Thread: Pro or Anti Stalin

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

This is another tribute to your lack of reason. The whole world to this very day DOES NOT know. Actually, we do know that at some point, Iraq did have WMD, because we gave them to Iraq to fight Iran with and Saddam never provided sufficient evidence that he got rid of them.

This guy really is a poster boy for the psychotic bible bashing sabre-rattling right. I love it.

Keep posting, mate! Makes me kinda wish I had FOX

Originally Posted by bad manners

Why should I regard some Canadian tabloid and some half-broken geosite page an accurate source of information?

Hey, stop baggin' the Canadians! How can you so easily dismiss quality journalism?..

Originally Posted by Zhenya

There is no good in Stalin, or in such a regime as Stalinistic - Sovyet, and have never been. (or others for that matter) nothing can justify such a terrible soceity, regardless of some common people having things marginally better than in the years following, and to even Discuss the industrializationary ""benefits"" of the Stalin programe is just Disgusting.

By the way, notice the mandatory humorous anecdote above, while still feeling so strongly for this partculary subject...

I'm with you

Sorry for not replying to this sooner. I had forgotten where the thread was.

Originally Posted by Czar Nicholas

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.

If he was only the number 2 man, how exactly was he the main perpetrator? It begs the question what number in this hierarchy Lenin himself was at.

[quote:39t9inou]or what exactly constitutes a Communist atrocity.

Ever heard of the Red Terror?[/quote:39t9inou]

Sure, but my question was more specifically what makes something a particularly Communist atrocity rather than an atrocity in general. Is it whatever type of system is in place? Because to me it would have to be part of the ideology itself to have such a name. I am unable to find anywhere in Communist literature of the turn of the century suggestions for establishing a secret police to murder "speculators," for example. So if you simply mean that there was a Communist political force executing these crimes, was the Tuskegee experiment a capitalist atrocity by the same logic? What about the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq? Was this a Democratic atrocity? Or do you make different distinctions about responsibility depending on how much you like the people who did something?

[quote:39t9inou]
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

[/quote:39t9inou]

Actually, Lenin and Trotsky both claimed to support "party democracy" even before the Civil War. Whether they really supported it or not (I don't believe they did), it wasn't a new addition to Trotsky's platform. You're also not making a distinction between "war communism" and the type of state socialism they advocated, and forgetting that it was their (Lenin and Trotsky's) belief that a strong police dictatorship was necessary during the Civil War to protect against White and American/British influences. There is no reason for us to argue whether or not they were right in this, simply for you to be honest and acknowledge that Trotsky never made any "sudden conversion to party democracy [as] a means of self-defense." It was part of a clear plan since the beginning to gain power in the workers' councils and soviets through egalitarian means and then consolidate that power. You can go to a site like marxists.org and read their old pre-Revolution pamphlets if you want.

[quote:39t9inou](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?
[/quote:39t9inou]

Yes, I'm sorry, but quoting the same piece of crap that you keep posting is not going to persuade me. You can paste it another thousand times if you want, that doesn't mean any of it is verifiable or accurate. I could paste a couple lines from a website quoting a book by Art Bell about space aliens. Just because something has a bibliography on it doesn't mean it isn't full of shit. Crack open an encyclopedia and look up Russian agriculture in pre-Revolution times. None of them come close to saying what you claim. They talk about how backwards and weak the farming was, how most of Russia's economy relied on industry because the peasants were very inefficient at managing their farms, how Russia still used the Julian calendar, etc. Why do none of them seem to agree with anything your enormous screed claims? Is it some sort of Anglo-American Communist encyclopedia conspiracy?

[quote:39t9inou]
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![/quote:39t9inou]

You're making a lot of convoluted arguments regarding this. Let us compare them with some facts and see where they seem to break down:

1. You say there were a lot of Communist atrocities
2. Your definition of "Communist atrocity" seems to be an atrocity by the government in charge (the Communists)
3. The government in charge during the atrocities of Russia prior to the Revolution is the one you idolize
4. Therefore, one must be led to conclude you do not oppose atrocities, merely ones initiated by Communist leaders.
5. You think Stalin violated the precepts of Bolshevism
6. You are "anti-Stalin"
7. You say that Stalin was better for Russia than Bolshevism was
8. Many more people (including Orthodox Christians) were executed or imprisoned or forced into exile under Stalin than prior to his rule.
9. Therefore, again I can only come to the conclusion that it was not atrocity in itself that you are against, because you seem to make a very large moral distinction between the crimes of Trotsky and Lenin, and those of Stalin and Nicholas II.

From these 9 points I can only assume you are either a hypocrite that lives in a fantasy world of convenience, or else a raving psychopath. This is not a scientific argument, just my own conclusion.

[quote:39t9inou]
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?
[/quote:39t9inou]

Thank you, I like it when morons roll their eyes at me. It makes me feel as though they are searching inside their head for their own brains. This is a great first step for them to take in their quest for knowledge.

It is "supposed to prove" the difference between a "Communist atrocity"--that is, as I understood you to mean then, a crime inherent in Communist ideology--and an outright atrocity in general.

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 will not answer the question you've given because it is a false dilemma. I am here neither to support Trotsky nor Stalin.

I think it was impractical for Russia to attempt communism without a highly-developed capitalist society to begin with. Bourgeois rule of a government instills people with a sense of individual importance and self-worth that is not present under feudal rule where people are still "property" in a sense. People who do not have a well-developed sense of freedom and independent thought will inevitably allow others to subjugate them, believing it to be "natural." It is the same with a woman who is beaten by her husband all of the time. She invariably returns to him (or men like him) until her own death or until she is strong enough to leave for good.

However, with that being said, I think the best course Russia could have taken after the Revolution was to dissolve the Kerensky government and leave all of the decision-making power in the councils and soviets rather than a centralized body. Let them form a delegatory federation to make any national decisions.

[quote:39t9inou]
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. [/quote:39t9inou]

You've also just said that Stalin's abandonment of traditional Communism was a "GOOD!" thing, yet this abandonment does not seem to have improved matters at all. I think you will not find a great many people who lived in those times that preferred the 1930-50s over the 1920s. Materially perhaps, but not overall.

I am having trouble comprehending how you can say "I am a staunch anti-Communist and therefore a staunch anti-Stalinist" as if Communism logically leads to Stalinism, and then go on to say that Stalin abandoned traditional Communism and this separation made him better than those who actually tried to follow it. Are you even reading these things before you submit them? Or do they somehow make sense in your mind?

[quote:39t9inou]
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. [/quote:39t9inou]

Let's take a quiz:

Who created the secret police? Stalin or the Tsars?
Who controlled and censored all forms of communication? Stalin or the Tsars?
Who controlled most industry and business? Stalin or the Tsars?
Who created the gulags? Stalin or the Tsars?
Who made it mandatory to carry identification at all times? Stalin or the Tsars?
Who let the Russian naval fleet be destroyed by Japan for the sake of imperialism? Stalin or the Tsars?
Who was responsible for millions of people dying in WW1? Stalin or Nicholas?

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

I sure hope this is another quote from that BS about America helping the USSR you keep posting.

[quote:39t9inou]
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!
[/quote:39t9inou]

That is hilarious! Are you that ignorant of history that you actually believe the public had no role in forcing Nicholas out? You are, god, just nevermind, I would have to violate half of the ToS just to say it.

[quote:39t9inou]
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.[/quote:39t9inou]

Take a Russian baby out of Russia, put him in Spain with Spanish parents, now his "cultural heritage" and "national identity" is Spanish. He won't know anything about Russia or feel some magical, supernatural connection to it. Put him in Italy instead, he's a full-blooded paisan. Put him in some country without any culture separation or nationalist sentiments, he's exactly the same only without these kinds of things in his head. He doesn't feel his home country is superior to others, or that his race is superior to others, or that just because his ancestors a thousand years ago wore some funny clothes involuntarily he has to dress up in them once a year and walk in a parade and feel proud. Culture and nationalism are completely psychological byproducts. They exist only in your imagination. Take away the root of them, and you take away 99% of the BS that effects political foreign policies and decisions on ethnic minorities.

[quote:39t9inou]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.[/quote:39t9inou]

Well, expert on Orthodoxy, perhaps you know then that Vladimir was not a Christian until he was 30--and only then because he wanted to marry a Christian Byzantine duchess. I am "intrigued" by a lot of things, it doesn't mean I am a convert to their ideas. He certainly had no problem being a practicing pagan and erecting monuments to Norse gods until 988, so your faith in his Christianity prior to that year is a little more solid than mine.

[quote:39t9inou]
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? [/quote:39t9inou]

There is nothing to prove here. I was speaking rhetorically about how flimsy the history of the Russian Orthodoxy is. It is all based on circumstance and coincidence rather than some material reasons for it being the state religion.

[quote:39t9inou]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. [/quote:39t9inou]

...What? I don't know any Russians that make women cover themselves. I was talking about how bad it would be if Islam was their state religion. What on earth are you talking about, you idiot?

[quote:39t9inou]
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.[/quote:39t9inou]

Do you even know what a straw man is? My whole point is that you cannot focus on his views "concerning Russia" because his views on culture did not concern one country specifically but were equally applicable to all of them. It would be like saying a quote by Abraham Lincoln on slavery is illegitimate when talking about ancient Greece or modern Sudan because he lived in the United States.

[quote:39t9inou]
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.[/quote:39t9inou]

I wouldn't call it a "doctrine." Karl Marx was not an infallible prophet, despite what he might have thought of himself to the contrary. I have to wonder how familiar you are with Communism though. I mean really.

[quote:39t9inou]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.[/quote:39t9inou]

OK, well, you didn't really argue anything I just said. You just bitched about the Jews for a couple of sentences and said nothing about the Tsarist treatment of ethnic minorities.

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!

I guess now you've shown your true colors. Are you related to that guy Eagle by any chance? Why is it that every psychopath who posts some 400-page long essay in a single post here an obligatory anti-Semite? Is there something in your white nationalism handbook that says to do this or what? Have years of supremacist research on the subject shown that it makes your argument seem more factual to paste a whole booklet into one message at the start of a thread?

[quote:39t9inou]
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.[/quote:39t9inou]

I didn't say the Orthodox church wants to completely control the government. They just want to climb back up into the layer of privilege, wealth, and influence they enjoyed until the revolution.

[quote:39t9inou]
(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
[/quote:39t9inou]

How dare they have it forced down their throats by the people in charge, is my point. If a family wants to raise their kids to be proud of Orthodoxy or dolls with smaller dolls inside of them or little faberge eggs that cost more to produce than many people a few miles down the street earned in their lifetime, then they can teach these things to them. I don't see why, for example, Moscow schools should have mandatory "culture classes," where an Orthodox priest comes in and tells kids about the Church in the 19th century for an hour, yet at the same time Halloween is banned for being a "pagan holiday."

And thank you for this list. It was very informative, but I think the website would be better if a MIDI of Soul Asylum's Runaway Train was playing in the background on autorepeat.

[quote:39t9inou]
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.[/quote:39t9inou]

Bravo. Did it take you very long to come up with that one?

You know, mike, I like this new energetic manner of yours. Так держать!

Stalin is my friend.

Originally Posted by Sean

Stalin is my friend.

I know... everytime we finished off a few Jim Beans, you tell me...

Let it go, he ain't commin' back

Originally Posted by mike

If he was only the number 2 man, how exactly was he the main perpetrator?

Because he was the one ordered many of the atrocities. If you wish to deny a basic fact of history, be my guest, but it will not reflect good on your intelligence.

It begs the question what number in this hierarchy Lenin himself was at.

Funny you can only resort to pathetic word games like this in order to get your point across.

Sure, but my question was more specifically what makes something a particularly Communist atrocity rather than an atrocity in general. Is it whatever type of system is in place? Because to me it would have to be part of the ideology itself to have such a name. I am unable to find anywhere in Communist literature of the turn of the century suggestions for establishing a secret police to murder "speculators," for example.

Then you obviously have no read much, for Lenin in particular make clear the need for terror to be used to secure a revolution's success. Trotsky himself said that "Not believing in force is like not believing in gravity". Then of course there was Sergei Nechaev's "Catechism of the Revolutionary" which calls for the use of terror and merciless destruction, which was a major influence on Bolshevik thinking. Or how about Chernishevsky's "What is to be Done", so influential Lenin copied many of his points in his own version of "What is to be Done".

It's quite clear here you dont know squat about the subject matter here!

What about the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq? Was this a Democratic atrocity?

Yes it is!

Actually, Lenin and Trotsky both claimed to support "party democracy" even before the Civil War.

BS, unless you mean Lenin's concept of "Democratic Centralism", where party members are only allowed to debate a topic but ultimately must follow the Party's orders?

There is no reason for us to argue whether or not they were right in this, simply for you to be honest and acknowledge that Trotsky never made any "sudden conversion to party democracy [as] a means of self-defense."

Sure because Trotsky only started advocating such a policy once he knew he was falling out against Stalin. Before then, Trotsky could hardly be considered an advocate of party democracy.

You can go to a site like marxists.org and read their old pre-Revolution pamphlets if you want.

I have. Unlike you, I judge by actual practice.

Yes, I'm sorry, but quoting the same piece of cr@p that you keep posting is not going to persuade me.

Ie you cant refute it!

You can paste it another thousand times if you want, that doesn't mean any of it is verifiable or accurate.

Anthony Sutton is regarded as a foremost expert on the Soviet economy. I can even quote from Edvard Radsinsky's biography on the last Tsar talking about the large amount of industrial growth at the turn of the century.

Crack open an encyclopedia and look up Russian agriculture in pre-Revolution times. None of them come close to saying what you claim. They talk about how backwards and weak the farming was, how most of Russia's economy relied on industry because the peasants were very inefficient at managing their farms, how Russia still used the Julian calendar, etc.

Care to actually quote a source, or do you wish to pull BS out of your ass AGAIN?

Why do none of them seem to agree with anything your enormous screed claims? Is it some sort of Anglo-American Communist encyclopedia conspiracy?

Encyclopedia's are known to be inaccurate in many areas because it takes several years to print them. Also historical assestments are known to change over time as new resources and research becomes available.

You're making a lot of convoluted arguments regarding this. Let us compare them with some facts and see where they seem to break down:

1. You say there were a lot of Communist atrocities

To which you're trying to deny.

2. Your definition of "Communist atrocity" seems to be an atrocity by the government in charge (the Communists)

Yes thats what a communist atrocity is. Of course you're trying to play Kung-sun Lung-tzu(who famously said a "white horse is not a horse") by claiming a communist atrocity is not really a communist atrocity.

4. Therefore, one must be led to conclude you do not oppose atrocities, merely ones initiated by Communist leaders.

Please point to atrocities committed by the tsars that came anywhere near those of the Bolsheviks. You have yet to give one fucking example!

5. You think Stalin violated the precepts of Bolshevism

Yes.

6. You are "anti-Stalin"

I am.

7. You say that Stalin was better for Russia than Bolshevism was

Yes.

8. Many more people (including Orthodox Christians) were executed or imprisoned or forced into exile under Stalin than prior to his rule.

Yes.

9. Therefore, again I can only come to the conclusion that it was not atrocity in itself that you are against, because you seem to make a very large moral distinction between the crimes of Trotsky and Lenin, and those of Stalin and Nicholas II.

Nice "white horse". Im speaking within the context of the communist leadership I believe Stalin was better than Trotsky or the other Bolshevik leaders. Now if that simple argument cannot enter your feeble mind, well thats your fucking problem not mine!

From these 9 points I can only assume you are either a hypocrite that lives in a fantasy world of convenience, or else a raving psychopath. This is not a scientific argument, just my own conclusion.

I personally dont give a rats ass what you think of me. You have yet to back your assertions up with any facts or sources, instead you resort to straw men and spinning to make your view known. As I said before, when I defend Stalin, Im defending within the context who was available in the Communist leadership. How the fuck this simple fact escapes your mind is totally unknown, but from what I've read from your other posts, I can assume you're of very low intelligence!

Thank you, I like it when morons roll their eyes at me.

HA! If anybody is a moron here, it's you! YOU HAVE YET TO POST ONE FUCKING FACT TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS!

It is "supposed to prove" the difference between a "Communist atrocity"--that is, as I understood you to mean then, a crime inherent in Communist ideology--and an outright atrocity in general.

Sorry Kung-sun Lung-tzu, but a white horse is still a horse!

I will not answer the question you've given because it is a false dilemma.

You wont answer because you know dittly fuck about this topic as is proven by your pitiful "arguments" here!

You've also just said that Stalin's abandonment of traditional Communism was a "GOOD!" thing, yet this abandonment does not seem to have improved matters at all. I think you will not find a great many people who lived in those times that preferred the 1930-50s over the 1920s. Materially perhaps, but not overall.

Have you ever met people from that era? I have and they contradict what you say. Hell they're the biggest supporters for a return to Communism.

I am having trouble comprehending

Yes I can tell you have trouble comprehending anything!

how you can say "I am a staunch anti-Communist and therefore a staunch anti-Stalinist" as if Communism logically leads to Stalinism, and then go on to say that Stalin abandoned traditional Communism and this separation made him better than those who actually tried to follow it.

I've explained this plenty of times. If your feeble brain is not capable of comprehending it(as you yourself admit), then thats your problem not mine. Im here to discuss things with intelligent being not morons who waste my time.

Who created the secret police? Stalin or the Tsars?

The Okhrana never operated on the same level as the Cheka/NKVD/KGB. Political prisoners were simply exiled to Siberia to live in modest shacks. There was nothing like the gulag system under the Tsars.

Who controlled and censored all forms of communication? Stalin or the Tsars?

Freedom of Press was guranteed by the Tsar after 1905.

Who controlled most industry and business? Stalin or the Tsars?

The Tsars never controlled industry and business the way the Communists did. The Tsars regulated but never owned them.

Who created the gulags? Stalin or the Tsars?

It was Lenin dumbass! There were no gulags under the Tsars.

Who let the Russian naval fleet be destroyed by Japan for the sake of imperialism? Stalin or the Tsars?

Thats not an atrocity but a military mistake.

Who was responsible for millions of people dying in WW1? Stalin or Nicholas?

Yes there was like 5 million dead in WW1 compared to 20 million of the Civil War and 30 million of WW2. Yeah thats a real good comparison

Nice list of "atrocities"

I sure hope this is another quote from that BS about America helping the USSR you keep posting.

You call it BS because you cant refute it!

That is hilarious! Are you that ignorant of history that you actually believe the public had no role in forcing Nicholas out? You are, god, just nevermind, I would have to violate half of the ToS just to say it.

Thank you moron, you failed to refute my quote. Instead you engage in pointless ad hominem.

Take a Russian baby out of Russia, put him in Spain with Spanish parents, now his "cultural heritage" and "national identity" is Spanish.

No.

Culture and nationalism are completely psychological byproducts. They exist only in your imagination. Take away the root of them, and you take away 99% of the BS that effects political foreign policies and decisions on ethnic minorities.

LOL! When I have time I'll quote Anthony D. Smith on this.

Well, expert on Orthodoxy, perhaps you know then that Vladimir was not a Christian until he was 30

Nice straw man, where I say otherwise?

--and only then because he wanted to marry a Christian Byzantine duchess.

One of many reasons why he chose the faith.

He certainly had no problem being a practicing pagan and erecting monuments to Norse gods until 988,

Perun was not a Norse God. Dont tell me you by that "normanist theory" which has been discredited for some time by accredited historians.

so your faith in his Christianity prior to that year is a little more solid than mine.

You failed to refute a single one of my assertion, and can only make straw men to argue your points!

There is nothing to prove here.

Indeed, speaking of which you've failed to prove anything of your arguments here!

I was speaking rhetorically about how flimsy the history of the Russian Orthodoxy is. It is all based on circumstance and coincidence rather than some material reasons for it being the state religion.

...What? I don't know any Russians that make women cover themselves. I was talking about how bad it would be if Islam was their state religion. What on earth are you talking about, you idiot?

I was mocking your notion of how "horrible" it would've been if Russian had their women cover themselves. Apparently my remark was justifed!

Do you even know what a straw man is?

Yes I do know what a straw man is, and you're using them quite alot I might add!

My whole point is that you cannot focus on his views "concerning Russia"

Since this is a forum for the discussion of Russian history, I believe thats very much fair. Suprising you're supposed to be a moderator here yet you seem to forget what the fuck this forum is actually about!

It would be like saying a quote by Abraham Lincoln on slavery is illegitimate when talking about ancient Greece or modern Sudan because he lived in the United States.

Non sequiter. Im referring to Trotsky's views on Russia when he was a native of Russia.

I wouldn't call it a "doctrine."

Oh boy, another white horse!

I have to wonder how familiar you are with Communism though. I mean really.

I have wonder how familar you are with anything remotely related to intelligent discussion. I mean really.

OK, well, you didn't really argue anything I just said. You just bitched about the Jews for a couple of sentences and said nothing about the Tsarist treatment of ethnic minorities.

Jews were an ethnic minority dumbass. And if Im not mistaken many ethnic minorities enjoyed certain rights that were denied even ethnic Russians. For example, Finns were exampt from conscription as were Batlic peoples I believe. Oh the horror of Russian chauvenism.

I guess now you've shown your true colors.

And what colors are those might I ask?

Are you related to that guy Eagle by any chance?

ROTFL! I must say you're very paranoid if you think Im somebody else.

Why is it that every psychopath who posts some 400-page long essay in a single post here an obligatory anti-Semite?

Maybe because many anti-semities are intelligent people. Do you want me to go through a list of famous anti-semites?

Is there something in your white nationalism handbook that says to do this or what?

Im not a white nationalist. Nice try at ad hominem


Have years of supremacist research on the subject shown that it makes your argument seem more factual to paste a whole booklet into one message at the start of a thread?

I didn't say the Orthodox church wants to completely control the government.

Then you contradicted yourself. Thank you for disproving yourself!

How dare they have it forced down their throats by the people in charge, is my point.

Please point to examples of Orthodox forcing their religion down peoples throats. I just read about how Russian missionaries treated native Indians in Alaska: how they spent time in their villages learning their languages and cultures so as to preach in manners they could understand, how they used rational arguments to defend the faith, how they allowed the natives free choice whether to attend church or not. Yeah thats so brutal!

I don't see why, for example, Moscow schools should have mandatory "culture classes," where an Orthodox priest comes in and tells kids about the Church in the 19th century for an hour, yet at the same time Halloween is banned for being a "pagan holiday."

Because whether you like it or not, the Orthodox church is part of Russian culture. Any moron who knows anything about Russia know this. But then again, you've proven your total lack of knowledge on Russian history and russian culture.

And thank you for this list. It was very informative, but I think the website would be better if a MIDI of Soul Asylum's Runaway Train was playing in the background on autorepeat.

And now we see your true colors!

Crikey! I'm exhausted after reading that.

Originally Posted by Czar Nicholas

The Okhrana never operated on the same level as the Cheka/NKVD/KGB. Political prisoners were simply exiled to Siberia to live in modest shacks. There was nothing like the gulag system under the Tsars.

Right. Would you tell us the level on which Okhrana/MVD operated? Numbers, their source?

Freedom of Press was guranteed by the Tsar after 1905.

Indeed. And censorship was lifted entirely.

The Tsars never controlled industry and business the way the Communists did. The Tsars regulated but never owned them.

Do you understand what "monarchy" means?

20 million of the Civil War

There were two parts to it (actually, more, but we can just take Bolsheviks and anti-Bolsheviks). And where does that number come from, BTW?

30 million of WW2

Two parts again. And the anti-Bolshevik one is responsible for most of that.

Originally Posted by BJ

Crikey! I'm exhausted after reading that.

I'm starting to get sick of these long-winding posts...

Look guys, Stalin has gone down in history next to Hitler, Hussein, Attila etc., and for a reason.
Every political leader is great to someone.
If you suck up pride and hate Jews, then Hitler will seam heaven sent to you. If you want to go around murdering men and babies and raping women and children, then Harold Hardrata would have made the ideal leader.
If you just want to live in peace, bother no one and be bothered by no one, then George Washington would have been ideal ( even though he really wasn't a political leader in his post-war life ) and the least popular to anyone who seeks popularity, prosperity and pride at the expense of others.
Their are many people who would find great benefit in someone like Stalin, but they would generally be the sort of people who will murder their naber for gain or defense of their pride if permitted to. Keep in mind also that many ( especially when it comes to communism ) prefer to murder through social and political miens.
It does not surprise me that we have a number of Stalinists in this forum. I would expect no less in a forum who has members who have openly gratified organized crime.

I completely agree with you.
To argue that Stalin was, on balance, somehow 'good' for Russia is both ridiculous and an absurdity that strikes me as being surrealistic in tone. When I read someone's words in defense of 'ol uncle Iosef, I sometimes think that the person must consciously be playing a 'devil's advocate' and cannot really believe the words he himself has written.
Stalin was responsible for more evil than anyone in history. He was directly responsible for the initial nazi successes after Germany invaded Russia. He had purged the General staff and upper and middle officer ranks before the war and thereby insured that the Russian Army would have few competent leaders. In the days after the invasion, Stalin was a coward, frozen to inactivity by his own fear. Thousands were executed in Russia for lesser acts of cowardace. How many lives were ended because of him? How many families destroyed? How many glorious possibilities were raped and tortured? How much does Mother Russia still suffer because of this devil, this Georgian who must have hated Russia and her people, this hollow man who would have murdered millions more had he lived another five years.
I could go on and on about this 'glorious leader of Russia', but I am losing my coherence.
Lovers of Stalin, throw your invective, say that I know nothing of history. Use your ad-hominem attacks against me and raise the portrait of your beloved midget with the pockmarked face and crippled arm high.
I know the bastard is dead and if there is no real hell then God should create one for him, this 'Generalissimo', this 'HERO OF RUSSIA' who died in his own stinking dung and piss. He died too well.

I completely agree with you.
To argue that Stalin was, on balance, somehow 'good' for Russia is both ridiculous and an absurdity that strikes me as being surrealistic in tone. When I read someone's words in defense of 'ol uncle Iosef, I sometimes think that the person must consciously be playing a 'devil's advocate' and cannot really believe the words he himself has written.
Stalin was responsible for more evil than anyone in history. He was directly responsible for the initial nazi successes after Germany invaded Russia. He had purged the General staff and upper and middle officer ranks before the war and thereby insured that the Russian Army would have few competent leaders. In the days after the invasion, Stalin was a coward, frozen to inactivity by his own fear. Thousands were executed in Russia for lesser acts of cowardace. How many lives were ended because of him? How many families destroyed? How many glorious possibilities were raped and tortured? How much does Mother Russia still suffer because of this devil, this Georgian who must have hated Russia and her people, this hollow man who would have murdered millions more had he lived another five years.
I could go on and on about this 'glorious leader of Russia', but I am losing my coherence.
Lovers of Stalin, throw your invective, say that I know nothing of history. Use your ad-hominem attacks against me and raise the portrait of your beloved midget with the pockmarked face and crippled arm high.
I know the bastard is dead and if there is no real hell then God should create one for him, this 'Generalissimo', this 'HERO OF RUSSIA' who died in his own stinking dung and piss. He died too well.

I completely agree with you.
To argue that Stalin was, on balance, somehow 'good' for Russia is both ridiculous and an absurdity that strikes me as being surrealistic in tone. When I read someone's words in defense of 'ol uncle Iosef, I sometimes think that the person must consciously be playing a 'devil's advocate' and cannot really believe the words he himself has written.
Stalin was responsible for more evil than anyone in history. He was directly responsible for the initial nazi successes after Germany invaded Russia. He had purged the General staff and upper and middle officer ranks before the war and thereby insured that the Russian Army would have few competent leaders. In the days after the invasion, Stalin was a coward, frozen to inactivity by his own fear. Thousands were executed in Russia for lesser acts of cowardace. How many lives were ended because of him? How many families destroyed? How many glorious possibilities were raped and tortured? How much does Mother Russia still suffer because of this devil, this Georgian who must have hated Russia and her people, this hollow man who would have murdered millions more had he lived another five years.
I could go on and on about this 'glorious leader of Russia', but I am losing my coherence.
Lovers of Stalin, throw your invective, say that I know nothing of history. Use your ad-hominem attacks against me and raise the portrait of your beloved midget with the pockmarked face and crippled arm high.
I know the bastard is dead and if there is no real hell then God should create one for him, this 'Generalissimo', this 'HERO OF RUSSIA' who died in his own stinking dung and piss. He died too well.

I completely agree with you.
To argue that Stalin was, on balance, somehow 'good' for Russia is both ridiculous and an absurdity that strikes me as being surrealistic in tone. When I read someone's words in defense of 'ol uncle Iosef, I sometimes think that the person must consciously be playing a 'devil's advocate' and cannot really believe the words he himself has written.
Stalin was responsible for more evil than anyone in history. He was directly responsible for the initial nazi successes after Germany invaded Russia. He had purged the General staff and upper and middle officer ranks before the war and thereby insured that the Russian Army would have few competent leaders. In the days after the invasion, Stalin was a coward, frozen to inactivity by his own fear. Thousands were executed in Russia for lesser acts of cowardace. How many lives were ended because of him? How many families destroyed? How many glorious possibilities were raped and tortured? How much does Mother Russia still suffer because of this devil, this Georgian who must have hated Russia and her people, this hollow man who would have murdered millions more had he lived another five years.
I could go on and on about this 'glorious leader of Russia', but I am losing my coherence.
Lovers of Stalin, throw your invective, say that I know nothing of history. Use your ad-hominem attacks against me and raise the portrait of your beloved midget with the pockmarked face and crippled arm high.
I know the bastard is dead and if there is no real hell then God should create one for him, this 'Generalissimo', this 'HERO OF RUSSIA' who died in his own stinking dung and piss. He died too well.

Do you think that repeating rubbish four times makes it convincing?

I apologize for my mistake of pressing the 'post' key 4 times. I hope 3 of them will be deleted by the powers that here be. In self-defense, I didn't realize that it was posted even one time, let alone four. The server was slow, I guess because of large net traffic.
My ignorance concerning technological functions aside, I am very curious why you chose invective, terming my post 'rubbish', and didn't trouble yourself to actually refute it. I take it you admire Stalin?

Why would anyone want to refute your nonsense?

First, prove your sentences 4, 5, 6, 7.

Then, answer your questions in sentences 9, 10, 11, 12.

That done, we can discuss midgets and the other incoherent idiots.

To qoute sources would be a worthless exercise. You would undoubtedly dismiss them as being 'distorted' and 'innacurate'. You and I can agree on that much. I do not have enough life left for such a tautological argument.
I believe, because of what I have read and because of Russian people with whom I have talked, that Stalin was a monster of such proportions that beside him Hitler and Pol Pot look like schoolyard bullies. You apparently believe something else. Neither of us could ever convince the other.
The bait you offer just isn't that tasty.