Thread: Pro or Anti Stalin

Спокойствие! Только спокойствие!

I gave the link to interview with very respected Russian historian, who was not caught in a lie yet. His interview is full of facts.

If you don't want to read it - no need.

emka71aln asked for arguments and I gave the link. That's all.

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

Originally Posted by N

Volkogonov is biased.

And someone supporting Stalin isn't?

And someone _not_ supporting isn't? Do you have better arguments than that? All your arguments given so far boil down to "Stalin is bad because he's bad by definition".

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.

What Stalinist propaganda have you read to date? I'm afraid you've mostly read anti-Stalinist propaganda, which has a way greater volume, and is by and large the only kind of literature about USSR/Stalin available in the so-called West.

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.

And how is that related to fascism? Or are you defining fascism now?

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...

Funny, you leave just the same impression.

Originally Posted by N

Спокойствие! Только спокойствие!

I gave the link to interview with very respected Russian historian, who was not caught in a lie yet. His interview is full of facts.

He gives his opinion, yes. Volkogonov, on the other hand, gives a whole list of sources in his book. Sources from Soviet archives that were closed before. So, we have a man who gives me a list of sources and bases his claims on them and we have a respected Russian historian who just gives his opinion. Has this man written any books in which he supports his "facts" with documents? Give me a title and I'll read the book. This "interview" proves nothing. I want sources.

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

Give me a title and I'll read the book. This "interview" proves nothing. I want sources.

His last book - "Тайны Кремля. Сталин, Молотов, Берия, Маленков"

He prepared for the press monography "Сталин и политические реформы в СССР. 1933-1937 годы" - this interview was a sort of intro of this monography. But unfortunately I cannot find it in stores.

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

Volkogonov, on the other hand, gives a whole list of sources in his book. Sources from Soviet archives that were closed before. [...] I want sources.

Are you prepared to read all the sources, in their entirety? There is one "alternative history" writer, who cites lots of sources. Proving that the USSR was about to launch an assault on Germany. Even though any single source says and _implies_ otherwise. Frankly, one does not even need to read all those sources, one "Mein Kampf" is enough to see who wanted to attack whom.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Are you prepared to read all the sources, in their entirety?

No, but I know others will. And Volkogonov would have been crushed if he had made things up.

There is one "alternative history" writer, who cites lots of sources. Proving that the USSR was about to launch an assault on Germany. Even though any single source says and _implies_ otherwise. Frankly, one does not even need to read all those sources, one "Mein Kampf" is enough to see who wanted to attack whom.

I know. His name is Suvorov and he's full of sh*t. "Mein Kampf" proves nothing, though. The fact that Hitler was planning to attack in 1923 already, doesn't mean that his actual attack in 1941 couldn't have been a reaction to Soviet preparations.

However, I agree with you (and so do most serious historians who have totally trashed Suvorov on the basis of sources) that it is "alternative history" and Stalin wasn't planning to attack in 1941.

I don't have to know/read all the sources for that. Historians that are familiar with the matter and have access to the same sources as Suvorov, have done that job for me.

Originally Posted by N

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

Give me a title and I'll read the book. This "interview" proves nothing. I want sources.

His last book - "Тайны Кремля. Сталин, Молотов, Берия, Маленков"

Thanks!

Next time I'm in Russia, I'll try and find it!

To Gollandski Yozh:

O! I just have checked my bookstore and found that his book is printed already:

Ю.Жуков. Иной Сталин: Политические реформы в СССР в 1933-1937 гг.
http://www.mdk-arbat.ru/bookcard.asp?FIRST=366965

[quote=Gollandski Yozh]

Originally Posted by "bad manners":4uwci41b

Are you prepared to read all the sources, in their entirety?

No, but I know others will. And Volkogonov would have been crushed if he had made things up.[/quote:4uwci41b]

That is a bit dangerous. The others are mere humans, and they have biases. For example, you would probably trust anybody saying "bad Stalin" without any further examination, and you would probably just reject "good Stalin" without any further examination just the same.

Before Хрущёв, most of the western historians had been bashing Stalin "traditionally". They could not have had any serious foundations for their claims on GULAG, say. The data were classified and they could not conduct sociological studies in the USSR.

After Хрущёв, all historians were bashing Stalin because of Хрущёв's declarations. That has been going on for decades. After a couple of generations of historians, nobody is even going to doubt what has become the "Common Truth" now.

I cannot judge Stalin by the claims of the historians now. So many lies have been piled on top of his deeds (which he predicted). But the majority of the Russian people value Stalin very highly. Those who dislike him are few and far between, but they happen to be the Russian интеллигенция, and their voice is louder than that of the rest of Russia. You should remember that the Russian интеллигенция has always disliked the Russian rulers and the Russian state. It is just its nature. A famous statement is: "I will always be in opposition no matter what government" (sorry, I forget the author). Дерьмо нации, as Lenin aptly characterized.

OK, badmanners, whatever...

I love Stalin! He's a saint! He saved our Rodina! Hurrah for Stalin!

And quoting Lenin doesn't really help your case...

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

OK, badmanners, whatever...

I love Stalin! He's a saint! He saved our Rodina! Hurrah for Stalin!

Typical. No real arguments. I'm not blaming you, though. You are conditioned by whatever "sovietology" "studies" you had. Ёжик в тумане.

And he actually did save _your_ Rodina, by the way.

And quoting Lenin doesn't really help your case...

I'm not a fan of Lenin, I think he was a real bastard. But I do like his definitions.

But the majority of the Russian people value Stalin very highly. Those who dislike him are few and far between, but they happen to be the Russian интеллигенция...

haha

and I can't stress this highly enough...

ha

And that's all the response you deserve.

Originally Posted by scotcher

But the majority of the Russian people value Stalin very highly. Those who dislike him are few and far between, but they happen to be the Russian интеллигенция...

haha

and I can't stress this highly enough...

ha

And that's all the response you deserve.

When even the clowns support a theory, that theory must truly be laughable. You're just another one who can but repeat what дорогой товарищ Хрущёв fabricated. Brainwashed and happy. You're worse than Хрущёв, though, he at least had some imagination.

From my reading ("Stalin's Secret War," the "KGB Chronicles" and others), beyond the millions sent to the Gulag for "political incorrectness", there were the hundreds of thousands of POWs freed from German captors to be returned home, only to be shot or exiled because "they had seen the West."

This was not new with Stalin, but concentration camps (long used by the Tsars under less harsh conditions -- food, clothing, labor, etc) were re-employed by Lenin by 1919 to combat anti-revolutionary rebellions across the country. At least according to Solzhenitsyn.

On my first trip to Ukraine, I visited the remains of a Baptist church which was destroyed in the late 1930's -- every man in the church was sent to the camps and never returned because... they were Baptists. Many Orthodox and Catholic priests suffered the same fate.

Industrialization? Perhaps. But behind the "building of a nation" was the single-minded 'power of the State.'

Originally Posted by DrRick

From my reading ("Stalin's Secret War," the "KGB Chronicles" and others), beyond the millions sent to the Gulag for "political incorrectness", there were the hundreds of thousands of POWs freed from German captors to be returned home, only to be shot or exiled because "they had seen the West."

That may be nice reading, but it is quite far from being an authoritative source.

At least according to Solzhenitsyn.

That a serious source?

On my first trip to Ukraine, I visited the remains of a Baptist church which was destroyed in the late 1930's -- every man in the church was sent to the camps and never returned because... they were Baptists. Many Orthodox and Catholic priests suffered the same fate.

Well, I trust that you saw the church. But how do you know about the men? Even taking that for granted, I would not be entirely surprised if those priests would encourage their congregation for some kind of sabotage. Sabotage is a crime in any country.

Industrialization? Perhaps. But behind the "building of a nation" was the single-minded 'power of the State.'

Without the “power of the State” the industrialization would not have happened. That in turn would have resulted in a military defeat in 1941, and the Germany would have had ample time and force to deal with the UK [remember that the US and the UK started to win over the Germans in 1943, before that their military efforts were a poor joke]. I don't think it would have taken Germans more than one year to overrun the UK, so in 1943 they would have had the whole continent. The US would have then been deprived of their primary advantage over the Germans, the air force [two reasons: they had to operate off the airfields in the UK; the Germans employed most of their fighters on the Eastern front]. I do not know what would have happened next, the US might have decided to strike a peace deal with the Germans [provided they would have declared war in the first place, which they might not have done seeing the state of the affairs in the USSR and estimating the fate of the UK]. Either way, it would have been a disaster for Europe had Stalin not started the industrialization. And it would have been "the final solution" for the whole of Russia, in the manner the Germans practiced in the occupied territory. I believe Stalin and the Politburo predicted what would happen when the Nazi came to power, so what choice did they have?

I want to stress this again: had Germany won over the USSR, it would have spelt death to the most of its population. Stalin and his forced industrialization were what prevented that. The Russians know that.

Originally Posted by bad manners

But the majority of the Russian people value Stalin very highly.

Can't agree with this. It's definitely a marginal minority. Most of Russians (at least those who are able to think) regard Stalin appropriately, and this cannot be put into a simple axis 'bad-good', 'low-high'. As any historical phenomenon, he cannot be just estimated with a school mark.

Those who dislike him are few and far between, but they happen to be the Russian интеллигенция, and their voice is louder than that of the rest of Russia. You should remember that the Russian интеллигенция has always disliked the Russian rulers and the Russian state. It is just its nature.

It's an oversimplification again. Or rather misunderstanding.

When even the clowns support a theory, that theory must truly be laughable. You're just another one who can but repeat what дорогой товарищ Хрущёв fabricated. Brainwashed and happy. You're worse than Хрущёв, though, he at least had some imagination.

I didn't offer any support for any theory, one way or the other, I was laughing at your ridiculous assertion (which I am certain even you don't believe) that most Russians "value Stalin very highly". No Russian I've ever met (and I have met plenty) has ever had anything but the deepest contempt for Stalin, even taking into account your average Russian's tendency to come over all patriotic and defensive when their country is being critisised by an outsider.

Claiming to speak for millions of people is always a sign of a lousy argument.

Kinda creepy this. If this had been 'mastergerman.net' and someone had sprouted forth this kind of nonsens, but in favour of Hitler, (s)he would have been banned a long time ago... Really tolerant, this board.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Typical. No real arguments.

OK, let's examine your arguments, then:

1. "You were brainwashed!"

Yep, that's sure to kill any discussion. "You were fed propaganda, I, however, know the full truth..."

Hmmm, I wonder who's brainwashed? The one growing up under a totalitarian regime that was founded by Stalin, or the one growing up in a democracy with free access to both sides of the story?

2. "The intelligentsia, who are bad, think Stalin is bad, hence he must be good."

This is a strange way of reasoning.

First, you haven't proven that the intelligentsia is bad. Sure, Lenin thought they were bad, but if I were to establish a dictatorship, I also wouldn't love that part of the nation that uses it's brains.

Second, even if they really are bad, those intelligentsia guys, does that mean the person they see as bad, is in reality automatically a good guy? I'm sure the intelligentsia in Russia also doesn't love Hitler. Must be a good guy, then...

3. "Most Russians agree with me, so I'm right."

Like scotcher said, that's not my observation. I've also met quite a lot of Russians and although most defend the USSR, hardly anyone has ever defended Stalin.

Originally Posted by Zeus

Originally Posted by bad manners

But the majority of the Russian people value Stalin very highly.

Can't agree with this. It's definitely a marginal minority. Most of Russians (at least those who are able to think) regard Stalin appropriately, and this cannot be put into a simple axis 'bad-good', 'low-high'. As any historical phenomenon, he cannot be just estimated with a school mark.

That I can agree with. When I wrote "value highly" I did not mean they all say "дорогой товарищ Сталин, спасибо за наше счастливое детство" all the time. But those who are able to think, excluding those интеллигенция types who can but hate everything around them, understand perfectly well that without comrade Stalin they would not have had any childhood at all. None, zero, zilch, nada. Those few who would have survived would have lived in enternal slavery, able only to count up to 500 and sign, and perhaps read their master's orders, Hitler hismself was not quite sure about the latter.