Thread: Pro or Anti Stalin

Originally Posted by Jasper May

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.

Look, this topic is too difficult for teenagers and clowns. I suggest that you concentrate on just learning the Russian language (and I'll be delighted to help you with that), then study the Russian history, then (in 10-15 years from now) you're welcome moralizing here. Please do not be offended, but it is just ridiculous to hear speculations on Stalin and Hitler from a 16 years old.

Atta boy. When discussion fails, resort to hurling insults.

Always the sign of a reasoned and well thought-through position.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Atta boy. When discussion fails, resort to hurling insults.

Always the sign of a reasoned and well thought-through position.

Coming here with your reasoned and well thought-through "haha" you have only yourself to thank for it.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Look, this topic is too difficult for teenagers and clowns. I suggest that you concentrate on just learning the Russian language (and I'll be delighted to help you with that), then study the Russian history, then (in 10-15 years from now) you're welcome moralizing here. Please do not be offended, but it is just ridiculous to hear speculations on Stalin and Hitler from a 16 years old.

Well, I'm 25, studied "Russia Studies" at Leiden University and specialized in history (yep, history). Do you think I am fit to discuss this with you?

BTW, what are your qualifications in this area?

And I just noticed how well chosen your nick is...

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

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..."

That's what you in fact said to me. Remember?
The fact that you live "in democracy" doesn't mean that you couldn't be brainwashed

Originally Posted by N

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

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..."

That's what you in fact said to me. Remember?

Uh, no. Just went through our discussion and I don't seem to be able to find any such alligations...

BTW, I have a feeling this is gonna be the longest thread in MR-history!

Originally Posted by N

Coming here with your reasoned and well thought-through "haha" you have only yourself to thank for it.

touch

[quote=Gollandski Yozh]

Originally Posted by "bad manners":3kyx3wup

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?

[/quote:3kyx3wup]

You make way too many assumptions. Then you take them for granted. That's called jumping to conclusions, and it is again characteristic of your attitude towards the Russian history: your perception of it rests on a few claims that you never actually verified. Oh, the assumption that you made about me (I guess) is incorrect: I grew up in a "democracy" (in constitutional monarchy in fact, just like you, if you're really Dutch), but I have mostly had access to one side of the story, the "democratic" side shall we call it, it is only during the last ten years or so when the genuine documents have been available, along with the sensible works based on those documents. The "democratic" side is mostly science fiction, even though it does correlate with the reality fairly often, but that is a feature of science fiction in general.

And you have failed to provide verifiable arguments anyway.

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...

I realize perfectly well that even if intelligentsia is bad Stalin can still be bad. What you do not seem to realize is that when _anybody_ says that _somebody_ is bad, that anybody must be able to prove it. That means when the Russian intelligentsia or Gollandski Yozh or whoever else says that Stalin is bad, _they_have to prove it. Documentarily. I don't.

On the other hand, my claim that the intelligentsia is bad can be trivially proved. For example, Lenin was that intelligentsia. He ended up overthrowing a legitimate Russian government and becoming a dictator, which set the fate of Russia for many years and ultimately resulted in WWII, and the nonsense that followed.

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.

I've dedicated two messages to this subject. I do not have much to add.

Overall though, I have to thank you. Unlike the others, you at least try to argue rationally.

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

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...

?

OK. Let's relax. This link especial for you
http://www.kulichki.com/ejik/

N, that's not saying you were brain washed. People can be stubborn without being brain washed. I wouldn't wanna deny you the credit of being stubborn out of your own!

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

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.

I think when one refers to intelligentsia, it does not necessarily mean smart people or academics or "those with brains," only the elitist cliques of intellectuals and many pseudointellectual phonies, art circles, and people who acted weird for the sake of being weird, that existed under the Tsar that promoted such polemic things as socialist ideas while most neither belonged to the working class nor wanted anything to do with them, and then later under the Soviets those artists who refused to adopt patriotism and realism into their work. To bad manners, I think is unfair to say all of them were bad. It were the students and intellectuals who played a large role in formulating most of Russia's major political liberations under the monarchy after all...to be sure all groups of counterculture have their fair share of frauds and sycophants.

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

Well, I'm 25, studied "Russia Studies" at Leiden University and specialized in history (yep, history). Do you think I am fit to discuss this with you?

I certainly hope so. Yet, the few years that you spent studying the Russian history are unfortunately too few. The Russians study their own history longer than that (a few years in high school and a couple in university, unless they specialize in history), and they have some background naturally, yet many of them are absolutely clueless about it nonetheless.

BTW, what are your qualifications in this area?

Formally, none. I've just been studying it for the last 15 years.

And I just noticed how well chosen your nick is...

A couple of guys in this thread should be called "worst" or "horrid" manners then. But what d'ya expect from the clowns...

Can I add just a drop of gasoline to this fire?

I never considered myself as Stalinist - I think, I'm more anti-stalinist actually. I don't like much his methods, although appreciate his results. But, as I think, every person in history must be judged according to facts - not to someone's inventions, or Cold War propaganda myths.

Re: "Stalin's repressions".

Do you even *know* about works of Vitaly Zemskov? He (as opposite to Conquest, and other western mythmakers) worked with archives and documentary evidence.
Here's a link to interview with him: http://www.contr-tv.ru/article/events/2 ... 6/repress2 (for anyone, who can read in russian). For anyone, who cannot, here's some numbers:

The total number of victims of political repression in USSR in period from 1921 to 1953 (e.g. so-called Stalin's era) is approximately 4 mln. This includes: 800 000 condemned to death, and 600 000 died in prison camps for various reasons.
So: there are 1,4 mln died due to a "Stalin's repressions", and 2,6 mln released and/or rehabilitated afterwards.

"Tens of millions of Stalin's victims" simply do not exist -- except in some well-washed by anti-communist propaganda brains.

Re: "Famine in Ukraine in 1931-32".

Yes, it took place. However, before blaming Stalin for it, it's reasonable to remember, that before October Revolution famines in Russia were pretty regular, and many millions died. This isn't much of surprise - most of Russia and Ukraine is zone of very risky agriculture.

If you compare *one* famine happened during Stalin's rules with *tens* happened before, things look slightly different, aren't they?

Originally Posted by bad manners

You make way too many assumptions. Then you take them for granted. That's called jumping to conclusions, and it is again characteristic of your attitude towards the Russian history: your perception of it rests on a few claims that you never actually verified.

They were verified by many historians. You say they base their claims on nothing, I say it's based on real sources. We dance around in circles.

Oh, the assumption that you made about me (I guess) is incorrect: I grew up in a "democracy" (in constitutional monarchy in fact, just like you, if you're really Dutch), but I have mostly had access to one side of the story, the "democratic" side shall we call it, it is only during the last ten years or so when the genuine documents have been available, along with the sensible works based on those documents. The "democratic" side is mostly science fiction, even though it does correlate with the reality fairly often, but that is a feature of science fiction in general.

Those documents also have been made available to Western historians. Still haven't heard of Stalin being a goody. The first Russian historian who got access to secret archives, Volkogonov, was very critical of Stalin. It's part of national Russian pride to say Stalin was a good, strong leader. The bad things done, were done by Ezhov and Beria, not the Great Stalin. Let me ask you then: how good a leader was he then? The USSR was a dictatorship, ruled with an iron fist by one man. Do you really believe the Ukraine famine or the transportation of people to the GULAG in large numbers could have occured without Stalin knowing about it and agreeing to it?

And you have failed to provide verifiable arguments anyway.

Right back at ya! (Dancing around in circles...)

I realize perfectly well that even if intelligentsia is bad Stalin can still be bad. What you do not seem to realize is that when _anybody_ says that _somebody_ is bad, that anybody must be able to prove it. That means when the Russian intelligentsia or Gollandski Yozh or whoever else says that Stalin is bad, _they_have to prove it. Documentarily. I don't.

It has been proven. You just don't want to believe it. Say Stalin is a mass murderer and you're just spreading propaganda...

On the other hand, my claim that the intelligentsia is bad can be trivially proved. For example, Lenin was that intelligentsia. He ended up overthrowing a legitimate Russian government and becoming a dictator, which set the fate of Russia for many years and ultimately resulted in WWII, and the nonsense that followed.

So this is what you call prove? The intelligentsia was bad, because one of it's members, Vladimir Ilich, was bad? If that's the proof that's enough to satisfy you, I think I have provided plenty, but I guess such proof will only do if it's your argument that needs support.

I've dedicated two messages to this subject. I do not have much to add.

You're right.

Overall though, I have to thank you. Unlike the others, you at least try to argue rationally.

Yeah, I try. Sorry for failing miserably...

Originally Posted by mike

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

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.

I think when one refers to intelligentsia, it does not necessarily mean smart people or academics or "those with brains," only the elitist cliques of intellectuals and many pseudointellectual phonies, art circles, and people who acted weird for the sake of being weird, that existed under the Tsar that promoted such polemic things as socialist ideas while most neither belonged to the working class nor wanted anything to do with them, and then later under the Soviets those artists who refused to adopt patriotism and realism into their work. To bad manners, I think is unfair to say all of them were bad. It were the students and intellectuals who played a large role in formulating most of Russia's major political liberations under the monarchy after all...to be sure all groups of counterculture have their fair share of frauds and sycophants.

Mike, you're "лучь света в тёмном царстве". I've given up hoping that anybody there may realize what that Russian интеллигенция really was (and is). "The elitist cliques of intellectuals and many pseudointellectual phonies, art circles, and people who acted weird for the sake of being weird." This defines them perfectly, and as accurately as Lenin did. Surely not all of them are bad, but when you take almost anyone bashing Stalin these days in Russia, it will almost invariably be a jerk with "высшее образование" who's not good for anything but criticizing it all. "Good for nothing" is a necessary condition; they apparently realize what sad bastards they are, and they just blame their country for it.

@Scorpio

Denying the famine? The USSR was producing food for export to pay for the industrialization. The famine should never, ever have happened.

"In order to make the USSR a bastion of socialism, Stalin recognized that it was necessary to build industry. To do this in a backward country like the Soviet Union it was necessary to import machinery. But to obtain this machinery it was necessary to obtain foreign exchange. Characteristically, the export of agricultural products had earned a significant proportion of this exchange. Therefore, to continue industrialization at an accelerated pace, Stalin apparently thought it vital to continue the export of food - no matter what the conditions in the countryside._147_

It is, therefore, of interest to turn to an examination of Soviet export and import figures for the calendar years 1932 and 1933. Unfortunately, the data are not available on a crop year basis - for this would more nearly coincide with the famine periods. But if it is considered that most of the food exported from the 1932 crop helped lead to the famine period during the first two-thirds of 1933, the figures become more meaningful (the same, of course, would be true for the 1933-34 periods).

According to official Soviet statistics, exports of food accounted for 24.3 percent and 20 percent of the value of all Soviet exports in 1932 and 1933, respectively. Grain was the largest food item, representing 9 percent and 8.1 percent of total exports._148_ Imports of food, on the other hand, accounted for 10 percent and 8.2 percent of the value of all imports in 1932 and 1933. Tea, which has no nutritive value, was one of the largest single items, representing 1 percent and 1.7 percent of total imports._149_

On balance, there was a net export of foods in the two years. In 1932, food exports were worth twice as much as imports; in 1933, they were worth three and a half times as much. The net value of these exports was 242.5 million rubles in 1932, and 246.2 million rubles in 1933 (or about $60.6 million in 1932 and $61.5 million in 1933)._150_

In terms of weight, net grain exports totalled 1.70 million tons in 1932, and 1.84 million tons in 1933._151_ In turn, gross grain exports represented about 4.9 percent and 4.2 percent of production in 1932 and 1933._152_"

http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1983/158321.shtml#t149

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

So this is what you call prove? The intelligentsia was bad, because one of it's members, Vladimir Ilich, was bad? If that's the proof that's enough to satisfy you, I think I have provided plenty, but I guess such proof will only do if it's your argument that needs support.

That's correct, I only proved the "badness" of one person. But there are very few in this intelligentsia who can compare in scale. I think I might be able to prove the same about a few other prominent types. But that is irrelevant for my argument. I don't even care whether the intelligentsia is good or bad. We're discussing a particular person here.

You're reluctant to quote anything supporting the "badness" of Stalin, you just keep on saying "it exists". All you say is that I have to prove those "works" wrong. That's ridiculous. You're calling a person mass murderer and so on, yet I have to prove that he is not. Is that the way of "democracy" now?

Besides, there is a message in this thread that does prove them wrong.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Besides, there is a message in this thread that does prove them wrong.

Are you referring to this quote by Scorpio?

"The total number of victims of political repression in USSR in period from 1921 to 1953 (e.g. so-called Stalin's era) is approximately 4 mln. This includes: 800 000 condemned to death, and 600 000 died in prison camps for various reasons.
So: there are 1,4 mln died due to a "Stalin's repressions", and 2,6 mln released and/or rehabilitated afterwards."

Even if it's only 1,4 mln (more died in the Ukrainian famine alone of which I have proven (check the link, based on SOVIET sources) it could and should have been prevented), he's still a mass murderer. We might discuss figures here, but that'll be just throwing millions back and forth, but 1,4 mln seems like a "mass" of people to me...

Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh

BTW, I have a feeling this is gonna be the longest thread in MR-history

The fastest growing one, anyway!

BTW, who cares if Stalin killed either 5 or 50 million people. It still makes him a massmurdering paranoid maniac. Like he himself said 'one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic'

Originally Posted by bad manners

Surely not all of them are bad, but when you take almost anyone bashing Stalin these days in Russia, it will almost invariably be a jerk with "высшее образование" who's not good for anything but criticizing it all. "Good for nothing" is a necessary condition; they apparently realize what sad bastards they are, and they just blame their country for it.

So you've actually got an unreasoned, unreasonable fear for people who are smarter than you? Maybe because they have higher education they have more right than you to criticize Russia. After all, there's an awful lot to criticize. (I love Russia, but not everything)

I respect your capability in studying Russian, but I'm afraid your (and most westerners) knowledge on subject is utterly one-sided.

Originally Posted by Jasper May

BTW, who cares if Stalin killed either 5 or 50 million people. It still makes him a massmurdering paranoid maniac.

That's what is not proven... I mean that he killed someone.

Originally Posted by Jasper May

Like he himself said 'one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic'

Excuse me but he never said that...

Originally Posted by Jasper May

So you've actually got an unreasoned, unreasonable fear for people who are smarter than you? Maybe because they have higher education they have more right than you to criticize Russia.

Surely you don't understand what he was talking about. Mike've understand - reread him.

In Russia we differ so-called творческая интеллигенция (artist, actors, writers etc) and техническая интеллигенция (engineers, hard scientists etc). Both categories formally have higher education but usually when we say abt intelligentsia with sneering attitude we mean the first one. As a rule техническая интеллингенция thinks that higher education of творческой интеллигенции actually costs nothing. However I know many технарей who are not better