purged challengers to their rule from their respective parties as did Stalin. All three employed the paraphernalia of uniforms, rallies, parades and pogroms against real and imagined enemies. They all showed the same sentimental taste for kitsch movies and banal art and literature, though their musical tastes were more sophisticated. The social systems they created were totalitarian, and they all claimed to be socialists of some kind: Hitler's "national socialism," Stalin's "socialism in one country," and Mussolini's "corporatism." Both Hitler and Stalin encouraged crack pot science (race science and Lysenko-ism respectively.)

I think these systems can be described as totalitarian dictatorships, and Mussolini can be described as a fascist without caveat since he used that term to characterize himself. Since Hitler was inspired by Mussolini and modeled the Nazi party after Mussolini's National Fascist Party I think Hitler can be fairly described as a fascist.

As for Stalin, the points in common between his "socialism in one country" ideology and fascism are a single party state led by a dictator with the party inseparable from the state, the subordination of individuals to the requirements of the state, suppression of all opposition to and criticism of official ideology, the absence of a free press, official censorship, state control of the arts and science, show trials, purges and uncritical paeans to the leader and his party. To this extent I think Stalin can be characterized as a fascist, however there are crucial differences in the economic systems of fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin. This is what sets the USSR apart from the other totalitarian nations.

Tower of Bebel

17th March 2009, 23:41

Fascism is a reactionary movement which tries to destroy the workers' movement physically on the streets. It does to save private ownership of the means of production from the threats from it, while it forcefully unites the bourgeoisie in a top-down state structure. It's the ultimate and last form of capitalist counterrevolution. Stalinism however looks more like bureaucratic control over the workers' movement. In countries where the bourgeoisie has been expropriated it forcefully integrates the leaders of the working class in a similar top-down state structure.

Cumannach

17th March 2009, 23:52

You all seem to have overlooked the most crucial part - Stalin and Hitler both had moustaches.

DiaMat86

18th March 2009, 00:05

DiaMat86 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=17590): Stalin was socialist, he was not communist. The same with Mao. Socialism preserves Nationalism and wage differentials

Bilan: What the fuck? No it doesn't.

Then what is the difference between communism and socialism?

x359594

18th March 2009, 00:06

You all seem to have overlooked the most crucial part - Stalin and Hitler both had moustaches.

But Mussolini didn't have a moustache, so we're back to square one.

Femme_Fatale

18th March 2009, 00:14

The documentary record shows that Stalin subordinated the party to his will and created a personality cult around himself in much the same way as the classical fascist dictators who were his contemporaries....
you made my day! thanks! :rolleyes: you outlined the main points, just what i needed!
I was stuck in between the two stances, ill go watch a documentary on dictatorship and im set
Cumannach - thanks thats significant too, i guess:)

Kassad

18th March 2009, 01:23

Random Precision

18th March 2009, 01:59

Well, I do have this question to ask. If Stalin only sought to create socialism in the Soviet Union; in one country, as his thoery promotes, why do Trotskyists and Anarchists consistently criticize Soviet intervention and support for revolutionary movements across the globe as 'Stalinist?'

That is an incredibly shallow understanding of Trotsky's works. The problem that we see with socialism in one country is not that it excludes socialism in other countries, but that it was the theoretical justification for a retreat from a revolutionary perspective both within Russia (including concessions to the kulaks and the postponement of industrial development) and in the Comintern, which came to be dominated by the Russian party and thus focused entirely on what was best for "over there" (in Arthur Koestler's phrase) rather than the revolution in other countries.

Trotsky knew that "socialism in one country", along with the "period of capitalist stabilization", the "bloc of four classes" etc. were seized upon by the bureaucracy that was taking control of the Soviet Union to disguise their aims in Marxian language. It's a shame that on this board Trotskyists tend to engage in debate on socialism in one country as if it were a serious theory rather than pointing out the motives and actions behind it.

And as for "Soviet intervention and support for revolutionary movements around the globe", of course it would be silly to criticize that if we thought it served to actually establish socialism. But we do not, nor do we believe that the system in place in the Soviet Union was in any way socialist. And for that matter, we don't believe that even genuine socialism can be spread through an eastern-European style military intervention. Also, despite our lack of sympathy for Stalinist "revolutionary movements around the globe", it should be clear to everyone that they only received support when they could help fulfill the foreign policy aims of the USSR. You can look at the Greek Civil War for a good example of what happened to a "revolutionary movement" that didn't.

Cumannach

18th March 2009, 13:02

But Mussolini didn't have a moustache, so we're back to square one.

shit.

Cumannach

18th March 2009, 13:09

Also history shows that Stalin collaborated with the Nazis and later with the Western imperialists. He was instrumental in the defeat of the Spanish revolutionaries.

History doesn't show Stalin collaborated with the Nazis. You're confusing collaborating with defeating. Stalin defeated the Nazis. He sure did collaborate with the Western Imperialists, a good thing too, since living in the Third Reich probably wouldn't be any fun. Stalin wasn't instrumental in the defeat of the Spanish. That was adolescent-minded anarchibrats.

ComradeOm

18th March 2009, 13:33

I think these systems can be described as totalitarian dictatorshipsExcept that this holds true for only the most cursory analysis. Any actual comparison of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia reveals a wealth of differences. In every field - from governance to economics to social policies - there are yawning chasms between the two. Even the supposedly similar one-party administration structures is bullshit; I can't think of one recent serious historian who would contend that Nazi Germany was a monolithic entity

It should be little surprise that the totalitarian label has been extensively used by liberal historians with a political agenda to push. In reality it is not a simple comparison between two despotic regimes but a three way analysis including the West. 'Totalitarianism' says very little about the regimes that it professes to study except that they were fundamentally different from the, naturally superior, Western liberal democracies. Which is one reason why the 'totalitarian' framework has always been regarded with suspicion by many historians and why it has been almost completely discredited in recent decades

To this extent I think Stalin can be characterized as a fascist, however there are crucial differences in the economic systems of fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin. This is what sets the USSR apart from the other totalitarian nations.Make up your mind. Was the USSR fascist or not?

I'll not try and influence you by pointing out the vast, almost diametrically opposing, differences in the Soviet and fascist "economic systems", or that even even proponents of 'totalitarianism' would baulk at labelling Stalinist Russia as 'fascist'

AnthArmo

18th March 2009, 13:53

Goddamn I almost forgot about this thread!

I'm just going to repaint the picture with simpler, fresher eyes.

Communism: is an ideology that...

*Supports a democratic workers government

*Socialism : Public control of economy for public good

*Works to decentralize state to work towards anarchy

*Is a liberal ideology

*Supports Workers self management

Fascism is defined by...

*Extreme nationalism

*Racist policies

*Capitalism/National Socialism: Private control of economy

*Undemocratic, monarchical and highly centralized state

*Is an Authoritarian ideology

*Crushes workers rights, so they can benefit the nation (Nazi Germany made strikes, unions and the right to quit illegal)

*Purging Communists

*Emphasis of economy on military

Now, take a look at Stalin's regime and then tell me whether it was closer to Fascism or Socialism?

Stalin was in no way a Socialist, because the Soviet union did not have public control of the economy, the economy was made to fit the whims and megalomaniac needs of Stalin and was controlled by the Communist party. He did not set in place a democratic workers government either. He killed all the Bolsheviks and replaced them with his loyal cronies, akin to the Fascist killings of Communists. Workers had next to no rights in the Soviet Union, as they were to fit the needs of the nation. Stalin placed a massive emphasis on the military. He spread Nationalist propaganda, even stating that Russia discovered the light bulb.

It takes a special kind of stupid to call Stalin a Socialist or a Communist, because absolutely everything he did completely contradicted the principles of Socialism and Communism.

ComradeOm

18th March 2009, 14:13

Now, take a look at Stalin's regime and then tell me whether it was closer to Fascism or Socialism?Leaving aside the glaring problems with your criteria (liberal socialism and monarchical fascism... wtf?) please explain why this is a binary choice. That is, why on earth must Stalin be either socialist or fascist?

Kassad

18th March 2009, 16:05

That is an incredibly shallow understanding of Trotsky's works. The problem that we see with socialism in one country is not that it excludes socialism in other countries, but that it was the theoretical justification for a retreat from a revolutionary perspective both within Russia (including concessions to the kulaks and the postponement of industrial development) and in the Comintern, which came to be dominated by the Russian party and thus focused entirely on what was best for "over there" (in Arthur Koestler's phrase) rather than the revolution in other countries.

Trotsky knew that "socialism in one country", along with the "period of capitalist stabilization", the "bloc of four classes" etc. were seized upon by the bureaucracy that was taking control of the Soviet Union to disguise their aims in Marxian language. It's a shame that on this board Trotskyists tend to engage in debate on socialism in one country as if it were a serious theory rather than pointing out the motives and actions behind it.

And as for "Soviet intervention and support for revolutionary movements around the globe", of course it would be silly to criticize that if we thought it served to actually establish socialism. But we do not, nor do we believe that the system in place in the Soviet Union was in any way socialist. And for that matter, we don't believe that even genuine socialism can be spread through an eastern-European style military intervention. Also, despite our lack of sympathy for Stalinist "revolutionary movements around the globe", it should be clear to everyone that they only received support when they could help fulfill the foreign policy aims of the USSR. You can look at the Greek Civil War for a good example of what happened to a "revolutionary movement" that didn't.

I don't exactly comprehend how developing socialism primarily in one country, being that it is around the beginning of revolutionary formulation worldwide, halts revolutionary action. Explain this to me though. How would a communist party or nation focus on revolutions abroad without using force or militarism? I can pretty much assume what you want to say, but I can't really address the issue until I see, in your own words that duty it is of a socialist or attempting-socialism nation. Couldn't you say that Mao Tsetung's People's Liberation Army was spreading revolution in the outlying regions of China, such as Tibet?

The problem with some Trotskyists is that they claim Stalin's Soviet Union to have been imperialist, when we all know that even the tiniest grasp of Leninist theory states that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism; a means of establishing control over a nation's labor and resources for means of manipulation. Would Stalin's support of Albania and China, as well as later revisionist leaders' support for Cuba be considered 'imperialist' merely because it used militant means? Marxism states the need for revolutionary militancy and though I believe it is totally flawed to think that sending in the troops will rally the working class in any way, though I see Cuba as a rare exception to this statement, I can't fathom how it is wrong to use monetary and political means to support revolutionary movements.

I continually see a total ignorant attitude towards the environment of the world during the time of the Russian Revolution, and Random, this is not directed at you. This is a general statement that just kind of fits into what I'm trying to say. Socialism is not some magical economic scheme, as history has shown us. The working class does not just climb to the top of a city hall and proclaim that everyone shall now have bread and land. Socialism is a progression of events and these events are required to be managed properly. Public ownership of the means of production in an undeveloped nation is absurd. Modernization and industrialization is required to properly sustain an infant socialist revolution. Stalin's policies revolutionized the Soviet military and prepared it to combat Hitler's forces. His industrialization and modernization plans made it possible to sustain and modernize the Soviet economy. Though I'm not going to come out and defend much of the Great Purges and Stalin, like everyone, is not without mistakes, but the failure of the Soviet economy came with the revisionism of Khrushchev and later Soviet leaders, as well as outside pressure from Germany, the United States and other Western powers. Without proper modernization of the Soviet Union, there would have been no means of sustaining it in time of war, especially heavy pressure from imperialist powers. Had this economic development continued and revisionism destroyed, the Soviet economy would have been a powerful force that could have developed authentic socialism, but what people fail to realize is that authentic socialism is totally impossible when an underdeveloped nation can be potentially destroyed if they do not modernize. There are priorities in socialist development, as seen by Lenin's application of strictly regulated capitalism to develop much-needed industry in the Soviet Union. It's a surrealist fantasy to state that Stalin was not a socialist, as he did not have the means of establishing revolutionary socialism with the resources he had at that time.

Led Zeppelin

18th March 2009, 16:22

Leaving aside the glaring problems with your criteria (liberal socialism and monarchical fascism... wtf?) please explain why this is a binary choice. That is, why on earth must Stalin be either socialist or fascist?

Not that I agree with him, but he wasn't posing a binary choice. He asked to which of the two it was closer, not which of the two it was.

Invader Zim

18th March 2009, 17:36

Stalin was not a fascist, but his views were far closer to fascism than his advocates are willing to admit.

Random Precision

18th March 2009, 21:35

I really wish you had paid attention to what I said in my post.

I don't exactly comprehend how developing socialism primarily in one country, being that it is around the beginning of revolutionary formulation worldwide, halts revolutionary action.

It wouldn't, if socialism was actually being built in the USSR. As I said, the development of this reactionary "theory" coincided with a large-scale retreat from the revolution on the economic front, with the kulaks being encouraged to "enrich yourselves" and proposals for industrialization being denounced as ultra-leftist.

Explain this to me though. How would a communist party or nation focus on revolutions abroad without using force or militarism?

They started an organization to help spread the revolution abroad, that was initially independent from the control of any one party. It was called the Communist International.

I can pretty much assume what you want to say, but I can't really address the issue until I see, in your own words that duty it is of a socialist or attempting-socialism nation. Couldn't you say that Mao Tsetung's People's Liberation Army was spreading revolution in the outlying regions of China, such as Tibet?

No, I couldn't. As I understand it the invasion of Tibet was a defensive move by the PRC to secure the plateau against imperialist penetration. From a Marxist perspective, it was the job of the Tibetans to free themselves of their feudal overlords. The PRC had the chance to encourage an indigenous uprising against the Lamas, but the political shape of the world forced an invasion which in fact discredited the idea of socialism for whole generations of Tibetans. This has been the case in any attempt to spread socialism by invasion, as the Russians first found out in the 1920 invasion of Poland.

The problem with some Trotskyists is that they claim Stalin's Soviet Union to have been imperialist, when we all know that even the tiniest grasp of Leninist theory states that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism; a means of establishing control over a nation's labor and resources for means of manipulation.

The typical feature of imperialism is a search for markets. But if that were the only criteria, it would have been wrong to call Tsarist Russia imperialist. However, Lenin and all the other major revolutionaries in Russia did call it imperialist. In Imperialism, Lenin gives these essential features of it:

1. The concentration of production and capital developed to such a stage that it creates monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.

2. The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy.

3. The export of capital, which has become extremely important, and distinguished from the export of commodities.

4. The formation of international capitalist monopolies which share the world among themselves.

5. The territorial division of the whole world among the greatest capitalist powers is completed.

So for (1) we can see that Stalinist state capitalism is a species which creates a general state monopoly. Under (2) in the Soviet Union, it reached its highest form where the state is the industrial and banking capitalist together. As for (3) we can take the industrial development of the oppressed nations in the USSR (Ukraine, the Caucasus etc) plus the glacis states (Romania, Bulgaria) and the post-war looting of Germany and other countries in Eastern Europe. (4) is excluded within a state-capitalist economy. (5) is seen in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the various treaties concluded with the Allied powers in WW2, and in the Cold War.

Would Stalin's support of Albania and China, as well as later revisionist leaders' support for Cuba be considered 'imperialist' merely because it used militant means?

No, not merely because of that. For example, after the war their was widespread looting of Manchuria by the Red Army. And Stalin was quite willing to let Yugoslavia swallow up Albania until Tito got off the leash.

Marxism states the need for revolutionary militancy and though I believe it is totally flawed to think that sending in the troops will rally the working class in any way, though I see Cuba as a rare exception to this statement, I can't fathom how it is wrong to use monetary and political means to support revolutionary movements.

As I said, we don't consider these movements as revolutionary in any way, shape, or form, and they were easily set aside or betrayed when the USSR's leaders found it necessary to their foreign policy imperatives, the KKE in Greece being the most prominent example.

I continually see a total ignorant attitude towards the environment of the world during the time of the Russian Revolution, and Random, this is not directed at you. This is a general statement that just kind of fits into what I'm trying to say.

Then I don't see any real reason to respond to it, except to say that Stalin certainly believed he was constructing authentic socialism, and it's a very odd Stalinist who would say that he wasn't. Except for this gem:

Stalin's policies revolutionized the Soviet military and prepared it to combat Hitler's forces.

In the same way that Henry VIII's policies "revolutionized" many of his wives.

...
...
...

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. :))

Cumannach

18th March 2009, 22:16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

I'd love to hear how signing a non-aggression treaty that gave the Soviets the time to build enough tanks to allow them to crush the Nazis qualifies as collaboration. I'm sure you can easily explain it.

I'm sure the anarchists and POUM defeated themselves then.:D Anyway ease provide references for your BS claims. You will be the one sounding like a brat if you don't have any references for your claims.

That's it, anarchism is indeed self-defeating.

Also, if socialism is producers control of the means of production, where was it in the Soviet Union?

In the elected representatives of the working class, the Communist party, although I'm sure your anarchist mind can't comprehend the concept of representation, so I won't blame you.

You can easily claim that certain things never happened, just as neo-Nazis can claim that the Holocaust never happened. But can you now claim that socialism did happen? I'm sure you would.

Yes, socialism did exist. And by the way, it's your claims that neo-Nazis would eagerly agree wholeheartedly with, not surprisingly, since many of them actually originated with the Nazis themselves.

Das war einmal

18th March 2009, 23:21

Why sign peace treaties with enemies? Whatever excuse you give will not stand. Once you have signed a peace treaty with the Nazis, you are collaborating with them.
Unless you have any meaningful discussion about the subject and can provide some references, you are just trolling.

Thats funny, I had the same kind of discussion with a right wing Vatican supporter who provided the same ridiculous crap. I would have expected better arguments from a revlefter. Ever heard of the treaty of Munich?

The Molotov Von Ribbentrop pact was a deal that granted the Soviet Union time to better prepare for the upcoming war.

Stalin wasn't a fascist, his regime neither and the Soviet people sacrificed a lot to defeat fascism. You dont have to praise Stalin but calling him a fascist is just petit-bourgeois crap not to mention counterrevolutionary

x359594

19th March 2009, 03:02

...The Molotov Von Ribbentrop pact was a deal that granted the Soviet Union time to better prepare for the upcoming war...

Sorry comrade, but the documentary record shows otherwise. The pact allowed Stalin to take a piece of Poland and let Germany have the rest and also gave him the opportunity to invade Finland and the Baltic States with the tacit approval of Hitler.

Further, he exchanged correspondence with Ribbentrop and Hitler about adding the USSR to the Axis. He refused to believe intelligence provided by Dr. Sorge that Germany was planning an attack on the Soviet Union and had to be convinced, losing precious time to prepare for the attack.

Credit should go to the Russian peasants and workers and the skillful generals who commanded them for resisting and ultimately defeating Nazi Germany.

AnthArmo

19th March 2009, 04:32

In the elected representatives of the working class, the Communist party, although I'm sure your anarchist mind can't comprehend the concept of representation, so I won't blame you.

If this was really the case then why did Gorbachev find the need to implement Glasnost and Perestroika?

Stalin wasn't a fascist, his regime neither and the Soviet people sacrificed a lot to defeat fascism. You dont have to praise Stalin but calling him a fascist is just petit-bourgeois crap not to mention counterrevolutionary

I have the full respect for the workers who fought the Fascist machine and lost and suffered so many lives. But Stalin is one of the reasons for why the Fascists came to power. Through the Communist International, he encouraged Communist parties to leave Fascist one's alone and instead concentrate on taking out Social-Democrats. If he really was a socialist who respected and defended the rights of the workers then he wouldn't have encouraged this. As a result the Fascists found surprisingly little opposition on their rise to power. Stalin did nothing but help the Fascists.

Stalin WAS a counter-revolutionary, he undid all the gains the working class had made in the Russian Revolution. Defending Stalin in anyway or form is itself a reactionary act.

Angry Young Man

19th March 2009, 05:18

Wow, if I'da known that the level of debate was this bad, I'd have stayed in chat!

I'm not talking about everyone, but there seems to be a low bar amongst the under-100 posts. I'd say maybes a probationary period in Learning.

Comrade_Red

19th March 2009, 09:10

Comrade_Red

19th March 2009, 09:15

That was adolescent-minded anarchibrats.

Haha.
;)

Cumannach

19th March 2009, 13:02

Sorry comrade, but the documentary record shows otherwise. The pact allowed Stalin to take a piece of Poland and let Germany have the rest and also gave him the opportunity to invade Finland and the Baltic States with the tacit approval of Hitler.

Further, he exchanged correspondence with Ribbentrop and Hitler about adding the USSR to the Axis. He refused to believe intelligence provided by Dr. Sorge that Germany was planning an attack on the Soviet Union and had to be convinced, losing precious time to prepare for the attack.

Credit should go to the Russian peasants and workers and the skillful generals who commanded them for resisting and ultimately defeating Nazi Germany.

Actually it allowed the Soviet Union to retake the territories of Western Ukraine and Belorussia that had been annexed by the reactionary Poles 20 years before, and push their defences all the way up into eastern Poland to prepare for the inevitable Nazi onslaught. The Finns, who would later collaborate with the Nazis during the war, were offered twice as much territory in exchange for ceding a small vital strategic stretch of land around Leningrad and other reasonable security demands, which was needed to defend Leningrad. They refused, the Soviets were forced to take it by force, did so, and then let the Finns be. The Finns would then join Hitler in attacking the Soviets. There was all sorts of contradictory intelligence reports coming from different places with different reports on the intentions of the Germans. Sorge didn't present any conclusive proof of any kind that impelled decisive action. The important thing was not to provoke the Germans prematurely, giving as much time as possible to building up Soviet defense and attack capability.

Credit should go to the whole of the Soviet Union, it's Socialist system, it's workers, soldiers, officers, generals and leaders.

What did Stalin's skillful generals think of him? According to Zhukov, Stalin,

"had a knack of grasping the main link in the strategic situation so as to organise opposition to the enemy and conduct a major offensive operation. He was certainly a worthy Supreme Commander."

Zhukov wrote that in 1969, when Stalin had been dead for years and the leaders of the Soviet Union had officially denounced him. In 1974 Vasilevskii wrote that,

"... Stalin, especially in the latter part of the war, was the strongest and most remarkable figure of the strategic command. He succesfully supervised the fronts and all the war efforts of the country...His directives and commands showed front commanders their mistakes and shortcomings, taught them how to deal with all manner of military operations skilfully."

redarmyfaction38

19th March 2009, 13:39

Femme_Fatale

24th March 2009, 01:21

"who in no way helped Soviet Russia"

Stalin may have been bad, but it is simply untrue to say he didn't help Soviet Russia at all. He did, as is commonly known, do some good things, modernizing Russia, increasing the life expectancy, etc. Russia was still governed by the medieval system for christs sakes.

And no, i'm not a Stalinist.
thats the dumbest thing i ever heard, how was russia mediaval? uggghhh stop focusing on the peasants.. there were the educated elite, writers, composers... you know nothing:closedeyes:

Das war einmal

24th March 2009, 02:00

thats the dumbest thing i ever heard, how was russia mediaval? uggghhh stop focusing on the peasants.. there were the educated elite, writers, composers... you know nothing:closedeyes:

Oh and there were no writers, an educated elite and composers in medieval times? Thats a bold statement...in Tsarist Russia there was still serfdom which is obviously a system from medieval times.

communard resolution

24th March 2009, 09:18

Actually it allowed the Soviet Union to retake the territories of Western Ukraine and Belorussia that had been annexed by the reactionary Poles 20 years before

... and execute tens of thousands of Polish civilians whose only crime was their education, as you always elegantly bypass until absolutely necessary.

If someone does mention it, you simply call it myth and propaganda.
If someone points out that the original documents have emerged a long time ago, you ignore it.
Alternatively, you could suggest the documents were forged, or found by the wrong people.

The next stage would be to deflate the numbers of victims.
And if absolutely nothing else works, you can still resort to claiming that for some absurd reason, it was necessary to slaughter every single civilian that died.

The arguments of massacre/genocide deniers are the same the world over, no matter what political persuation, no matter whether it's the Armenian genocide, Bosnia, My Lai, Katyn, or Auschwitz. And they're all very unconvincing.

As a postive-thinking person, I assume that you're not a liar but choose to believe certain things just because you want to.

ComradeOm

24th March 2009, 12:09

thats the dumbest thing i ever heard, how was russia mediaval? uggghhh stop focusing on the peasants.. there were the educated elite, writers, composers... you know nothing:closedeyes:Yes, there was a thin stratum of intelligentsia presiding over a semi-feudal economic base in which the vast majority of the population (80+% by 1914) were peasants involved in subsistence farming

Invader Zim

24th March 2009, 12:18

Cumannach why do you, on a leftwing board, indulge in this completely rightwing individualist approach to history?

Das war einmal

24th March 2009, 12:27

... and execute tens of thousands of Polish civilians whose only crime was their education, as you always elegantly bypass until absolutely necessary.

If someone does mention it, you simply call it myth and propaganda.
If someone points out that the original documents have emerged a long time ago, you ignore it.
Alternatively, you could suggest the documents were forged, or found by the wrong people.

The next stage would be to deflate the numbers of victims.
And if absolutely nothing else works, you can still resort to claiming that for some absurd reason, it was necessary to slaughter every single civilian that died.

The arguments of massacre/genocide deniers are the same the world over, no matter what political persuation, no matter whether it's the Armenian genocide, Bosnia, My Lai, Katyn, or Auschwitz. And they're all very unconvincing.

As a postive-thinking person, I assume that you're not a liar but choose to believe certain things just because you want to.

Look who's talking, Tito locked up upto 200.000 political prisoners, how many did not die on Goli Otok ?

There is no point in making excuses for Katyn (although some believe this is the work of nazi's), but dont be such a hypocrite. Tito was just as rutheless at his opponents as Stalin himself

Cumannach

24th March 2009, 12:28

... and execute tens of thousands of Polish civilians whose only crime was their education, as you always elegantly bypass until absolutely necessary.

If someone does mention it, you simply call it myth and propaganda.
If someone points out that the original documents have emerged a long time ago, you ignore it.
Alternatively, you could suggest the documents were forged, or found by the wrong people.

The next stage would be to deflate the numbers of victims.
And if absolutely nothing else works, you can still resort to claiming that for some absurd reason, it was necessary to slaughter every single civilian that died.

The arguments of massacre/genocide deniers are the same the world over, no matter what political persuation, no matter whether it's the Armenian genocide, Bosnia, My Lai, Katyn, or Auschwitz. And they're all very unconvincing.

As a postive-thinking person, I assume that you're not a liar but choose to believe certain things just because you want to.

Come on then, produce the evidence for me. Quote and reference.

And you're right, just because something was written down, actually doesn't make it true. This is an amazing and astonishing revelation no doubt, the ability of people to tell lies, but it has been established beyond doubt.

Since you've compared Katyn to Auschwitz, a pretty disgusting comparison, since both were Nazi atrocities, please show me why you're so convinced of the truth of the Katyn massacre being a Soviet atrocity, - please quote and reference the evidence you've read that convinced you.

ComradeOm

24th March 2009, 12:33

Since you've compared Katyn to Auschwitz, a pretty disgusting comparison, since both were Nazi atrocities, please show me why you're so convinced of the truth of the Katyn massacre being a Soviet atrocity, - please quote and reference the evidence you've read that convinced you.

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Katyn_-_decision_of_massacre_p1.jpg/250px-Katyn_-_decision_of_massacre_p1.jpg

Pogue

24th March 2009, 12:37

Come on then, produce the evidence for me. Quote and reference.

And you're right, just because something was written down, actually doesn't make it true. This is an amazing and astonishing revelation no doubt, the ability of people to tell lies, but it has been established beyond doubt.

Since you've compared Katyn to Auschwitz, a pretty disgusting comparison, since both were Nazi atrocities, please show me why you're so convinced of the truth of the Katyn massacre being a Soviet atrocity, - please quote and reference the evidence you've read that convinced you.

Wait, so contrary to all historical evidence, documents signed by the whole of the Politburo and admittance even by the Russian government that his massacre happened, you're denying it did ever happen?

Cumannach

24th March 2009, 12:45

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Katyn_-_decision_of_massacre_p1.jpg/250px-Katyn_-_decision_of_massacre_p1.jpg

Oh My God! That proves it! Since forgery is not possible! And Since the Russian Government never had any reason to smear Stalin's Soviet Union! Oh Wait. Forgery is possible. The whole case for the Katyn massacre being a Soviet atrocity relies on the documents found on the bodies of the dead Poles which long postdate the alleged time of the Soviet massacre being forgeries. What an upsetting realisation. People can be dishonest. :crying:

Pogue

24th March 2009, 12:49

Oh My God! That proves it! Since forgery is not possible! And Since the Russian Government never had any reason to smear Stalin's Soviet Union! Oh Wait. Forgery is possible. The whole case for the Katyn massacre being a Soviet atrocity relies on the documents found on the bodies of the dead Poles which long postdate the alleged time of the Soviet massacre being forgeries. What an upsetting realisation. People can be dishonest. :crying:

If the USSR didn't do this, who did?

If the USSR didn't do this, why did they cover up any investigation into it?

It seems like your desperately trying to defend the USSR regardless of how absurd it is to do so in this case. They killed these soldiers, simple as. They were also the prisoners of war they captured when they invaded Poland with Hitler, of course.

Invader Zim

24th March 2009, 13:50

You are wasting your time HLVS, people like Cumannach are to Stalinism what holocaust deniers are to fascism. Their counter-factual bullshit isn't derived from logic, an understanding of historical methodology or intellectual honesty. In other words, they are immune to reason and argument.

Cumannach

24th March 2009, 14:08

If the USSR didn't do this, who did?

If the USSR didn't do this, why did they cover up any investigation into it?

It seems like your desperately trying to defend the USSR regardless of how absurd it is to do so in this case. They killed these soldiers, simple as. They were also the prisoners of war they captured when they invaded Poland with Hitler, of course.

Who do you think did? The Nazis did!

I'm not desperately trying to defend the USSR even when it was in the wrong, fro example during the purges of the late 30's when many innocent people where executed (though not because of stalin's lust for power and blood) I'm just refusing to believe Nazi propaganda.

ComradeOm

24th March 2009, 14:12

Oh My God! That proves it! Since forgery is not possible! And Since the Russian Government never had any reason to smear Stalin's Soviet Union! Oh Wait. Forgery is possible. The whole case for the Katyn massacre being a Soviet atrocity relies on the documents found on the bodies of the dead Poles which long postdate the alleged time of the Soviet massacre being forgeries. What an upsetting realisation. People can be dishonest. :crying:This memo was not "found on the bodies of dead Poles" but rather released by the Russian government in 1992. Not that I expect this to convince you - that government was 'bourgeois' and the previous Soviet government that admitted responsibility for the atrocity in 1989 was no doubt 'revisionist'. Its a waste of time talking to you

Woland

24th March 2009, 14:12

people like Cumannach are to Stalinism what holocaust deniers are to fascism..

Despite being completely idiotic (though typical enough for liberals and trolls), this itself counts as holocaust denial, even under legal grounds, atleast here in Germany.

By the way, we have a thread about Stalin which deals with actual historical evidence.

Invader Zim

24th March 2009, 14:24

Despite being completely idiotic (though typical enough for liberals and trolls), this itself counts as holocaust denial, even under legal grounds, atleast here in Germany.

Please explain that one, I am looking forward to having a good laugh.

Woland

24th March 2009, 14:27

Comparing anything to the Holocaust can potentially be counted as holocaust denial.

Cumannach

24th March 2009, 14:32

This memo was not "found on the bodies of dead Poles" but rather released by the Russian government in 1992. Not that I expect this to convince you - that government was 'bourgeois' and the previous Soviet government that admitted responsibility for the atrocity in 1989 was no doubt 'revisionist'. Its a waste of time talking to you

What are you talking about. The investigations in the 40's discovered documents carried by the dead officers that postdated the alleged time of a Soviet massacre, exposing the Nazi proganda there and then. These were then dismissed as forgeries. But when it's suggested that Gorbachev and the men who did what the Nazis couldn't, restored capitalism in Russia might concievably produce a forgery, all of a sudden dismissing forgeries is just 'denying reality'. Yeah, very mature, you can't win an argument by producing a silly little photograph and it's a waste of time talking to me.

Invader Zim

24th March 2009, 14:41

Comparing anything to the Holocaust can potentially be counted as holocaust denial.

Don't be stupid. Comparing the holocaust to lesser acts of violence could indeed be considered an act of trivialisation, but comparing/contrasting the actions of the Nazi regime to those of another brutal regime that killed many millions of people is hardly a trivialisation.

Indeed the comparison has been made many times by professional historians, and nobody accuses them of holocaust denial. Indeed there is an entire branch of historical research, with both undergraduate and post graduate courses, academic journals and numerous books that investigate and compare genocides.

Rosa Provokateur

24th March 2009, 15:08

i wouldn't say that Stalin was a fascist, he was certainly not a communist but he was no fascist, he was a dictator but fascist doesn't always just mean 'reactionary', 'evil' or 'Totalitarian'
Symantic masturbation. Stalin was a fascist, equal to or worse than Hitler.

mykittyhasaboner

24th March 2009, 15:32

^^Great argument there.

x359594

24th March 2009, 16:16

Concerning Poland, more than the Katyn Forest massacre, Stalin consented to the partition of the country and sacrificed millions of Poles to fascism and Polish Jewry to the concentration camps and certain death.

Despite some major differences, what Hitler and Stalin shared was a reliance on social violence, a belief in the absolute certainty of only one ideology, and a conviction that they had the right to dispose of the destinies of nations other than their own.

Das war einmal

24th March 2009, 16:27

Don't be stupid. Comparing the holocaust to lesser acts of violence could indeed be considered an act of trivialisation, but comparing/contrasting the actions of the Nazi regime to those of another brutal regime that killed many millions of people is hardly a trivialisation.

Indeed the comparison has been made many times by professional historians, and nobody accuses them of holocaust denial. Indeed there is an entire branch of historical research, with both undergraduate and post graduate courses, academic journals and numerous books that investigate and compare genocides.

There were no millions dead at Katyn, the numbers made by Conquest are not to be taken seriously, as the highest amount of deaths at the Gulag are 900,000. These include 'normal' prisoners (criminals instead of political opponents) aswell.

Das war einmal

24th March 2009, 16:29

Concerning Poland, more than the Katyn Forest massacre, Stalin consented to the partition of the country and sacrificed millions of Poles to fascism and Polish Jewry to the concentration camps and certain death.

Thats bullshit, over 3 million jews were brought to safety in Soviet areas. Whether or not the USSR had occupied Poland, the Germans would have invaded anyhow.

Invader Zim

24th March 2009, 18:14

There were no millions dead at Katyn, the numbers made by Conquest are not to be taken seriously, as the highest amount of deaths at the Gulag are 900,000. These include 'normal' prisoners (criminals instead of political opponents) aswell.

Alec Nove provided a contribution to a book edited by J. Arch Getty (whom Stalinists love, but rarely understand) and Roberta Manning (Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives) entitled 'Victims of Stalinism: How Many?', you should read it.

x359594

24th March 2009, 19:44

Thats bullshit, over 3 million jews were brought to safety in Soviet areas...

The Soviet annexation was accompanied by the widespread arrests of government officials, police and military personnel, teachers, priests, rabbis, judges, border guards, etc., followed by executions and massive deportation to the Soviet interior and forced labor camps were many perished as a result of harsh conditions. 1.450 million people inhabiting the region were deported by the Soviet regime. The largest group of all those deported (63.1%) were ethnic Poles but Jews accounted for 7.4% of all the prisoners.

Jewish refugees from Western Poland who registered for repatriation back to the German zone (people in the Soviet occupation zone had little knowledge of what was going on in the German occupation zone since the Soviet media did not report on their Nazi ally's atrocities), wealthy Jewish capitalists, prewar political and social activists were labelled "class enemies" and deported for that reason. Jews caught for illegal border crossings or engaged in illicit trade and other "illegal" activities were also arrested and deported. Several thousand, mostly captured Polish soldiers were executed on the spot, and some of them were Jewish.

Political activity ceased and political prisoners filled the jails, many of whom were later executed. Zionism was designated as counter-revolutionary and forbidden. All Jewish and Polish newspapers were shut down within a day of the entry of the Soviet forces and anti-religious propaganda was conducted mainly through the new Soviet press which attacked religion in general and the Jewish faith in particular. Although the synagogues and churches were not shut down, they were heavily taxed. The Jewish communities were especially vulnerable because of their distinctive social and economic structure.

Sources: Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. Between Nazis and Soviets: Occupation Politics in Poland, 1939-1947. Lexington Books, 2004.

Joanna Michlic. "The Soviet Occupation of Poland, 1939–41, and the Stereotype of the Anti-Polish and Pro-Soviet Jew." Jewish Social Studies: History, Culture, and Society.Spring/Summer 2007, Vol. 13, No. 3:135-176.

Do you have a source for the 3 million figure you cite? As for whether or not Hitler would have invaded Poland, well, shoulda, coulda, woulda is doersn't cut it comrade.

Femme_Fatale

24th March 2009, 20:36

Oh and there were no writers, an educated elite and composers in medieval times? Thats a bold statement...in Tsarist Russia there was still serfdom which is obviously a system from medieval times.
and thats not what i said, duh, there was serfdom in tsarist russia but it differed, you have to be russian to understand.. and there were writers, composers, etc. NOT in medieval times... but in tsarist russia

Das war einmal

24th March 2009, 21:27

The Soviet annexation was accompanied by the widespread arrests of government officials, police and military personnel, teachers, priests, rabbis, judges, border guards, etc., followed by executions and massive deportation to the Soviet interior and forced labor camps were many perished as a result of harsh conditions. 1.450 million people inhabiting the region were deported by the Soviet regime. The largest group of all those deported (63.1%) were ethnic Poles but Jews accounted for 7.4% of all the prisoners.

Jewish refugees from Western Poland who registered for repatriation back to the German zone (people in the Soviet occupation zone had little knowledge of what was going on in the German occupation zone since the Soviet media did not report on their Nazi ally's atrocities), wealthy Jewish capitalists, prewar political and social activists were labelled "class enemies" and deported for that reason. Jews caught for illegal border crossings or engaged in illicit trade and other "illegal" activities were also arrested and deported. Several thousand, mostly captured Polish soldiers were executed on the spot, and some of them were Jewish.

Political activity ceased and political prisoners filled the jails, many of whom were later executed. Zionism was designated as counter-revolutionary and forbidden. All Jewish and Polish newspapers were shut down within a day of the entry of the Soviet forces and anti-religious propaganda was conducted mainly through the new Soviet press which attacked religion in general and the Jewish faith in particular. Although the synagogues and churches were not shut down, they were heavily taxed. The Jewish communities were especially vulnerable because of their distinctive social and economic structure.

Sources: Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. Between Nazis and Soviets: Occupation Politics in Poland, 1939-1947. Lexington Books, 2004.

Joanna Michlic. "The Soviet Occupation of Poland, 1939–41, and the Stereotype of the Anti-Polish and Pro-Soviet Jew." Jewish Social Studies: History, Culture, and Society.Spring/Summer 2007, Vol. 13, No. 3:135-176.

Do you have a source for the 3 million figure you cite? As for whether or not Hitler would have invaded Poland, well, shoulda, coulda, woulda is doersn't cut it comrade.

Yes, I believe I have read this in 'Ivans War' by Catherine Merridale, which is a bourgeois source, but she also wrote that a large percentage of the Soviet commanders in the Red Army where jews aswell and though there were anti semitic sentiments among the soldiers, this was heavily sanctioned should violence against Jews occur.

From what I read in what you just posted, it doesnt seem like the Soviet authorities specifically targeted the Jewish population. They mostly view which class they came from.

Das war einmal

24th March 2009, 21:28

Alec Nove provided a contribution to a book edited by J. Arch Getty (whom Stalinists love, but rarely understand) and Roberta Manning (Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives) entitled 'Victims of Stalinism: How Many?', you should read it.

Whats so special about this book concerning others?

tehpevis

24th March 2009, 22:05

Stalin certainly wasn't a fascist, but he was Close.

Das war einmal

24th March 2009, 22:27

the USSR under Stalin did more than any nation, any political movement, to defeat fascism

PeaderO'Donnell

24th March 2009, 22:35

Stalin certainly wasn't a fascist, but he was Close.

How do you define Fascism?

Original Italian Fascism did not have a racial element as such.

Brother No. 1

24th March 2009, 23:16

Stalin was not a Facist. the beatings from his father,Beso was a Drunk, and his mother, Keke said it was to protect him, and to see his mother almost being killed by his father at the age of of 4 scared him for life. Stalin life made him who he is. PS: How would you define Facism exactly in the retrospect of Stalin. Like the German and Italian way of Facism or another type in your veiw.

LOLseph Stalin

24th March 2009, 23:25

PS: How would you define Facism exactly in the retrospect of Stalin. Like the German and Italian way of Facism or another type in your veiw.

I think they're referring to the fact that "Socialism in one country" could be interpreted as nationalistic. Also, that in the beginning he collaborated with Hitler.

ComradeOm

25th March 2009, 00:26

Original Italian Fascism did not have a racial element as such.It did however have the same master/slave morality at its core. That is, the belief that the 'strong' individuals were destined to rule the 'weak'. Nazism corrupted this by framing it in racial terms but the argument remained essentially the same

More importantly, this relationship or view of society was completely absent from Marxist-Leninism. For all the perversions introduced by Stalin, the governing ideology of the USSR remained recognisably Marxist, in language if nothing else, and it was the themes of class struggle (not nationalist, racist, or strong/weak) that dominated Soviet discourse in the 1920s and 1930s and underpinned its legitimacy

Also, that in the beginning he collaborated with HitlerThe beginning of what? Hitler's ascension to power actually curtailed a number of joint German-Soviet programs and caused the near-immediate volte face of the Popular Fronts. The only period of cooperation between Hitler and Stalin was during the Non-Aggression Pact phase, more a product of British intransigence than any desire to jump into bed with fascists

Das war einmal

25th March 2009, 00:30

I think they're referring to the fact that "Socialism in one country" could be interpreted as nationalistic. Also, that in the beginning he collaborated with Hitler.

Thats after they tried to export the revolution, which failed, so they had no real other choice. Despite that however, the Soviet Union did send aid to fight fascism in Spain.

communard resolution

25th March 2009, 01:28

Cumannach,

I wasn't actually comparing Auschwitz to Katyn, I was comparing the argumentative patterns of people who attempt to deny/defend these or other mass killings of civilians. The actual body count is of no importance at all - neither is the ideology (or the professed ideology) of the victimisers.

Just read my original sentence again.

But before we proceed with this - or with anything else - I'd like you to explain this little sentence of yours:

Since you've compared Katyn to Auschwitz, a pretty disgusting comparison, since both were Nazi atrocities, please show me why you're so convinced of the truth of the Katyn massacre being a Soviet atrocity, - please quote and reference the evidence you've read that convinced you.

You are not making any sense - if both were Nazi atrocities, why would it be "disgusting" to compare them to each other?

This looks rather like a Freudian slip to me. You are very well aware that Katyn was a Soviet massacre rather than a Nazi one, which is why you condemn my "comparison" as "disgusting". Then you hasten to add that, actually, it was the Nazis who did it.

Essentially, you've tried to accomodate several paradoxical strategies (denial of atrocity/relativising of atrocity/moralising) all in one sentece.

By doing so, not only have you exposed your tactics for everyone to see, you've also revealed who you really think commited the massacre.

Blame it on your temper. ;)

Das war einmal

25th March 2009, 01:42

Cumannach,

I wasn't actually comparing Auschwitz to Katyn, I was comparing the argumentative patterns of people who attempt to deny/defend these or other mass killings of civilians. The actual body count is of no importance at all - neither is the ideology (or the professed ideology) of the victimisers.

Just read my original sentence again.

But before we proceed with this - or with anything else - I'd like you to explain this little sentence of yours:

You are not making any sense - if both were Nazi atrocities, why would it be "disgusting" to compare them to each other?

This looks rather like a Freudian slip to me. You are very well aware that Katyn was a Soviet massacre rather than a Nazi one, which is why you condemn my "comparison" as "disgusting". Then you hasten to add that, actually, it was the Nazis who did it.

Essentially, you've tried to accomodate several paradoxical strategies (denial of atrocity/relativising of atrocity/moralising) all in one sentece.

By doing so, not only have you exposed your tactics for everyone to see, you've also revealed who you really think commited the massacre.

Blame it on your temper. ;)

I dont form an opinion about Katyn yet. But why do you think its Soviet rather than the nazi's who did it?

Cumannach

25th March 2009, 01:51

Your post is all over the place and doesn't really say anything or make much sense. The whole point of this argument is that I'm saying the Katyn massacre was a Nazi, not a Soviet massacre. Do you understand that?

You compared denying that Katyn was a Soviet atrocity to denying Auschwitz/The Holocaust was a Nazi atrocity or even happened. So for you, blaming the Nazis for massacring Polish officers is somehow equivalent to defending the Nazis' massacring Jews, and denying that they even did it. Disgusting and ironic.

I haven't mentioned any specific figures so why do you keep trying to emphasize 'the actual bodycount is not important?'

I don't know what the rest of the post is trying to say. Do you have anything to say on the Katyn massacre? Or is this stalling because you have nothing to fall back on but Nazi-supervised investigation reports or forged documents produced by russian capitalist oligarchs?

Poison

25th March 2009, 02:14

Brother No. 1

25th March 2009, 02:48

It made his relaize he had to take power and act strong. That he had to be on top to be safe.

StalinFanboy

25th March 2009, 03:03

I'd love to hear how signing a non-aggression treaty that gave the Soviets the time to build enough tanks to allow them to crush the Nazis qualifies as collaboration. I'm sure you can easily explain it.

That's it, anarchism is indeed self-defeating.

In the elected representatives of the working class, the Communist party, although I'm sure your anarchist mind can't comprehend the concept of representation, so I won't blame you.

Yes, socialism did exist. And by the way, it's your claims that neo-Nazis would eagerly agree wholeheartedly with, not surprisingly, since many of them actually originated with the Nazis themselves.
I have yet to see an argument put forth by you that does not have any ad hominems in it...

Invader Zim

25th March 2009, 11:13

How do you define Fascism?

Original Italian Fascism did not have a racial element as such.

I disagree, sure it wasn't virulently anti-semitic, but certainly when it came to Abyssinia, Mussolini and his cohorts held an extremely racist position.

PeaderO'Donnell

25th March 2009, 12:19

I disagree, sure it wasn't virulently anti-semitic, but certainly when it came to Abyssinia, Mussolini and his cohorts held an extremely racist position.

Yes true...But less so than the British Empire and hardly more so than the average european at the time. They did not however hold the same "racial idealogy" that the Nazis had.

Invader Zim

25th March 2009, 12:27

Yes true...But less so than the British Empire and hardly more so than the average european at the time. They did not however hold the same "racial idealogy" that the Nazis had.

You know that Mussolini actually ordered a policy of extermination to crush rebellion following the invasion? And yes, more so than most European's at the time. The fascist position was akin to the typical view of the previous century.

Cumannach

25th March 2009, 20:52

The Katyn massacre is an anti-communist propaganda weapon. It's used to portray Stalin and the Soviets as genocidal murderers of Poles. It was loudly announced to the world by a Nazi propaganda campaign of April 1943, the purpose of which was to create discord between the Soviets and the Poles and try to hinder any Soviet-Polish co-operation against the Nazi Wermacht. This wasn't that difficult, since the reactionary Polish Government in Exile was already rabidly anti-Russian and anti-Soviet and was still fuming over the loss of Western Ukraine and Belorussia, territories the Poles had seized from the Soviets years before. They were still hoping to keep these annexations after the war. In April the Nazis announced there were mass graves of Polish POWS in the Katyn forest near Smolensk. The Polish government in exile supported the Nazi's proposal of an independent investigation- an 'independent Nazi investigation'! - and the outraged Soviets broke off diplomatic relations with the Poles in London.

The Polish Workers Party had been in the process of negotiating a broad national front against the German occupation, including unity between themselves and the Polish Home Army (linked to the Exiled Government). These negotiations broke down at the end of April, with the Polish communists refusing to subordinate themselves and recognise the Polish territorial claims.

(see "Stalin's Wars" chapter 6 , - Geoffrey Roberts )

Of course, this horrible example of Communist brutality and of the evil of Stalin was destined to become a favourite topic in the bourgeois press and among bourgeois historians. They have no problem accepting the conclusions of the Nazi-conducted investigation, the trustworthy Nazis who were meanwhile busy incinerating Jewish men, women and children.

Goebbels, Nazi propaganda master, wrote in his diary 14 April 1943;

"We are now using the discovery of 12,000 Polish officers, murdered by the GPU for anti-Bolshevik propaganda on a grand style. We sent neutral journalists and Polish intellectuals to the spot where they were found. Their reports now reaching us from ahead are gruesome. The Fuehrer has also given permission for us to hand out a drastic news item to the German press. I gave instructions to make the widest possible use of the propaganda material. We shall be able to live on it for a couple weeks."

On the 8 May 1943 he wrote;

"Unfortunately, German ammuniton has been found in the graves at Katyn. It is essential that this incident remains a top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped."

When the Soviets drove the Nazis back out of the area, they had their own commission to investigate the mass graves. In January 1944 a group of American journalists were invited to inspect the Katyn site and observe the exhumations and investigations of the Soviets. Among them was Kathleen Harriman, daughter of Averell Harriman, US ambassador to Moscow. In a letter to her sister about the trip to Smolensk, she wrote;

"Though the Germans had ripped open the Poles' pockets, they'd missed some written documents. While I was watching, they found one letter dated the summer of '41, which is damned good evidence."

Of course the presence on the Poles of documents which long postdated the time of the alleged Soviet massacre so thoroughly established by the Nazis doesn't prove anything. After all, they could be forgeries. But why can anything which supports the assertion that the Soviets killed all the officers absolutely not be a forgery, like the alleged execution orders graciously provided by Gorbachev and friends, the men who overthrew, dismembered and pillaged the Soviet Union for their own vast personal enrichment and who hated Stalin and Socialism as much as Hitler did? And incidentally, if the documents are forgeries why didn't the Soviets forge documents that actually postdated their withdrawal from the area, rather than which just postdated the alleged time of the Katyn massacre? Woud have been easy. Although you'd hardly know it, there is actually controversy over the alleged 'smoking gun' documents, in print, although not translated into English and stuffed into every bookshop and library. There are also people claiming that the NKVD shot a smaller number of the officers for some reason that might have something to do with the Polish treatment of Russian POWS back in the Civil War, and that the Nazis shot all the rest and other theories etc, but nobody wants to hear about that (even though it still impugns the Soviets, but is not the perfect atrocity), instead everybody just jumps on the Nazi bandwagon to vilify the Soviet Union.

Cumannach

26th March 2009, 23:27

Come on everyone. Now is your chance to defend the Nazi's version of events.

CHEtheLIBERATOR

27th March 2009, 00:14

Stalin is an absolute fascist.Socialism in one country could be simply called a military dictatorship.He was so out of wack that Lenin asked for his expulsion from the party and the idea of stalinism in the left community is usualy called "red fascism"

Das war einmal

27th March 2009, 00:38

Lol @ blabber above, you did now that your praised liberator was a 'stalinist' so you are worshipping a
red fascist your own words....

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

27th March 2009, 16:40

Stalin was no fascist.
Wether you like hiim or not, there is one ver important element in fascism which si extremely anticommunis:

the element of corporatism, which states that Workers and capitalists should work together in "harmony" because they're all from the same nationality.

This nationalist and anti-communist element was certainly not shared by Stalin.

hugsandmarxism

29th March 2009, 04:38

I'm of the opinion that the Left needs to grow up on the Stalin issue, and stop feeding into the bourgeoisie propaganda machine that makes our shared communistic ideals intolerable to the mainstream. The Glenn Beck interview with Sam Web is a good example of this, as well as the amount of bickering we see between the Revisionist and Anti-Revisionist camps. No, he wasn't a damn fascist. His face was on every fascist's little dart-board. He threatened capitalism, not fought to defend it. Threads like these are cliche and counter productive, and if shoveling shit on the legacy of Joseph Stalin helps you reconcile your communist tendency with mainstream society's idea about your political tendency, then so be it, but realize that this is your motivation, and that you are doing absolutely NOTHING to advance our collective cause in doing this crap.

communard resolution

29th March 2009, 14:33

Hello again - finally a day off and a bit of spare time to dig into this thread.

The Katyn massacre is an anti-communist propaganda weapon. It's used to portray Stalin and the Soviets as genocidal murderers of Poles. It was loudly announced to the world by a Nazi propaganda campaign of April 1943

Duh. Propaganda will always make use of any information that is detrimental to the reputation of the enemy. Sometimes it will exaggarate, sometimes it will plain out lie, and sometimes it will just happily jump at the chance to reveal the enemy's dirty secrets.

The fact that the Nazis (and perhaps other anti-communists) have exploited Katyn for propaganda purposes does not mean that the Soviets didn't commit the massacre.

the purpose of which was to create discord between the Soviets and the Poles and try to hinder any Soviet-Polish co-operation (etc) This may well be, but it's not relevant to what end the information was later used. The only thing we're interested in is who actually commmitted the massacre.

bourgeois historians

They have no problem accepting the conclusions of the Nazi-conducted investigationIn fact, the Americans and British had some interest in attributing the Katyn massacre to the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials since at the time, they were still Allies with the USSR - who also participated in the trials, but failed to establish the 'Nazi massacre' version for lack of evidence.

For every large-scale SS Einsatzgruppen or Wehrmacht massacre, post-war prosecutors managed to determine who the responsible commander was - but they didn't find a single German soldier that had participated in Katyn.

Goebbels, Nazi propaganda master, wrote in his diary 14 April 1943;

"We are now using the discovery of 12,000 Polish officers, murdered by the GPU for anti-Bolshevik propaganda on a grand style. We sent neutral journalists and Polish intellectuals to the spot where they were found. Their reports now reaching us from ahead are gruesome. The Fuehrer has also given permission for us to hand out a drastic news item to the German press. I gave instructions to make the widest possible use of the propaganda material. We shall be able to live on it for a couple weeks."Emphasis added by me. Why would Goebbels write this in his private diary? To convince himself of his own fabrications perhaps?

On the 8 May 1943 he wrote;

"Unfortunately, German ammuniton has been found in the graves at Katyn. It is essential that this incident remains a top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped."German ammunition was indeed found on location. Why do you think did this come as a surprise to Goebbels? Did the Wehrmacht secretely orchestrate the execution of 12,000 Polish 'intelligentsia' on their own account while the Nazi leadership was blissfully unaware of it? Highly unlikely.

If Katyn was staged by the Nazis from beginning to end, including a posthumous faux-investigation carried out by Nazi 'investigators', why would they be so surprised to find some German ammunition here and there? Why would the 'investigators' deem their finding of German ammo newsworthy enough to report it back to the Nazi leadership?

Why would Goebbels dedicate an entire paragraph in his diary to such a minor detail had the finding of German ammunition not been somewhat unexpected to him?

One may suggest the Soviets deliberately used German ammo to leave a misleading trace - whether they thought as far ahead as to take into account potential future investigations (on territory that at the time was still theirs) is not it be ruled out entirely, but highly arguable.

More likely, the unit used German ammunition simply because that's what they had at their disposal. Import and export of ammunition is fairly common really, and German companies did trade with the USSR up until 1941.

But back to Goebbels. On 29 September 1943, he wrote in his diary:

"Unfortunately we have had to give up Katyn. The Bolsheviks undoubtedly will soon 'find' that we shot 12,000 Polish officers. That episode is one that is going to cause us quite a little trouble in the future. The Soviets are undoubtedly going to make it their business to discover as many mass graves as possible and then blame it on us."

Note the quotation marks around the word find.

Again, do you think Goebbels was some kind of schizophrenic who eventually came to believe his own propaganda?

Of course the presence on the Poles of documents which long postdated the time of the alleged Soviet massacre so thoroughly established by the Nazis doesn't prove anything. After all, they could be forgeries. But why can anything which supports the assertion that the Soviets killed all the officers absolutely not be a forgery, like the alleged execution orders graciously provided by Gorbachev and friends, the men who overthrew, dismembered and pillaged the Soviet Union for their own vast personal enrichment and who hated Stalin and Socialism as much as Hitler did? And incidentally, if the documents are forgeries why didn't the Soviets forge documents that actually postdated their withdrawal from the area, rather than which just postdated the alleged time of the Katyn massacre? Woud have been easy. Although you'd hardly know it, there is actually controversy over the alleged 'smoking gun' documents, in print, although not translated into English and stuffed into every bookshop and library. There are also people claiming that the NKVD shot a smaller number of the officers for some reason that might have something to do with the Polish treatment of Russian POWS back in the Civil War, and that the Nazis shot all the rest and other theories etc, but nobody wants to hear about that (even though it still impugns the Soviets, but is not the perfect atrocity), instead everybody just jumps on the Nazi bandwagon to vilify the Soviet Union.I was quite impressed with how you attempt to be more objective in this paragraph, which is why I decided to continue the debate. Prior to that, my impression was that there would be no way to penetrate through your 'good guys vs. bad guys' approach to the history of WW2.

I'm aware that there are texts that still stick to the official Soviet version of events, the one that the Soviets themselves failed to establish at Nuremberg due to the flimsy evidence provided.

My problem is that all of these are very partisan writings published exclusively by folks such as The Stalin Society. Forgive me if I doubt their neutrality in regards to Stalin as much as you, quite rightly, doubt the neutrality of 'bourgeois historians'.

communard resolution

29th March 2009, 14:51

Look who's talking, Tito locked up upto 200.000 political prisoners, how many did not die on Goli Otok ?

Tito killed absolutely no one. And those that he did kill were all fascists and reactionaries. But he killed no one. You've fallen victim to the lies of bourgeois historians - don't believe them! Tito himself sent a commission to Goli Otok to investigate the matter and arrived at the conclusion that he killed no one. Additionally, objective research proves that the bodies found in Goli Otik had been killed by Croatian fascists in WW2 - just check the text on the Tito Society website. Now who do you believe - the fascists perhaps?

Cumannach

29th March 2009, 18:27

In fact, the Americans and British had some interest in attributing the Katyn massacre to the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials since at the time, they were still Allies with the USSR - who also participated in the trials, but failed to establish the 'Nazi massacre' version for lack of evidence.

They had no special interest in attributing the Katyn massacre at all to the Nazis. Quite the contrary, they had every reason to augment every bit of anti-Soviet/anti-Russian feeling among Poles. They had spent the whole of the war years wrangling with the Soviets trying to get the reactionary bourgeois Poles in exile a guaranteed leadership of the new Polish government after the war. The Western allies were not a little dismayed at the growth of communism throughout Europe. They were reluctant allies of the Soviet Union, and would soon initiate the Cold War and couldn't get enough communist horror stories to force feed their public. You say the Nuremburg judges failed to establish the Soviet Version, of the Katyn being a Nazi massacre. In fact, the Western Governments ordered their judges not to accept Soviet evidence, the judges already having read the Nazi's report and accepted it. The Soviet prosecutor had to drop the matter. There was also another fixed trial later, this time in Poland, which failed to convict accused Nazi commanders.

For every large-scale SS Einsatzgruppen or Wehrmacht massacre, post-war prosecutors managed to determine who the responsible commander was - but they didn't find a single German soldier that had participated in Katyn.The Soviets believed they had established Germans responsible, Colonol Arnes being one. The Polish tribunal wouldn't convict him.

Emphasis added by me. Why would Goebbels write this in his private diary? To convince himself of his own fabrications perhaps?So what you wanted Goebbels to write was, "The thousands of Polish POWS that we noble upright Germans criminally slaughtered like cattle and threw into mass graves like the barbarians we are, by executive order no.576 of the Fuhrer, that, we will now deceitfully, I mean untruthfully, which is to say dishonestly pretend to discover and announce (dishonestly), was an atrocity of the Soviets shall play for us a very useful role as false propaganda." Sorry, there's nothing there which leads to believe that Goebbels knew or believed that it wasn't the Germans that did it.

German ammunition was indeed found on location. Why do you think did this come as a surprise to Goebbels? Did the Wehrmacht secretely orchestrate the execution of 12,000 Polish 'intelligentsia' on their own account while the Nazi leadership was blissfully unaware of it? Highly unlikely.

But he didn't express surprise at the presence of German ammunition, he expressed disapointment at the discovery of it, presumably by investigators who would have shown it to the international surveyors flown into Katyn with such loud pomp.

[quote]
If Katyn was staged by the Nazis from beginning to end, including a posthumous faux-investigation carried out by Nazi 'investigators', why would they be so surprised to find some German ammunition here and there? Why would the 'investigators' deem their finding of German ammo newsworthy enough to report it back to the Nazi leadership?If the massacre was a Soviet massacre, why would Goebbels be so worried about the presence of German Ammunition?

One may suggest the Soviets deliberately used German ammo to leave a misleading trace - whether they thought as far ahead as to take into account potential future investigations (on territory that at the time was still theirs) is not it be ruled out entirely, but highly arguable. I think this is sufficiently ridiculous to pass by without comment.

More likely, the unit used German ammunition simply because that's what they had at their disposal. Import and export of ammunition is fairly common really, and German companies did trade with the USSR up until 1941.
If I could read Russian I could go into more detail here no doubt, all though I have no problem finding arcane anti-Soviet literature on Katyn. But this is the gist of it;

'Many bullet cases were found in the graves. These were primarily of a 7.65mm caliber, but there were also a few 6.35mm caliber and even fewer 9mm bullets. The inscription on the 7.65mm bullets were "Genshov and K", a German producer of cartridges known also as "Geko". So the bullets were produced in Germany! The question must than be asked, did the USSR make use of such weapons? Perhaps there was some export of 7.65mm cartridges to the USSR from Germany? The truth is the USSR made no use of any kind of gun with a 7.65mm caliber. The standard bullet size for Soviet pistols, including the TT, was 7.62mm. The USSR did make use of several types of guns with a 6.35mm caliber, but Germany also produced 59 types of pistols with a 6.35mm caliber. Also, USSR did not have a 9mm pistol until after the war, the Makarov pistol. Therefore, it is proven beyond a doubt that the executions were carried out with bullets produced in Germany and with guns which the Soviet Union did not posses. The only explanation is of course that these were carried out by the Germans. As for the German claim of having found bullet cases with Soviet inscriptions on them, this can only be propaganda since no producer, caliber or type of case was mentioned (on all Soviet cartridges the name of the factory of production is mentioned). '

But back to Goebbels. On 29 September 1943, he wrote in his diary:

"Unfortunately we have had to give up Katyn. The Bolsheviks undoubtedly will soon 'find' that we shot 12,000 Polish officers. That episode is one that is going to cause us quite a little trouble in the future. The Soviets are undoubtedly going to make it their business to discover as many mass graves as possible and then blame it on us."
Again, there's nothing at all here to suggest Goebbels believed it was really done by the Soviets.

Note the quotation marks around the word find.

Again, do you think Goebbels was some kind of schizophrenic who eventually came to believe his own propaganda? I don't know what you're reading into his remarks, but because he didn't start off every entry with an explicit description of German criminality doesn't exactly surprise me.

My problem is that all of these are very partisan writings published exclusively by folks such as The Stalin Society. Forgive me if I doubt their neutrality in regards to Stalin as much as you, quite rightly, doubt the neutrality of 'bourgeois historians'.Everybody is partisan, some are just more honest about it.

hardlinecommunist

29th March 2009, 18:59

Stalin was not a Fascist he was a Leninist Stalin was the one who put the ideas and thoughts of Lenin into pratice

Led Zeppelin

29th March 2009, 19:33

Tito killed absolutely no one. And those that he did kill were all fascists and reactionaries. But he killed no one.

Hmm, that seems like a contradiction...

Random Precision

29th March 2009, 21:47

Hmm, that seems like a contradiction...

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm.

Das war einmal

29th March 2009, 22:04

Tito killed absolutely no one. And those that he did kill were all fascists and reactionaries. But he killed no one. You've fallen victim to the lies of bourgeois historians - don't believe them! Tito himself sent a commission to Goli Otok to investigate the matter and arrived at the conclusion that he killed no one. Additionally, objective research proves that the bodies found in Goli Otik had been killed by Croatian fascists in WW2 - just check the text on the Tito Society website. Now who do you believe - the fascists perhaps?

Why are you being sarcastic? There is no need, I never said that the Gulag didnt exist. Besides that Tito got rid of thousands of Croatian fascists, which I think is a wonderful job considering nearly all of them got what they deserved. Only point I'd made is that Tito was just as ruthless and authoritarian as Stalin himself. Only I think Stalin did better in the long run cause he didnt collaborate with the west like Tito did. It had been better however if Tito allied himself with the Warsaw pact instead of collaborating with the west.

Cumannach

29th March 2009, 22:14

Tito killed absolutely no one...

Come on, you don't have to rely on straw man sarcasm to exculpate the Nazis do you? Just use your super 'objectivity' analysis. It'll be no problem for you, so pure and free from blinding partisanship, to prove the Nazis were right.

PeaderO'Donnell

29th March 2009, 22:35

Tito killed absolutely no one. And those that he did kill were all fascists and reactionaries. But he killed no one.

I cant believe you just wrote that.

Tito rounded up and massacred those who sided with Stalin.

(I have lived in former Yugoslav countries).

communard resolution

29th March 2009, 22:49

I cant believe you just wrote that.

Tito rounded up and massacred those who sided with Stalin.

(I have lived in former Yugoslav countries).

Dude, I was joking.

communard resolution

29th March 2009, 22:50

Hmm, that seems like a contradiction...

No shit, Sherlock!

communard resolution

29th March 2009, 22:55

Why are you being sarcastic? There is no need,

I apologise, Red Resistance, I couldn't resist. Furthermore, you don't deserve the sarcasm since you openly said you were still in the process of forming your opinon on Katyn (instead of just automatically toeing the party line). I respect that.

I suppose I didn't see what Tito had to do with this and decided to have my fun with it.

communard resolution

29th March 2009, 22:56

You say the Nuremburg judges failed to establish the Soviet Version, of the Katyn being a Nazi massacre. In fact, the Western Governments ordered their judges not to accept Soviet evidence, the judges already having read the Nazi's report and accepted it. The Soviet prosecutor had to drop the matter.

Other sources claim the Soviet 'evidence' was flimsy at best, and the case was dropped because it looked likely that embarrassing material incriminating the Soviets might emerge - and at that point, Winston and Franklin didn't wish to anger their ally Comrade Stalin too much.

It would be interesting to find out what actually happened. Are you aware of any primary sources, protocols, and the like? What exactly was the Soviet evidence, and what exactly was the defense the German lawyers had mounted?

The Soviets believed they had established Germans responsible, Colonol Arnes being one. The Polish tribunal wouldn't convict him.Why do you think that was? Because of the intense love the Poles famously felt for the Nazi invaders? Or just because there was no way to prove the Germans were responsible for Katyn?

The only "evidence" that Soviet prosecutor Pokrovsky initially produced was a report by the Soviet Extrordinary State Commission. When the judges insisted the Russian chief prosecutor Rudenko call witnesses and cross-examine them, Pokrovsky irritated the judges greatly by protesting against such measures and demanding the Soviet Extraordinary State Comission report be accepted as "irrefutable evidence"!

When finally Colonel Ahrens (rather than Arnes) did appear, his statements were rather counterproductive to Pokrovsky's cause (do I need to elaborate or do you already know?), so the Soviets veered away from their original line. All of a sudden, they claimed it was in fact an SS Einsatzgruppe rather than Ahrens's Staff Englineer Batalillon 537 (a Wehrmacht unit) responsible for the Katyn massacre - unfortunetely without producing any evidence.

The Soviets got off lightly having merely failed to prove their case: it was decided not to further investigate likely Soviet responsibility for the massacre.

So what you wanted Goebbels to write was, "The thousands of Polish POWS that we noble upright Germans criminally slaughtered like cattle and threw into mass graves like the barbarians we are, by executive order no.576 of the Fuhrer, that, we will now deceitfully, I mean untruthfully, which is to say dishonestly pretend to discover and announce (dishonestly), was an atrocity of the Soviets shall play for us a very useful role as false propaganda." Sorry, there's nothing there which leads to believe that Goebbels knew or believed that it wasn't the Germans that did it.Don't act stupid! Goebbels writes clearly that they (the Germans) found 12,000 bodies who were murdered by the GPU. It's not an official propaganda speech, it's his friggin' diary.

But he didn't express surprise at the presence of German ammunition, he expressed disapointment at the discovery of it, presumably by investigators who would have shown it to the international surveyors flown into Katyn with such loud pomp.If the whole thing was orchestrated by the Nazis, wouldn't the Nazis have been thourough enough to remove the ammunition?

I think this is sufficiently ridiculous to pass by without comment.Why, it's the oldest trick in the book. Had the Nazis commited the massacre with the intention of blaming the Soviets, they may have well used Soviet produced ammunition. But as I said in my previous post, whether the Soviets delibreately used German ammo is "highly arguable", so I don't really want to dwell on this too much.

Again, there's nothing at all here to suggest Goebbels believed it was really done by the Soviets.WHAT? He says the Soviets will no doubt soon 'find' 12,000 dead Poles and make it their business to blame this and other massacres on the Germans. He puts the word find in quotation marks. What does this imply to you?

Everybody is partisan, some are just more honest about itI guess it's good to be honest about something.

PS - I may not be able to reply to you for several days now as next week's rather work-intense for me.

communard resolution

29th March 2009, 23:47

Come on, you don't have to rely on straw man sarcasm to exculpate the Nazis do you? Just use your super 'objectivity' analysis. It'll be no problem for you, so pure and free from blinding partisanship, to prove the Nazis were right.

I was only joking, sunshine. I think I would prefer if you didn't always get so emotional. You were really doing well in your previous post. Now you're back in moralising/intimidation-attempt mode. I know you can do better than that.

Soviet

30th March 2009, 10:56

What's the quostion?At 1939 Poland was a fascist type state,it took part with Germany in occupation of Chekhoslovakia.During the WWII Red Army captived 60 000 Polish soldiers who fought in Nazy army.Even if 4 000 Polish fascists were shoot in Katyn by Soviets how can you using this fact prove that Stalin was fascist?By Trots logic those are fascists who kills fascists!No comment.

Red_Storm

30th March 2009, 11:13

Symantic masturbation. Stalin was a fascist, equal to or worse than Hitler.
Who do u belive are to judge the man who saved the world from hitlers grasp? The man who rose the Soviet union to a world power status?

Led Zeppelin

30th March 2009, 11:22

No shit, Sherlock!

No offense, but given the quality of some of your posts it didn't really surprise me that you would say something like that and mean it.

Next time it would be better if you add an emoticon. :)

Cumannach

30th March 2009, 13:26

I was only joking, sunshine. I think I would prefer if you didn't always get so emotional. You were really doing well in your previous post. Now you're back in moralising/intimidation-attempt mode. I know you can do better than that.

You're the one who came onto this thread crying anti-revisionists were Holocaust deniers and defenders of Auschwitz or some stupid shit. It's obvious who's the emotional moraliser.

AnthArmo

30th March 2009, 14:12

Stalinist's....can't even take a joke

Now to try and divert the topic back from this little tangent

Stalin was no fascist.
Wether you like hiim or not, there is one ver important element in fascism which si extremely anticommunis:

the element of corporatism, which states that Workers and capitalists should work together in "harmony" because they're all from the same nationality.

This nationalist and anti-communist element was certainly not shared by Stalin. There were still Capitalist's and Bosses in the Soviet Union. Workers still went to work everyday, hungry, cold, miserable, and having to answer to a worker to fill in their "Work Quotas". Yet they were asked to "collaborate" to fight the Nazi's. Just because I call myself an angel, but act like a pig, and look like a pig, doesen't make me an angel. Same case here.

I'm of the opinion that the Left needs to grow up on the Stalin issue, and stop feeding into the bourgeoisie propaganda machine that makes our shared communistic ideals intolerable to the mainstream. The Glenn Beck interview with Sam Web is a good example of this, as well as the amount of bickering we see between the Revisionist and Anti-Revisionist camps. No, he wasn't a damn fascist. His face was on every fascist's little dart-board. He threatened capitalism, not fought to defend it. Threads like these are cliche and counter productive, and if shoveling shit on the legacy of Joseph Stalin helps you reconcile your communist tendency with mainstream society's idea about your political tendency, then so be it, but realize that this is your motivation, and that you are doing absolutely NOTHING to advance our collective cause in doing this crap. So what do you expect us to do? ignore him? Defend him? This is a man that single handedly undid the entire people's movement in russia and reversed all the gains made by the working class in Russia. Created a Fascist and brutal regime, called it "Socialism", then proceeded to aid the fascist parties of europe by undermining the anarchist forces in spain and convincing Communist parties to "leave fascists alone".

This is the Man that took the entire socialist movement, and gave the workers of the world the impression that Socialism is synonymous with all their working rights being taken from them and being forced to serve "The Motherland" while they had no say in their economy, the precise opposite of Socialism.

How on earth can you honestly expect our views to be excepted when we are still being associated with this Fascist? it is precisely this why I refuse to let up on the Stalin issue.

hugsandmarxism

30th March 2009, 14:29

(same song, predictable tenor)

I don't agree with a good deal of this, but rather than delve into it and feed into the crap debate I'm fighting against, I'll answer thusly:

To the question of "What do I expect you to do?" I answer gain a better understanding of fascism, read beyond your typical tendency's literature, and decide which you'd rather do: hamstring the political left by keeping this crap up and isolating marxist-lenninists who express a contrary opinion to the typical Anarchist/Trotskyist/Left-Communist view on this guy who died 50 years ago, or choose not to. I'm not one to judge any leftist on their political tendency, and I don't think you should either. We on the left are isolated enough as it is without this kind of bickering. It helps no one, except for the capitalists, who would rather we be having an angry circle-jerk over what's already come and gone than coming to gether and throwing the piggies out on their rich asses. Seriously. Weigh it.

Cumannach

30th March 2009, 14:32

Other sources claim the Soviet 'evidence' was flimsy at best, and the case was dropped because it looked likely that embarrassing material incriminating the Soviets might emerge - and at that point, Winston and Franklin didn't wish to anger their ally Comrade Stalin too much.

It would be interesting to find out what actually happened. Are you aware of any primary sources, protocols, and the like? What exactly was the Soviet evidence, and what exactly was the defense the German lawyers had mounted?

The whole Nuremburg trial proceedings are available online:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp
including the testimonies of Ahren and all the other Katyn material. Here is Ahren's for example, complete with mass corpse sniffing wolf; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/07-01-46.asp

Why do you think that was? Because of the intense love the Poles famously felt for the Nazi invaders? Or just because there was no way to prove the Germans were responsible for Katyn?It's a recurring theme of the War, the Poles deciding they hate the Germans slightly less than the Russians, the Germans no matter how murderous were after all, in the end, not communists. Indeed if the Poles had agreed to the joint defensive plan with the Soviets against the Germans in the first place there might never have been a Second World War.

The only "evidence" that Soviet prosecutor Pokrovsky initially produced was a report by the Soviet Extrordinary State Commission. When the judges insisted the Russian chief prosecutor Rudenko call witnesses and cross-examine them, Pokrovsky irritated the judges greatly by protesting against such measures and demanding the Soviet Extraordinary State Comission report be accepted as "irrefutable evidence"!
You can read the proceedings yourself in the links above and see who was really being unreasonable.

If the whole thing was orchestrated by the Nazis, wouldn't the Nazis have been thourough enough to remove the ammunition?I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the first time someone failed to properly cover up their crime.

Why, it's the oldest trick in the book. Had the Nazis commited the massacre with the intention of blaming the Soviets, they may have well used Soviet produced ammunition. But as I said in my previous post, whether the Soviets delibreately used German ammo is "highly arguable", so I don't really want to dwell on this too much.So the Soviets dragged the Polish officers all the way up to Smolensk, executed them using German ammunition (from guns they didn't even use- but leaving that aside), all in anticipation that when the Germans finally attacked, which at that stage could have been several more years for all anyone knew, they would definitely be able to completely destroy the Soviet Armies at the first Front and occupy Russia all the way up to Smolensk? And then, once their attack had been absorbed and repulsed and the millions upon millions of soviets lost they could reclaim the land and announce that the Nazis were murderers? Talk about planning!

WHAT? He says the Soviets will no doubt soon 'find' 12,000 dead Poles and make it their business to blame this and other massacres on the Germans. He puts the word find in quotation marks. What does this imply to you?Yeah they did 'find' it, and investigated, established and broadcast the findings far and wide, as the Nazis had. I think people can judge for themselves on Goebbels own words, but again, why was Goebbels perturbed by the German ammunition? If there was a rational honest explanation for it, why the dissapointment, the concern. Why the need for top secrecy?

communard resolution

31st March 2009, 00:26

No offense, but given the quality of some of your posts it didn't really surprise me that you would say something like that and mean it.

I'd love to return the insult, but although you post in a million threads, I don't actually remember a single one of your posts. Maybe they just aren't very interesting? I don't agree with a word Cummanach says, but I can't say he's boring. :tt2:

Seriously though, Zep, that was unnecessary. You're just a bit miffed about the 'no shit Sherlock' remark.

Next time it would be better if you add an emoticonWill do Zep, especially for you. I've already started.

communard resolution

31st March 2009, 00:29

You're the one who came onto this thread crying anti-revisionists were Holocaust deniers and defenders of Auschwitz or some stupid shit. It's obvious who's the emotional moraliser.

This is not at all what I said, Cummanach, and you know it.

I'll reply to your longer post when I find some time on the weekend.

AnthArmo

31st March 2009, 08:04

I don't agree with a good deal of this, but rather than delve into it and feed into the crap debate I'm fighting against, I'll answer thusly:

To the question of "What do I expect you to do?" I answer gain a better understanding of fascism, read beyond your typical tendency's literature, and decide which you'd rather do: hamstring the political left by keeping this crap up and isolating marxist-lenninists who express a contrary opinion to the typical Anarchist/Trotskyist/Left-Communist view on this guy who died 50 years ago, or choose not to. I'm not one to judge any leftist on their political tendency, and I don't think you should either. We on the left are isolated enough as it is without this kind of bickering. It helps no one, except for the capitalists, who would rather we be having an angry circle-jerk over what's already come and gone than coming to gether and throwing the piggies out on their rich asses. Seriously. Weigh it.

Eh, you make a point. I'm not saying we should concentrate all our resources on defaming Stalin, that would be a pointless waste of time. I'm just saying that thanks to Stalin, the entire Socialist movement has become synonymous to fascism. And if someone asks me "what about Stalin" then I'm going to say without hesitation that he was a Fascist sociopath who took advantage of the Marxist movement for his own ends.

And I'm perfectly aware of what Fascism is. And as far as I'm concerned Stalin ticks all the boxes. He purged political dissidents and Communists (in this case the old Bolsheviks). And I don't really see much of a distinction in this case between "private" and "public" sector. the important thing was that nobody had a say in anything, they all went to work to a manager or a boss and had to fill in work quota's.

Rosa Provokateur

31st March 2009, 15:26

Thats after they tried to export the revolution, which failed, so they had no real other choice. Despite that however, the Soviet Union did send aid to fight fascism in Spain.

By that time Russia and Germany were at war, he had to if he expected to keep any international support. Trotsky critiqued it a bit but I cant remember what exactly he said.

Louis Pio

31st March 2009, 23:35

Well the quite meager aid USSR under Stalin send to Spain, came with a heavy price. The revolutionary struggle was stopped by the GPU and as a result alot of the popular support for the republic faded.

ComradeOm

31st March 2009, 23:51

Well the quite meager aid USSR under Stalin send to Spain, came with a heavy priceThe Soviets could demand such a price because the Republic had no alternative. Over 300 Soviet tanks were supplied to the Popular Army and this "meagre aid" is more than the total number of tanks sent to the Nationalists by Germany and Italy combined. Crucially, in the absence of France and Britain there were very few other nations supplying advanced modern equipment such as these

Louis Pio

1st April 2009, 00:06

The war couldn't be won with weapons alone.
The political demand from the soviet union of a big alliance with the bourgious part of the republican leadership meant lower fighting spirit from the rank and file who were just ordinary peasants and workers.
Franco exploited that quite well with slogans such as "what have the republic done for you?". Also the demand from the bourgious forces that Spain should keep it's colonies, and most notably a part of marrocco. Meant that Franco had a good suply of fresh fighting forces from those parts. He wouldn't have been able to rely on that if the republic had granted the colonies their freedom.

The Author

9th April 2009, 02:51

Stalinist's....can't even take a joke

You're not funny, that's the problem. You got to learn how to work on your humor.

There were still Capitalist's and Bosses in the Soviet Union. Workers still went to work everyday, hungry, cold, miserable, and having to answer to a worker to fill in their "Work Quotas". Yet they were asked to "collaborate" to fight the Nazi's. Just because I call myself an angel, but act like a pig, and look like a pig, doesen't make me an angel. Same case here.How about some real evidence to back that up? I might pay a little bit of attention if you sourced documentation of some kind or good sources. But if you're just another soapbox preacher trying to give out propaganda to the masses, then there's no point in further discussion with you, now is there?

I mean, you already formed a notion about Stalin based not on "facts," but on opinion. That's a very big difference. Too many "leftists" have tried stating their opinions as "facts." It's time to stop thinking opinions are "facts" and start thinking about doing a little more serious research. Wouldn't you agree?

Black Dagger

23rd April 2009, 05:24

Moved to Learning.

rararoadrunner

24th April 2009, 10:15

OK, comrades, let's see if we can press the analysis somewhat, rather than being stuck on this or this misdeed of Stalin.

If you look at the postings on state capitalism, you will find a lot of good discussion there: in my last contribution, I try to bring it to bear on the topic of Stalinism as fascism:

...as Lenin enumerated, we have, during the revolutioary process, privately-owned capitalism, state capitalism, and socialism competing against one-another: if we accept this taxonomy, however, we see clearly that state-capitalism is neither merely "capitalism regulated by a socialist government," nor socialism: this leaves state-sponsored capitalism as the only entity which isn't assimilated to the entities before (private-property capitalism) and after it (socialism).

As long as this state-capitalism is held accountable to the working class as a whole, they're in a position to thwart any moves by it to act against their class-interests...

...However, what if the working class loses control of this state-capitalism to this or that party, faction, etc.?

Uh-oh! Now we have the power of the state married to the unaccountability of capitalist enterprise to anyone other than its shareholders: even though Mussoulini may not have actually opined that this was the essence of the political economy of fascism (the provenence of the infamous quote is in dispute), nevertheless this marriage has been widely accepted, including among students of scientific socialism, as constituting the kernel of fascist political economy: state power married to corporate unaccountability.

This is the essence of my assertion that Stalin completed the process of transition, not to socialism, but to fascism in the USSR: his Soviet Union married State power to corporate unaccountability, and was hence an antithesis to socialism, rather than its realisation.

Hope this helps.

Back to you, comrades!