Thread: Pro or Anti Stalin

Originally Posted by ronnoc37

I believe

You needn'd say more.

Originally Posted by ronnoc37

you offer

What you and the likes of you have to offer always boils down to "Stalin is bad because Stalin is bad by definition". All your sources are nothing but quotation from speeches and prose by very imaginative authors, never a quote from a verifiable document. When you are given those verifiable documents, as in works by Zemskov, you ignore them. Stalin is bad by definition. Well, keep on repeating that mantra.

Thank you so very, very much for allowing one such as me the freedom of thought. You are extremely generous.

I wish you could be so generous as to allow yourself the freedom of thought.

Seeing everything as black&white results in impossibility to analyze complicated fenomenas (like Stalin's rule in this particular case). Sometimes I think it's general western problem - they can't consider something simultaneously good&evil or neither good, nor evil - only plain good or plain evil, only balck or white instead of different grades of gray.

Originally Posted by Alex_Ivanov

Seeing everything as black&white results in impossibility to analyze complicated fenomenas (like Stalin's rule in this particular case). Sometimes I think it's general western problem - they can't consider something simultaneously good&evil or neither good, nor evil - only plain good or plain evil, only balck or white instead of different grades of gray.

black+white=gray

i don't think it's necessarily a western thing
-nor a western problem--no one wants to admit a shortcoming --or admit stubbornness

it's perception of an individual, shaped by culture, etc... not only "western"
but, using if-then:

IF black+white=gray
THEN grey-black=white
and THEN grey-white=black

it may appear gray, but it's still "black" and "white".
if stalin's rule was good,then it was not evil
and IF stalin's rule was evil, THEN it was not good. When you mix up good and evil, and say stalin can be both, you get...gray.

no consistency

Actually, to me, it seems MUCH easier to analyze the obvious..the black and the white...before diving into the gray, and sorting it out there. and, so, thank you for bringin that up, alex, that it is now impossible to thoroughly analyze such things as stalin's rule. but i don't think that's going to be solved by seeing things as neutral or "gray". that's being purposely blind to the truth of good and bad. our own perspectives are so limited. we all have our prejudices. pretending we know what we don't. and carrying on about what little we do (or think we do?) pointlessness, seemingly

thankfully, most are capable of seeing in color (even those of us in the west )

Originally Posted by Nova

black+white=gray

i don't think it's necessarily a western thing
-nor a western problem--no one wants to admit a shortcoming --or admit stubbornness

it's perception of an individual, shaped by culture, etc... not only "western"
but, using if-then:

IF black+white=gray
THEN grey-black=white
and THEN grey-white=black

it may appear gray, but it's still "black" and "white".

I got your point. If we take Stalin, Hitler, or anyone else, we can draw two columns ("plus" and "minus") and no one of these columns would stay empty. It's clear. But, the question is: what conclusion should we make? Good or evil? Black or white?
You wrote also:

thank you for bringin that up, alex, that it is now impossible to thoroughly analyze such things as stalin's rule. but i don't think that's going to be solved by seeing things as neutral or "gray". that's being purposely blind to the truth of good and bad.

That's it! If we don't want to be blind to truth, our final conclusion can't be neither "good" nor "evil". In the first case we're blind to the truth of bad, in the other case we're blind to the truth of good. For example, ask "anti-Stalinists" at this forum to point out bad sides of Stalin - they would give you a long list. Ask them to point out his good sides - they would give you none. They're blind. Also, there're Stalin's fans, of course. They're blind too. That what my previous post was about.

I have read all posts on this and find the discussion to be very interesting. Not so because it contains any revelations about Stalin. Stalin is dead as is his era. What is interesting to me here is the number of posts that seem to defend him. I have read extensively about him and his era. My opinion is that there is little to admire about him. Any so-called good he might have done was accomplished at a terrible cost to Russian people. It would not have been 'easy' for another leader to, for example, industrialize Russia, but another could have accomplished same thing somewhat easier.
There are some matters to which a philosophically balanced attitude is too meek. Stalin is one of them.
Another thing I would like to state. The Russian historians who have tried, in recent years, to paint a somewhat rehabilitative gloss upon the wreckage of Stalin, and who use what they have called 'truthful documents' have probably, in reality, worked with documents that are very much censored. For what reason should the rulers of Russia have for real statistics to be revealed? Besides, many of these historians are working toward a pre-conceived thesis. They wish to 'reform' Stalin, and then go on to find 'facts' to support their already formed opinions. Even so, it remains very difficult to draw Stalin as a hero. I would repeat what others have here said, he was a murderer, a very vile man.
One of the best portraits of Stalin was in a book made from notes by Nikita Khrushchev, called "Khrushchev Remembers". I have it, but it may well be out of print now.

It is remarkable that you find the best portrait of Stalin in a book written by the person who started all those fabrications on Stalin, which was the foundation of his political success.

If you find any posts defending Stalin in this thread, then you should take a few lessons in English. Half the posts in this thread accuse Stalin in all kinds of nonsense (refer to your post for an example), and another half merely requests any evidence to support these accusation. None has been provided so far. Would you be willing to correct this unhappy discrepancy?

Now, your claim "many of these historians are working toward a pre-conceived thesis". It equally (to put it mildly) applies to the kind of prose that you seem to adore. Except that you do not find any facts in that prose.

When I see somebody talking about "censored statistics". I want to ask: Is it you, who has real figures and knows the truth?

No, I do not hold 'truth' in my own two hands.
But, tell me please, why would you trust numbers that are controlled by bureaucracies that grew out of the old cheka? Or are you suggesting that the old KGB and NKVD grew into entirely different organs which have honestly changed their ways and have now become honest, willing to throw open their windows and allow the whole world to look in?
You would admit the difficulties that historians find, even in so-called democratic countries, when investigating the past (not to mention the present) crimes of government.
But Russian government is now open and honest? No. You cannot be naive enough to argue that point. Even though Russia is no longer communist, the same mind-set rules their bureaucracies. I am from Russia and you live there. We both know the arrogance that still exists. Many Russians want to put Stalin's times away in a box so they can be forgotten. I umderstand their attitude (though I do not agree with it). But do not try suggesting that the present Russian government allows everything to now be in the open.
Now, to Mr. Bad Manners.
My English is good enough. Stalin has been defended here. In your posts you have shown a great fondness for angry invective. Invariably, this is a good sign that your own arguments are not as strong as you might wish. You write, "PROVE IT! PROVE IT!", and when someone offers you sources you insult the sources. You call them biased, out-of-date, innacurate. You are like one who might ask for proof for the existence of the Eiffel tower. What proof can be sufficient for one whose brain is concrete? You may now insult me. You will prove to me only that you have very bad manners.

If you find any posts defending Stalin in this thread, then you should take a few lessons in English. Half the posts in this thread accuse Stalin in all kinds of nonsense (refer to your post for an example), and another half merely requests any evidence to support these accusation. None has been provided so far. Would you be willing to correct this unhappy discrepancy?

Plenty has been provided, you just claimed ( without any backing or references ) that it's false.

I have asked you on a number of occasions to back your own claims up, and you never once did ( except on one instance in the gun thread.
I agree, that I don't recall you defending Stalin in blunt terms ( only calling anything against him "rubbish."
Perhaps actually backing it up as "rubbish" ( therefore, defending Stalin ) is a line you are unwilling to cross.

As for another point, I know of very few dictators throughout history who didn't do some good. A good leader is someone who does allot of good and very little bad. Stalin in truth did a great deal of both, but still far to much bad to be outweighed.
Stalin is not alone. Vlad the Impaler defeated the Turkish empire and opened the door for Romania to become an independent country, Ganges Kahn in many ways was arguably a good guy in essence, who brought his people to peace with eachother and sought to overthrow China, not out of greed but out of personal dispute between Mongolia and China and if it weren't for the total destruction of Kwarazm, he would probably be considered a hero by the common view today.
He also let his people be as long as they didn't cause trouble and was very protective of women.
Saddam Hussein helped the US in the conflict against Iran, made a large contribution to archeological research and revived Iraq's industry to what is starting to look like a very good future for the Iraqis, which probably never would have happened had he gone in to power.
Even Osama Bin Laden made some positive contributions to society at one time.
Like the above, Stalin did accomplish some good during his reign,but it didn't outweigh his evils.

Originally Posted by NatashaVB

But, tell me please, why would you trust numbers that are controlled by bureaucracies that grew out of the old cheka?

Does that mean I should trust the numbers that are invented? Hello?

Or are you suggesting that the old KGB and NKVD grew into entirely different organs which have honestly changed their ways and have now become honest, willing to throw open their windows and allow the whole world to look in?

Both KGB and NKVD kept records. Their archives are open now. Those who have been in those archives have published their findings. These findings indicate that most of the "traditional" stuff we hear about Stalin, 1937, etc is nothing but rubbish. Now, with your good English, repeat after me: Rubb-ish. Rubb-ish. Rubbish.

But Russian government is now open and honest? No.

You're pathetic. I am not even asking you to prove that.

I am only asking you to explain why that would bear any significance on the accuracy of the archived NKVD/KGB data.

You cannot be naive enough to argue that point.

I do not want to argue that point. I simply reject it. It is as honest as any other government.

I am from Russia and you live there.

Why is it so customary for you to invent things?

In your posts you have shown a great fondness for angry invective. Invariably, this is a good sign that your own arguments are not as strong as you might wish.

No, this is a sign that I am getting fed up with brainwashed idiots.

You write, "PROVE IT! PROVE IT!"

Yeah, exactly. Please do.

and when someone offers you sources you insult the sources. You call them biased, out-of-date, innacurate.

Show me one example of that. Please pretty please.

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

Plenty has been provided, you just claimed ( without any backing or references ) that it's false.

I remember your sources. Some Canadian tabloid and an obscure web site. I did not even say they were false. I indicated that those sources were simply irrelevant.

I have asked you on a number of occasions to back your own claims up, and you never once did

What claims? I am not making any claims here. I just keep on asking you "please prove your insinuations". And then I hear "no, you prove that Stalin was good." Yeah, right.

I agree, that I don't recall you defending Stalin in blunt terms ( only calling anything against him "rubbish."
Perhaps actually backing it up as "rubbish" ( therefore, defending Stalin ) is a line you are unwilling to cross.

Ah, so sorry. My vocabulary is so limited. So perhaps you would educate me. What word would you use to refer to outlandish accusations not based on any verifiable data?

Stalin was a back stabbing paranoid thug, who murdered over 20 million soviets, which was only second in history to what Hitler did to the same poor Soviets 28 million dead, in other words he was almost as bad to his people as the most violent invasion and war in history was to them, i.e. The eatern Front 1941-45.

All of his five year plans literally cost millions and millions of lives, being 20 minutes late to work was at least a 1 year in the gulag in some places, he made life a living hell, who was that famous boy who turned his family in for stealing grain, and Stalin had a statue made for him after he was killed by the townspeople. imagine being scared of your own children, talk about police state. Stalinism is just a cult of mindlessness.

Stop smoking that shit and start reading books. Practice your grammar, too.

Jesus we got a very sensitive one in here! first that shit I'm smoking is Kine bud....yeah the good stuff. second I read alot...you know playboy, penthouse, anything with more pictures than words...ah duh duh, Stalin is great, duh, duh, I am a moron who argues agianst reality just to feel special, ahhhh. burp@$*

Originally Posted by smithnweson

I am a moron

Precisely.

Ah, isn't consensus wonderful?

I feel bad for alot of Ruskies because there was some poll done recently and huge number of people thought Stalin would be a great leader even today, and that they would elect him. The Soviet state of mind is realy an amazing bit of psychology/scoiology, talk about pulling the wool over the sheeps eyes. Stalin was horrible and yet even here people defend him, tell that to all your dead comrades and familys that no longer exist because of him, he must have killed most of the intelligent people off. I guess if you kill everyone who dislikes you, no one will ever know you were disliked. In all seriousness its quite sad interms of what it has done to the soviet psychology.

hey Joysof maybe we can have a soviet consensus on this since you always have such informative and thoughtful things to say.

Russian rational=out of sight, out of mind!

I see now. Stalin was so bad for your soviet state of mind that he should be accounted for your being a moron. Was it because he killed the "most of the intelligent people" in your family?

That would explain it.

Was he in a Black Helicopter while he was doing that?