Thread: Pro or Anti Stalin

i am taking a Russian History class this semester, and we had a pro/antt-Stalin debate the other day. I had been told for so long that Stalin was bad, that I was surprised that there was such a pro-Stalinist argument.

Basically, the sides were the damage he did by terrorrizing, starving, and murdering the people vs. the industrial improvements and WWII victories. I know my opinion on this argument (the first one, of course) but it left me wondering what most Russians today think about Stalin.

My friend, who is actually a great nationalist, thinks that the one of most important thing is that in order to get more power Stalin killed most of the old bolshevik scum, left from 1920-s, and stopped more revolution, thus providing more stability in society. In 1917-1920 they (bolsheviks) killed other people, in 1930-s they started to kill themselves. Although Stalin himself was an old bolshevik scum and not many people justify him.

I believe the inhabitants of Volgograd wanted to change the name of their city back to Stalingrad some years ago... Says enough, really.

Jasper, that doesn't necessarily mean they love Stalin so much. Stalingrad is also the name of the city that heroically fought off the Germans. When Leningrad chose to become St. Petersburg again, many people were against it, because Leningrad was the city that was nearly starved to death by the Germans, but had stood firm and had prevailed.

I am anti-Stalin. He killed too many people (the vast majority of them without any reason whatsoever) to be loved by me. He did some good for the nation, but the death and destruction he caused weigh far heavier for me.

I've read so many history books that all give different estimates of how many people he killed in his purges - estimates between 2 and 7 million. Some people say that it was excusable because the industry he developed by urbanizing Russia and forcing work in the Gulags allowed the Soviet army to be prepared enough to fight off Hitler, and provide a framework for a strong economy. His constitution also set the same basic rights as we had in America at that time, and sometimes even more (expecially for women).

(Just a little tidbit to see if anyone will take a pro-Stalinist side)

Originally Posted by emka71aln

I've read so many history books that all give different estimates of how many people he killed in his purges - estimates between 2 and 7 million.

Strange books you read. It's MUCH more! Only in the artificially created Ukrainian famine millions died!

Some people say that it was excusable because the industry he developed by urbanizing Russia and forcing work in the Gulags allowed the Soviet army to be prepared enough to fight off Hitler, and provide a framework for a strong economy. His constitution also set the same basic rights as we had in America at that time, and sometimes even more (expecially for women).

(Just a little tidbit to see if anyone will take a pro-Stalinist side)

Well, about industrialization: you've got a point there. The USSR did reap great benefits of this in their war with Hitler. However, this came at huge costs in human lives and a lesser pace also would have been possible. Besides, Stalin made so many mistakes in the years before the war (purging large numbers of Soviet officers, placing the Soviet forces in the wrong place, destroying fortifications) that the positive benefits of the industrialization program were nullified to some extend.

Also, let's not forget that Stalin was in a way responsible for Hitler becoming Fuehrer of Germany. He forbid the German Communists to form an alliance with the Social Democrats against Nazism. Instead, he gave them orders to fight the Soc Dems and let Hitler be; he would only be a temporary phenomenon. This way he weakened the anti-Hitler forces in Germany and the rest, as they say, is history.

And about the constitution: that's a joke. According to that constitution Soviet citizens lived in a virtual paradise. Everyone knows that the reality was not *exactly* like that.

I've seen estimates between 20 and 50 million... Which isn't excusable.

Originally Posted by emka71aln

Just a little tidbit to see if anyone will take a pro-Stalinist side

If you would like, I am a pro-Stalinist. About people killed, I've seen a number of 2 million people. 7 million is just funny. It's more like overestimated bs by Krushёv, which then was overestimated by other idiots. Nobody proved that. Last archive researches have discovered only 400 000. By the way Stalin didn't kill ordinary people. They were killed by people from high police management. I guess now only Stalin can answer why he didn't prevent it but you know how many officers he changed there.

Yozh, you are so smart guy; you know how to position military forces and fortifications and how to choose friends in a foreign government; I would like you to be my President.

Originally Posted by Tu-160

By the way Stalin didn't kill ordinary people. They were killed by people from high police management.

No, he didn't directly kill any ordinary people. But he did worsen (some say cause, but that's bs) the famine in the Ukraine by taking ALL of the crops harvested. This left ordinary people with nothing to eat and nothing to plant with, nothing to feed their livestock (what was left after they had to eat the livestock). He also weakened the military by killing some of the best Generals in operation, so there was very little experienced leadership left during World War II.

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

And about the constitution: that's a joke.

Yes, it is. Actually, it only applied to those citizens with passports (about 10%) and only when the government felt like enforcing it. But, for those people at those times, what a life!!


BTW, are we allowed to elect him as our president? Cause, I'd vote for Yozh. He's smart - is there a rule against a smart president?

Originally Posted by emka71aln

Originally Posted by Tu-160

By the way Stalin didn't kill ordinary people. They were killed by people from high police management.

No, he didn't directly kill any ordinary people. But he did worsen (some say cause, but that's bs) the famine in the Ukraine by taking ALL of the crops harvested. This left ordinary people with nothing to eat and nothing to plant with, nothing to feed their livestock (what was left after they had to eat the livestock).

Right. The story as relayed by comrade Хрущёв. Would you care to inquire _who_ was (the top guy) in _charge_ of the Socialist Republic of Ukraine when that famine happened? Just for fun, eh?

He also weakened the military by killing some of the best Generals in operation, so there was very little experienced leadership left during World War II.

The best generals in operation... in what operation please? Certainly not in WWII since they had been executed by evil Stalin. That at Manchuria? But it was comrade Жуков who actually made it is success. Was he killed afterwards? At the Finnish war? Comrade general Тимошенко? Dead too?

Then must be those commanders of the Red Army at the Civil War. Будённый, Ворошилов... that must have been their ghosts who then were in charge of pretty much everything military. Oh, you surely mean Тухачевски, right? I mean the guy who entered Poland with odds heavily in his favour, and then his forces were magically disintegrated. A very capable general, indeed. The creator of the brilliant "wide front attack" idea, that he so successfully field-tested in Poland that he went on indoctrinating it into the young commanders in his Academy...

Actually, it only applied to those citizens with passports (about 10%)

I'd very much like to see any evidence that supports that figure.

1. Saying that it's ok to kill a few million people for the sake of rapid industrialization and recovery of economic power is a good defense of not only Stalin, but also Adolf Hitler. He did the exact same thing in Germany only his economic policy wasn't as brutal. Think about that before defending him. To give discredit where discredit is due, most of the deaths and imprisonments under Stalin were at the hands of Beria--but close to 200,000 death warrants carry Stalin's personal sign-off. His early medical records also showed he suffered from severe paranoia and mental health problems (of course the doctor who gave him this diagnosis early in the 1920s had a fatal "accident" hours later).

2. To say the constitution of the Soviets was nothing like how it was under Lenin and Stalin is to forget that most of the scope of the constitution existed before the Bolsheviks came into power. In the pre-counterrevolution days the free soviets and trade unions worked exactly as they were described in these documents (excluding the decisions pertinent to the Provisional Government, which were largely ignored), but because they failed to elect (or reelect) the Bolshevik party candidates the latter decided it wasn't enough to rely on parliamentarism to come to power and instead resorted to military seizure. Or as Lenin put it, "The elective principle must now be replaced by the principle of selection." It wasn't until the Civil War when Lenin had the free soviets abolished, Trotsky liquidated all oppositional political parties and labor strikers, and the Communist Party rejected all trade union elected representives that did not meet its approval that the USSR's constitution became something of a cruel joke. As Stalin said in The Party Before and After Taking Power, in a rather Orwellian way, "From a party of revolution within Russia, the Russian Communist Party has been transformed into a party of peaceful construction. That is why it has removed from the arsenal of the proletariat such forms of struggle as strikes and insurrection, which are now unnecessary in Russia." He goes on to say:

That is why the Party, which has overthrown the bourgeoisie in our country and has raised the banner of the proletarian revolution, nevertheless considers it expedient to "untie" small production and small industry in our country, to permit the partial revival of capitalism, although making it dependent upon the state authority, to attract leaseholders and shareholders, etc., etc., until the Party's policy of "doing the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries " produces real results.

Such are the distinctive conditions, favourable and unfavourable, that were created by October 1917, and in which our Party is operating and developing in the third period of its existence.

3. The only somewhat positive thing I can say about Stalin is that his books make for a fucking hilarious read. The only thing in "Anarchism or Socialism?" that isn't completely based on flawed logic or straw man arguments (such as his argument against anarchism's ignoring the necessity of industrialization by quoting ONE person--the communalist Kropotkin--who was against it and ignoring the more widespread urban tendencies of Bakunin, Goldman, Berkman, the Slavic platformists like Arshinov and Makhno, etc.) is when he confesses the classic philosophy of Marx and Engels that "[w]here there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power." It's too bad in the USSR there were classes as well as rich and poor. Stalin might've accidentally done everyone a favor and got rid of himself had he obeyed Marxist dogma.

* Spelling errors were fixed.

Originally Posted by Tu-160

Originally Posted by emka71aln

Just a little tidbit to see if anyone will take a pro-Stalinist side

If you would like, I am a pro-Stalinist. About people killed, I've seen a number of 2 million people. 7 million is just funny. It's more like overestimated bs by Krushёv, which then was overestimated by other idiots. Nobody proved that. Last archive researches have discovered only 400 000. By the way Stalin didn't kill ordinary people. They were killed by people from high police management.

Your naivity makes me laugh... It also makes me sad...

Yozh, you are so smart guy; you know how to position military forces and fortifications and how to choose friends in a foreign government; I would like you to be my President.

Well, I might listen to my generals who do know how to do such things... And about "friends in foreign governments": Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf" in 1923!!! In it, he said he wanted to invade the USSR, destroy the state and enslave it's people. I'd say Stalin could have known what kind of person the man was...

Can't be your President, I'm not born in Russia. Too bad, would have done your country some good!

[quote=Gollandski Yozh]

Originally Posted by "Tu-160":2csi8vzo

Originally Posted by emka71aln

Just a little tidbit to see if anyone will take a pro-Stalinist side

If you would like, I am a pro-Stalinist. About people killed, I've seen a number of 2 million people. 7 million is just funny. It's more like overestimated bs by Krushёv, which then was overestimated by other idiots. Nobody proved that. Last archive researches have discovered only 400 000. By the way Stalin didn't kill ordinary people. They were killed by people from high police management.

Your naivity makes me laugh... It also makes me sad...

Yozh, you are so smart guy; you know how to position military forces and fortifications and how to choose friends in a foreign government; I would like you to be my President.

Well, I might listen to my generals who do know how to do such things... And about "friends in foreign governments": Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf" in 1923!!! In it, he said he wanted to invade the USSR, destroy the state and enslave it's people. I'd say Stalin could have known what kind of person the man was...

Can't be your President, I'm not born in Russia. Too bad, would have done your country some good! [/quote:2csi8vzo]

You forget that Stalin tried to broker an alliance with England and France in the 30s against Germany, but was rejected. It is safe to say he did know what was going to happen to Russia once the German momentum began.

But that was already after Hitler had come to power. Before that, Germany and the USSR were working closely together in military matters.

But that was already after Hitler had come to power. Before that, Germany and the USSR were working closely together in military matters.

Yes.....because neither Germany nor the USSR wanted a war to break out while both were so bankrupted and unprepared for it as well as desiring to fortify their post-WWI territories and secure peace agreements with neighboring states. Also, during the 1920s Germany seemed "primed" for a Communist revolution. I'm sure Stalin did not want to jeopardize this from happening by undermining Weimar's silent tolerance for the popular Communist Party and allying with the bourgeois reformist government of the Social Democrats, especially when the Nazis never had more than 3% of the national vote until the 30s and thus were not considered much of a threat (he also had no way of knowing Hitler would manipulate his way into power through force and intimidation and establish a dictatorship in place of the republic). It is easy to say "he shouldn't have taken Hitler so lightly" considering all of the atrocities he committed. But, as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

No matter how "small" Hitler seemed to be, he was the man who had vowed to destroy Communism and it's homeland - the USSR. That's like the Americans supporting Bin Laden!


Oh, wait...

Read this if you want to learn other side of story:

http://www.x-libri.ru/elib/smi__958/00000001.htm

It's about so-called Stalin's purges, constitution etc
All the more reason to learn Russian

Read Volkogonov...

And I already know how to read in Russian. I read Volkogonov in Russian, Zhukov's memoirs, Rokossovsky's memoirs etc.

Your "so-called" disgusts me. It's like saying the Holocaust never happened.

You can believe what you wanna believe, but Stalinism=fascism, no matter how you look at it...

Volkogonov is biased.
Zhukov had the reason to hate Stalin.
Rokossovsky wrote abt Stalin in high terms.

And I don't know what Stalinism is. What do you understand by this?Fascism is ideology. Is Stalinism ideology? Never heard that Stalin invented new one.

Originally Posted by N

Volkogonov is biased.

And someone supporting Stalin isn't? Yeah, right....

Let me guess, Volkogonov is biased because he writes about Stalin in a negative way? So, if I were to write bad, bad things about Hitler, does that make me biased?

Zhukov had the reason to hate Stalin.
Rokossovsky wrote abt Stalin in high terms.

The examples I gave about Zhukov and Rokossovsky were to show you that I don't need to learn Russian to read the link you posted. I've read better in Russian, thank you very much. Also a fair deal of stalinist propaganda BS, don't need to read more about that.

And I don't know what Stalinism is. What do you understand by this?Fascism is ideology. Is Stalinism ideology? Never heard that Stalin invented new one.

Stalinism is commonly used to describe the form of Communism Stalin created in the USSR: rapid industrialization at a high price, collectivization, strict control over the state by one man etc.

Well, you believe what you want to believe. No matter what I say, you won't be convinced. It's like explaining to a Nazi that black people aren't inferior. No change in hell you'll get through...