Thread: Pro or Anti Stalin

This here can provide answers to allot of your source request.
http://www.neurotoxic.pwp.blueyonder.co ... ience.html


Stalins murder rate has been debated by pro-Stalinists but having looked at some of their statistics, much of it is based on things like "well, that's really not murder.
For instance, he killed hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Stalingrad Campaign. The reason is for retreating and things like that. Many pro Stalinists would argue that that isn't murder.
Murder is simply killing someone without a good reason. Simply, the only good reason to kill someone is to protect yourself or someone else's life from them.
Their are those who also claim that many of these events never happened, but their are also those who claim that WW II never happened. In truth, history can not be proven through the laws of science, so you can argue either direction all day, but ultimately, all you have is records to go by and as records show, Stalin was a mass murderer.

Even despite not being a communist, I find your curator a psychotic and sick minded person.

I agree entirely.

Define "Soviet Unions Holocaust". And reference your source, please.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Stalin was a murderer, plain and simple.
I myself have had my own experiences this arena, since the barbaric behavior of the Soviet Union didn't stop with Stalin.
When I lived in Alaska, we had Orthodox Christians living near by. They had religious elders, because their priests were murdered by the Soviets just for being priests, and the people living in the village themselves were marked for execution before fleeing.

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

Define "Soviet Unions Holocaust". And reference your source, please.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Stalin was a murderer, plain and simple.

Far be it from me to give even the smallest succour to those who look to obfuscate the self-evident about JVS, but could you not have come up with something a little better than this? In the first instance, I have grave doubts about any .edu site which offers links to pages entitled 'Mega-Murderers' and 'Lesser Mega-Murderers'; as for the rest:

However, in the narrative I have been less than dry and disinterested. I am clearly horrified by the nature and extent of mass killings being recorded; as a pacifist, I have been so overcome with emotion that at times I have had to put this work aside many times. Therefore, I did not restrain myself from peppering the narrative with adjectives like "monstrous", "horrible", and "evil", and liberally used irony and sarcasm as rhetorical weapons against this inhumanity. The style of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag seemed also appropriate here. But he wrote with a mission, and from the perspective of his own experience, and I am no Solzhenitsyn.

No place for this in an academic text.

For over thirty years, as a political scientist and peace researcher, my research had focused on the causes and conditions of war, conflict, and peace. I had believed that war was the greatest killer and that nuclear war would be a global holocaust. Now I have found that aside from war the total killed by government was almost four times that of war. It was as though a nuclear war had already occurred.

Nor this, to be honest. Last sentence is beyond belief.

How are we to understand this democide? I will try to specifically answer these questions in the following chapters. But the key to it all can be disclosed here: Marxism.

Ahem. Nice to see him set out his stall, I suppose.

In sum, the Soviets have committed a democide of 61,911,000 people, 7,142,000 of them foreigners. This staggering total is beyond belief.

'Democide'?! Really...

Appalling preface, really, and it gets worse: badmanners, if he can be bothered, will eat this sort of jargon-churning, commie-hating 'academic' and his like for breakfast, and rightly so. It's a crying shame Conquest isn't online somewhere: he might put up some sort of fight. This sort of nonsense, on the other hand, does a good cause no good whatsoever. Nor, by the way, does blurry черное-белое which could just as well show the beach at Sochi as anything else. Bad show.

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

This here can provide answers to allot of your source requets.
http://www.neurotoxic.pwp.blueyonder.co ... ience.html

Typical BS. For instance:

Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s

Earlier in this thread it was shown that that simply does not hold. Equally applies to the rest of the "sources" referenced by that page.

For instance, he killed hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Stalingrad Campeign.

Source, please.

The reason is for retreating and things like that. Many pro Stalinists would argue that that isn't murder.

If somebody in military service retreats in violation of the prior order to defend the ground, it is a military crime. Typically punished by death penalty at wartime in any army. Get your facts straight.

Their are thoes who also claim that many of these events never happened, but their are also thoes who claim that WW II never happened.

And then there are those who make things up.

[quote:30zpc8ll]Define "Soviet Unions Holocaust". And reference your source, please.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM[/quote:30zpc8ll]
See a psychiatrist if you take that for a reputable source.

allot ... requets ... Campeign ... Their are thoes ... murderor ... experiencesin this arina ... Orthatox ... relijous ... exicution

And see a teacher of English. And a teacher of history while you're at that.

Look, I've only been here for a couple days, but I must say that you're quite rude, and requesting sources only to add to your rudeness without providing anything of your own, other then smart alic remarks of no consequence.
I have studied about parts of WW II history for years, and their is no way I can refer you to everything, and quite frankly, I am convinced that you are only looking for trouble, which I am not, so our conversation has ended, to avoid further problems.
BTW.
If you've read my profile, you would know that I am very reputable and knowledgeable in combat tactics, and their is little that you can tell me that I don't already know. I am quite familiar with the ins and outs of punishing retreating soldiers, which their is far more to then you mentioned.

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

Look, I've only been here for a couple days, but I must say that you're quite rude

Yeah. Pointing out errors in logic and grammar is rude. Calling somebody "mass murderer" without being able to support it is apparently not.

and requesting sources only to add to your rudeness without providing anything of your own

Since when does the accused (you may consider me Stalin's defender here) need to prove anything? You go and prove your accusations.

If you've read my profile, you would know that I am very reputable and knowledgeable in combat tactics, and their is little that you can tell me that I don't already know.

What does combat tactics have to do with this thread? And why do I need to trust your profile? Will you trust my profile if it says "I am Stalin and I swear I never mass-murdered anybody"?

I am quite familiar with the ins and outs of punishing retreating soldiers, which their is far more to then you mentioned.

Probably. I only said that the death penalty or the "first blood" penalty was not all that uncommon at the time of war, and had nothing to do with mass murders.

I'm a staunch anti-communist and therefore a staunch anti-Stalinist. However I do believe that Stalin was better for the USSR than his main rival Leon Trotsky. Contrary to popular myth, Trotsky was not a poor incident victim of Stalin; for a while he was the main perpetrator of Communist atrocities. Indeed much of Stalin's policies had their roots in the actions of Trotsky during the Civil War. Even the devastating collectivization that Stalin carried out was first proposed by Trotsky(in much the same fashion).

The difference is that Stalin at least bent to reality once in a while. Trotsky did not. Whether Russia lived or starved did not conern Trotsky; to him the Russian people were just vheicles for his insane drive for world revolution. Stalin on the other hand went on the more pratical course of "socialism in one country".

Stalin also showed more respect for Russian national traditions than Trotsky. Indeed, much of Russian national heritage was destroyed by Stalin, but much was also preserved. Trotsky had utter contempt for Russian traditions and wanted them permenately wiped from the face of the earth.

So given a choice between either Stalin or Trotsky, I'd choose Stalin. But as I said, overall I despise what Stalin did.

Originally Posted by Czar Nicholas

Contrary to popular myth, Trotsky was not a poor incident victim of Stalin; for a while he was the main perpetrator of Communist atrocities.

That is arguable, but all right. The Kronstadt massacre and destruction of anarchist headquarters in Moscow certainly come to mind as example of his brutality (or perhaps simply his disregard for human life). I do not know what you are basing his being the "main perpetrator" on, or what exactly constitutes a Communist atrocity. To me an atrocity is something like murder or a great unjustifiable crime. Like sending millions of people to their deaths to expand your empire, and letting millions more starve at home because all the factory workers and farmhands are conscripted. This would probably be a good example of something atrocious. Is that what you had in mind? Nice avatar, by the way.

Indeed much of Stalin's policies had their roots in the actions of Trotsky during the Civil War.

No idea what this means. Clear it up, please.

Even the devastating collectivization that Stalin carried out was first proposed by Trotsky(in much the same fashion).

I would have almost agreed with you if you did not write "(in much the same fashion)." In reality, Trotsky denounced Stalin's plans for collectivization as soon as it began (he writes about the stupidity and dangers of Stalin's plans in "The Writings of Trotsky" in 1930). He saw collectivized agriculture as neither being a short-term operation nor a violent one. Most of Trotsky's (and the LO's) plan relied on high taxes on the wealthiest of the kulak class and an introduction of more modern farming tools based on ones in the West (since the implements used by the peasants in Russia at the turn of the century were centuries behind the West in effectiveness and Russia had barely even heard of concepts like crop-rotation that were taken for granted by Western farms).

The difference is that Stalin at least bent to reality once in a while. Trotsky did not. Whether Russia lived or starved did not conern Trotsky; to him the Russian people were just vheicles for his insane drive for world revolution.

Again, no idea how you make such conclusions then offer nothing to support them.

Stalin on the other hand went on the more pratical course of "socialism in one country".

Yes, and "socialism in one country"--especially Russia--basically flies smack in the face of everything Communists had ever tried to obtain in the 70 years prior to Stalin's accession. Please show me something by any of the major Communist thinkers of the 19th century about: 1) inciting a revolution in a backwards, primitive country; and then 2) deciding it is smarter to murder an enormous number of people trying to bring the nation's agriculture and industry on par with Europe or North America to make it to the next stage of economic growth.

I am not sure I understand how you can claim to be a "staunch anti-communist" and "staunch anti-Stalinist" and then decide Stalin's forced collectivization was the "more practical course" to take. Of course, your support for Tsar Nicholas obviously illustrates your ability to ignore mass murder for the sake of an idea, so I guess it is not so far a stretch to imagine why you would defend Stalin as well.

Stalin also showed more respect for Russian national traditions than Trotsky.

Because he knew how effective artificial BS like "cultural heritage" and nationalism are at controlling stupid people and making them obedient. Same reason Stalin decided to "bring back" (as in, make it an official mouthpiece of the government) the Church. It always amazes me how many Russians recall cheerfully to me the story of how Prince Vlad sent out people to find the most impressive and manipulative religion to unify Russia with. As if being subject to such an indifferent method of choosing a national religion is something to be proud of. Had the Muslims been more effective at rounding their natives up than the Byzantines I suppose history would be dramatically altered. And it would be a crime for Russian women to cover themselves up, so let us be glad the opiate of choice was Byzantine Orthodoxy.

Trotsky had utter contempt for Russian traditions and wanted them permenately wiped from the face of the earth.

You make it sound like he focused only on Russia's cultural tradition. Since the days of Marx himself (see his writings on the so-called "Jewish question," where he says the only way Jews will be treated as equals is if they (and Christians) abandon their cultural separations and create one of common respect) many (if not all the major parties and movements of) Communists have wanted to get rid of anything which creates nationalist feelings and thus inequality and oppression of minority groups. The Tsarist treatment of Jews and Gypsies is a good example of the Russian "heritage" that they sought to eliminate with "proletarian culture" and by removing the Orthodox Church's tight grip on the government's testicles (which it is slowly working its way back around, unfortunately). I like your words though. "Utter contempt," and "permenately [sic] wiped from the face of the earth." Very vivid and colorful. Hyperbolic and misleading. But vivid and colorful.

Originally Posted by mike

It always amazes me how many Russians recall cheerfully to me the story of how Prince Vlad sent out people to find the most impressive and manipulative religion to unify Russia with. As if being subject to such an indifferent method of choosing a national religion is something to be proud of. Had the Muslims been more effective at rounding their natives up than the Byzantines I suppose history would be dramatically altered. And it would be a crime for Russian women to cover themselves up, so let us be glad the opiate of choice was Byzantine Orthodoxy.

There's an anecdotte about choosing relgion. Vladimir liked Islam because it could allow him to have more than one wife. But when he realised that Islam forbids alchohol, he had chosen Orthodoxy.

This anecdotte doesn't make more sense that story about tool to manipulate. Christianity appeared in Rus long before Knyaz Vladimir was born and make its path to many hearts before 988, when it became official religion of Russian state. Rus had trade and cultural connections to Byzantine, that also were a factor of spreading of cristianity. So let's not simplify complicated historical process to level of "knyaz thought what religion to choose and decided..."

You make it sound like he focused only on Russia's cultural tradition. Since the days of Marx himself (see his writings on the so-called "Jewish question," where he says the only way Jews will be treated as equals is if they (and Christians) abandon their cultural separations and create one of common respect) many (if not all the major parties and movements of) Communists have wanted to get rid of anything which creates nationalist feelings and thus inequality and oppression of minority groups.

Jews decide what we should abandon and what we can keep and after that they don't understand why they're treated like they're treated. Funny.

Originally Posted by mike

I do not know what you are basing his being the "main perpetrator" on,

Let's see, he was the commander of the Red Army and for some time Lenin's number 2 man in the Communist regime. Stalin even admitted this on several occasions.

or what exactly constitutes a Communist atrocity.

Ever heard of the Red Terror?

No idea what this means. Clear it up, please.

It means that Trotsky's actions and policies served as an example to Stalin. As historian Richard Pipes stated in his "Concise History of the Russian Revolution":

He[Trotsky] suffered the same fate that was meted out, with his wholehearted consent, to opponents of Lenin's dictatorship: the Kadets, the Socialists-Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks; ex-tsarist officers who refused to fight for the Red army; the Workers opposition; the Kronstadt sailors; the Tambov peasents; the priesthood. He awokw to the dangers of totalitarianism only when it threatened him personally; his sudden conversion to party democracy was a means of self-defense, not a championship of principle.
--pg.380

(since the implements used by the peasants in Russia at the turn of the century were centuries behind the West in effectiveness and Russia had barely even heard of concepts like crop-rotation that were taken for granted by Western farms).

Oh really?


http://autarchic.tripod.com/files/alliance.html

RUSSIAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE TSAR
An examination of our trade history with the Communists gives strong evidence that the Solzhenitsyn claim is not in the least exaggerated. Returning to the Bolshevik revolution, the reader might be surprised to find that the Russians under the Tsar were far more advanced, prior to 1917, than we had thought. "Airplanes and automobiles of indigenous Russian design were produced in quantity before the Bolshevik revolution. Although industrialization was restricted to a few population centers, it utilized modern, efficient plants operating on scales comparable to those elsewhere in the world. Further, there were obvious signs of indigenous Russian technology in chemicals, aircraft, automobiles, turbines, and railroad equipment. "Not only did such technology exist, but it was left almost totally undisturbed by the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. What then caused the economic calamity which followed 1921? One thing is certain. It was not brought about by absence of operable productive facilities." (Antony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930. Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, p. 344).

Yes, and "socialism in one country"--especially Russia--basically flies smack in the face of everything Communists had ever tried to obtain in the 70 years prior to Stalin's accession.

Do you think I really care about that? Stalin broke with Communist tradition, GOOD!

Please show me something by any of the major Communist thinkers of the 19th century about: 1) inciting a revolution in a backwards, primitive country; and then 2) deciding it is smarter to murder an enormous number of people trying to bring the nation's agriculture and industry on par with Europe or North America to make it to the next stage of economic growth.

And what is this supposed to prove? What Stalin was bad because he wasnt a good Communist?

Which exactly was more practical for Russia to do: start all sorts of wars in vain attempts to spread Communism to other countries(Trotsky wanted a repeat of Lenin's invasion of Poland); or to consolidate and build up Russia's position at home? Please answer this.

I am not sure I understand how you can claim to be a "staunch anti-communist" and "staunch anti-Stalinist" and then decide Stalin's forced collectivization was the "more practical course" to take.

Obviously you failed to read what I wrote and in what context I was speaking. I said that when compared to what Trotsky was proposing, Stalin's plans were more practical. Nice try at spinning what I wrote.

Of course, your support for Tsar Nicholas obviously illustrates your ability to ignore mass murder for the sake of an idea, so I guess it is not so far a stretch to imagine why you would defend Stalin as well.

LOL! Nothing the Tsar did ever came close to what Stalin did. Nice try.

But since you brought up the topic of comparing Trotsky to Czar Nicholas:

But Lenin's and Trotsky's sole concern was holding onto power, whereas Nicholas cared for Russia. When the general and Duma politicians persuaded him that he had to go to save the army and avert a humiliating capitulation, he acquiesced. Had staying in power been his supreme objective, he could easily have concluded peace with Germany and turned the army loose against the mutineers. The record leaves no doubt that the myth of the Tsar being forced from the throne by the rebellious workers and peasants is just that. The Tsar yielded not to a rebellious populace but to generals and politicians, and he did so from a sense of patriotic duty.
--Richard Pipes Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime pg. 497

I wonder if either Lenin or Trotsky would have done the same, oh wait THEY DIDN'T!

Because he knew how effective artificial BS like "cultural heritage" and nationalism are at controlling stupid people and making them obedient.

LOL! There's nothing BS or even artificial about a nation's cultural heritage and its sense of national identity. They were fervently based in history and tradition. But I guess somebody like you wouldnt understand that.

It always amazes me how many Russians recall cheerfully to me the story of how Prince Vlad sent out people to find the most impressive and manipulative religion to unify Russia with. As if being subject to such an indifferent method of choosing a national religion is something to be proud of.

LOL! You clearly know nothing about Russian history, for Vladimir was intriqued by the Orthodox faith ever since his grandmother Olga introduced him to it.

Had the Muslims been more effective at rounding their natives up than the Byzantines I suppose history would be dramatically altered.

Can you actually prove this or are you pulling nonsense out of thin air?

And it would be a crime for Russian women to cover themselves up, so let us be glad the opiate of choice was Byzantine Orthodoxy.

HAHAHAHA Oh This is getting more pathetic the more I read it. Yes how dare those evil Russkies "oppress" their women by making them cover themselves. OH THE HUMANITY! That was just beautiful Gloria Steinem.

You make it sound like he focused only on Russia's cultural tradition.

Nice straw man. I was refering to his views CONCERNING RUSSIA! After all this is a forum about RUSSIAN HISTORY, not Communist ideology in general.

Since the days of Marx himself (see his writings on the so-called "Jewish question," where he says the only way Jews will be treated as equals is if they (and Christians) abandon their cultural separations and create one of common respect) many (if not all the major parties and movements of) Communists have wanted to get rid of anything which creates nationalist feelings and thus inequality and oppression of minority groups.

Yes yes Im fully aware of Marxist doctrines.

The Tsarist treatment of Jews and Gypsies is a good example of the Russian "heritage"

Thank you for exposing more of your complete lack of knowledge on Russia's cultural history. Of course you only pick and choose what you want to know about apparently. Of course since so many Jews were among the Bolsheviks and other terrorist organization; it's little wonder as to why they were so hated.

Oh well as stated above, funny how the Jews must determine everything for everybody. Hell here in America they're trying to tell us we cant see a simple movie about the sacrifice of our lord Christ. Oy Vey!

that they sought to eliminate with "proletarian culture" and by removing the Orthodox Church's tight grip on the government's testicles

You clearly lack any knowledge of Russian history. For it was the state that controlled the church. It was that way ever since Peter the Great secularized the Russian state and placed the church under his control.

(which it is slowly working its way back around, unfortunately).

Yes how dare the Russians reclaim the heritage was ruthlessly and violently destroyed. Here's a short list of the victims of Communism
http://www.orthodox.net/russiannm/index.html

I like your words though. "Utter contempt," and "permenately [sic] wiped from the face of the earth." Very vivid and colorful. Hyperbolic and misleading. But vivid and colorful.

Actually it's the utter trash you posted here thats misleading.

I know I'm entering this post way after a lot of stuff's been established, but I felt like saying my bit.

I'm definately anti-Stalin.

The main pro-Stalin argument, that he did a lot of 'beneficial' things for Russia, is true. He increased production, he did heaps for a failing economy and 'made Mother Russia strong'.

But all this gain came at, I think, an unacceptable price: the death of tens of millions of Russians. All this 'progress' wasn't worth such a tragic and imcomprehendable loss of life. For me, anyone who argues that this was somehow justified is seeing things from a cold economic or political perspective; living in some ivory tower.

Stalin was mentally unbalanced, sadistic, and killed his own people; your basic mad dictator. Like any other mad dictator, it's difficult to compliment Stalin for anything that can be seen as good.

If there is anything of substance to a pro-Stalin arguement, I guess I'm unable to see it for all the morally evil things credited to his name.

Hear is some good reading material on this guy.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

http://www.geocities.com/ojoronen/MURDER.HTM

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/ ... vkill.html

Anyone who DOES NOT think he was a mass murderer is fantasizing.
Welcome to reality!

Originally Posted by Alex_Ivanov

Originally Posted by mike

You make it sound like he focused only on Russia's cultural tradition. Since the days of Marx himself (see his writings on the so-called "Jewish question," where he says the only way Jews will be treated as equals is if they (and Christians) abandon their cultural separations and create one of common respect) many (if not all the major parties and movements of) Communists have wanted to get rid of anything which creates nationalist feelings and thus inequality and oppression of minority groups.

Jews decide what we should abandon and what we can keep and after that they don't understand why they're treated like they're treated. Funny.

Funny, I didn't realize all the Jews got together and voted on what Marx should write.

You'd think they'd put important stuff like that in history books! Go figure.

I don't understand where Jews took the floor, and I'm not about to reread everything to piece it together.

Jews have a habit of being good with money, so they do control allot of the trade around the world.
The very fact that their talented in this respect, plays a good role in keeping the industrial world where it is, and food on millions of tables.
Now, if you are big in to the money business, greedy and have an ego the size of Russia, then you will probably have a problem with this.
If your someone like myself, who just wants to live life, you probably wouldn't care one bit, unless of course, you have some sort of cultural prejudism towards Jews.
As I said earlier, people of most religions tend to be much better behaved then non-religious and atheist people so when it comes to industry and many of the things people hate Jews for, I'd rather it be them, people who have moral principals then people who have nothing, such as those who terrorized the Jews all through the 20th century.

I've read a bit too much about the creatively horrible things done in the name of religion to really buy into the idea that religion improves behaviour overall, but I do agree with you that the fact that there have been a lot of Jewish banker etc. is no good reason to hate Jews.

Nor is the fact that Marx, Trotsky or anyone else was Jewish have any weight in the judgment of Jewishness as a whole. I mean, I'm not going around all RARRRRR STALIN WAS GEORGIAN I HATE GEORGIANS or DUBYA IS A METHODIST WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH METHODISTS. Conversely, neither would I claim that all Baptists are SUPER ACTIVISTS just because MLK Jr. was one. You can't color an entire group with the actions of a few members.

You and I are on the same page.

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

You and I are on the same page.

::thumbsup::

Originally Posted by Alexi

But all this gain came at, I think, an unacceptable price: the death of tens of millions of Russians.

Prove these tens of millions. According to the very NKVD archives the total number of sentenced during Stalin's "reign" was a less than 10 million. To quote a message earlier in this thread:

Originally Posted by Scorpio

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.

To give you a perspective on these figures, the USA currently have more than 2 million imprisoned. Yet every American knows that the "Gulag Archipelago" was in Russia, and the USA are really just the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

In the Big Rock Candy Mountain,
The jails are made of tin.
You can slip right out again,
As soon as they put you in.
There ain't no short-handled shovels,
No axes, saws nor picks,
I'm bound to stay
Where you sleep all day,
Where they hung the jerk
That invented work
In the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

Originally Posted by Alexi

Stalin was mentally unbalanced, sadistic, and killed his own people; your basic mad dictator. Like any other mad dictator, it's difficult to compliment Stalin for anything that can be seen as good.

Do you realize that you need to prove these claims? And now tell me how exactly you can prove that. His mental unbalancedness and sadism could only have been noticed by his close associates (comrades Molotov, Zhukov et al) and they, in their memoirs, do not indicate anything of the kind. Same for "killed his own people".

The post by our battle tactics expert does not deserve a reply. Really, citing tabloids and geocites as a source of facts on Stalin.

Do you realize that you need to prove these claims? And now tell me how exactly you can prove that.

Show me "PROOF" that Stalin ever existed!

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

Do you realize that you need to prove these claims? And now tell me how exactly you can prove that.

Show me "PROOF" that Stalin ever existed!

Pathetic.

You keep talking proof, then show me some. I have about had it with your little game. Prove this, prove that. Well, guess what, by the laws of science and nature, it is impossible to prove that Stalin ever even existed. All that can be proven in history is the coming of a present existence. How it comes to exist as so, is impossible to prove, only that it came to exist as it does.
In this respect, absolutely no historical events or people presently dead and decayed can be proven to have existed. This includes WW II even.
We judge history according to footage, artifacts and records made by people, not by facts. All anyone has to go by are these things.
I can tell you that Hitler was a fun loving monk who gave every penny to help others and adored Jews, and you can never prove otherwise. We believe otherwise because their are no credible historical accounts that he was, while their are extreme historical accounts that he was a barbarian.
Same for Stalin. All these things some of you claim about him being a good guy, no one can prove otherwise, but their are extreme historical accounts, footage and evidence that he to was a barbarian, not what you WANT him to be.
The people who claim otherwise alike yourself offer nothing of valid historical accounts, artifacts, footage etc. to show otherwise. Only flawd statistics.