# Forum About Russia Culture and History  Pro or Anti Stalin

## emka71aln

i am taking a Russian History class this semester, and we had a pro/antt-Stalin debate the other day.  I had been told for so long that Stalin was bad, that I was surprised that there was such a pro-Stalinist argument.   
Basically, the sides were the damage he did by terrorrizing, starving, and murdering the people vs. the industrial improvements and WWII victories.  I know my opinion on this argument (the first one, of course) but it left me wondering what most Russians today think about Stalin.

----------


## Propp

My friend, who is actually a great nationalist, thinks that the one of most important thing is that in order to get more power Stalin killed most of the old bolshevik scum, left from 1920-s, and stopped more revolution, thus providing more stability in society. In 1917-1920 they (bolsheviks) killed other people, in 1930-s they started to kill themselves. Although Stalin himself was an old bolshevik scum and not many people justify him.

----------


## Jasper May

I believe the inhabitants of Volgograd wanted to change the name of their city back to Stalingrad some years ago... Says enough, really.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

Jasper, that doesn't necessarily mean they love Stalin so much. Stalingrad is also the name of the city that heroically fought off the Germans. When Leningrad chose to become St. Petersburg again, many people were against it, because Leningrad was the city that was nearly starved to death by the Germans, but had stood firm and had prevailed. 
I am anti-Stalin. He killed too many people (the vast majority of them without any reason whatsoever) to be loved by me. He did some good for the nation, but the death and destruction he caused weigh far heavier for me.

----------


## emka71aln

I've read so many history books that all give different estimates of how many people he killed in his purges - estimates between 2 and 7 million.  Some people say that it was excusable because the industry he developed by urbanizing Russia and forcing work in the Gulags allowed the Soviet army to be prepared enough to fight off Hitler, and provide a framework for a strong economy.  His constitution also set the same basic rights as we had in America at that time, and sometimes even more (expecially for women). 
(Just a little tidbit to see if anyone will take a pro-Stalinist side)

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

> I've read so many history books that all give different estimates of how many people he killed in his purges - estimates between 2 and 7 million.

 Strange books you read. It's MUCH more! Only in the artificially created Ukrainian famine millions died!   

> Some people say that it was excusable because the industry he developed by urbanizing Russia and forcing work in the Gulags allowed the Soviet army to be prepared enough to fight off Hitler, and provide a framework for a strong economy.  His constitution also set the same basic rights as we had in America at that time, and sometimes even more (expecially for women). 
> (Just a little tidbit to see if anyone will take a pro-Stalinist side)

 Well, about industrialization: you've got a point there. The USSR did reap great benefits of this in their war with Hitler. However, this came at huge costs in human lives and a lesser pace also would have been possible. Besides, Stalin made so many mistakes in the years before the war (purging large numbers of Soviet officers, placing the Soviet forces in the wrong place, destroying fortifications) that the positive benefits of the industrialization program were nullified to some extend.  
Also, let's not forget that Stalin was in a way responsible for Hitler becoming Fuehrer of Germany. He forbid the German Communists to form an alliance with the Social Democrats against Nazism. Instead, he gave them orders to fight the Soc Dems and let Hitler be; he would only be a temporary phenomenon. This way he weakened the anti-Hitler forces in Germany and the rest, as they say, is history. 
And about the constitution: that's a joke. According to that constitution Soviet citizens lived in a virtual paradise. Everyone knows that the reality was not *exactly* like that.   ::   ::

----------


## Jasper May

I've seen estimates between 20 and 50 million... Which isn't excusable.

----------


## Tu-160

> Just a little tidbit to see if anyone will take a pro-Stalinist side

 If you would like, I am a pro-Stalinist. About people killed, I've seen a number of 2 million people. 7 million is just funny. It's more like overestimated bs by Krushёv, which then was overestimated by other idiots. Nobody proved that. Last archive researches have discovered only 400 000. By the way Stalin didn't kill ordinary people. They were killed by people from high police management. I guess now only Stalin can answer why he didn't prevent it but you know how many officers he changed there. 
Yozh, you are so smart guy; you know how to position military forces and fortifications and how to choose friends in a foreign government; I would like you to be my President.

----------


## emka71aln

> By the way Stalin didn't kill ordinary people. They were killed by people from high police management.

 No, he didn't directly kill any ordinary people.  But he did worsen (some say cause, but that's bs) the famine in the Ukraine by taking ALL of the crops harvested.  This left ordinary people with nothing to eat and nothing to plant with, nothing to feed their livestock (what was left after they had to eat the livestock).  He also weakened the military by killing some of the best Generals in operation, so there was very little experienced leadership left during World War II.     

> And about the constitution: that's a joke.

 Yes, it is.  Actually, it only applied to those citizens with passports (about 10%) and only when the government felt like enforcing it.  But, for those people at those times, what a life!!  
BTW, are we allowed to elect him as our president?  Cause, I'd vote for Yozh.  He's smart - is there a rule against a smart president?

----------


## bad manners

> Originally Posted by Tu-160   By the way Stalin didn't kill ordinary people. They were killed by people from high police management.   No, he didn't directly kill any ordinary people.  But he did worsen (some say cause, but that's bs) the famine in the Ukraine by taking ALL of the crops harvested.  This left ordinary people with nothing to eat and nothing to plant with, nothing to feed their livestock (what was left after they had to eat the livestock).

 Right. The story as relayed by comrade Хрущёв. Would you care to inquire _who_ was (the top guy) in _charge_ of the Socialist Republic of Ukraine when that famine happened? Just for fun, eh?   

> He also weakened the military by killing some of the best Generals in operation, so there was very little experienced leadership left during World War II.

 The best generals in operation... in what operation please? Certainly not in WWII since they had been executed by evil Stalin. That at Manchuria? But it was comrade Жуков who actually made it is success. Was he killed afterwards? At the Finnish war? Comrade general Тимошенко? Dead too? 
Then must be those commanders of the Red Army at the Civil War. Будённый, Ворошилов... that must have been their ghosts who then were in charge of pretty much everything military. Oh, you surely mean Тухачевски, right? I mean the guy who entered Poland with odds heavily in his favour, and then his forces were magically disintegrated. A very capable general, indeed. The creator of the brilliant "wide front attack" idea, that he so successfully field-tested in Poland that he went on indoctrinating it into the young commanders in his Academy...    

> Actually, it only applied to those citizens with passports (about 10%)

 I'd very much like to see any evidence that supports that figure.

----------


## mike

1.  Saying that it's ok to kill a few million people for the sake of rapid industrialization and recovery of economic power is a good defense of not only Stalin, but also Adolf Hitler.  He did the exact same thing in Germany only his economic policy wasn't as brutal.  Think about that before defending him.  To give discredit where discredit is due, most of the deaths and imprisonments under Stalin were at the hands of Beria--but close to 200,000 death warrants carry Stalin's personal sign-off.  His early medical records also showed he suffered from severe paranoia and mental health problems (of course the doctor who gave him this diagnosis early in the 1920s had a fatal "accident" hours later). 
2.  To say the constitution of the Soviets was nothing like how it was under Lenin and Stalin is to forget that most of the scope of the constitution existed before the Bolsheviks came into power.  In the pre-counterrevolution days the free soviets and trade unions worked exactly as they were described in these documents (excluding the decisions pertinent to the Provisional Government, which were largely ignored), but because they failed to elect (or reelect) the Bolshevik party candidates the latter decided it wasn't enough to rely on parliamentarism to come to power and instead resorted to military seizure.  Or as Lenin put it, "The elective principle must now be replaced by the principle of selection."  It wasn't until the Civil War when Lenin had the free soviets abolished, Trotsky liquidated all oppositional political parties and labor strikers, and the Communist Party rejected all trade union elected representives that did not meet its approval that the USSR's constitution became something of a cruel joke.  As Stalin said in The Party Before and After Taking Power, in a rather Orwellian way, "From a party of revolution within Russia, the Russian Communist Party has been transformed into a party of peaceful construction. That is why it has removed from the arsenal of the proletariat such forms of struggle as strikes and insurrection, which are now unnecessary in Russia."  He goes on to say:   

> That is why the Party, which has overthrown the bourgeoisie in our country and has raised the banner of the proletarian revolution, nevertheless considers it expedient to "untie" small production and small industry in our country, to permit the partial revival of capitalism, although making it dependent upon the state authority, to attract leaseholders and shareholders, etc., etc., until the Party's policy of "doing the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries " produces real results. 
> Such are the distinctive conditions, favourable and unfavourable, that were created by October 1917, and in which our Party is operating and developing in the third period of its existence.

 3.  The only somewhat positive thing I can say about Stalin is that his books make for a fucking hilarious read.  The only thing in "Anarchism or Socialism?" that isn't completely based on flawed logic or straw man arguments (such as his argument against anarchism's ignoring the necessity of industrialization by quoting ONE person--the communalist Kropotkin--who was against it and ignoring the more widespread urban tendencies of Bakunin, Goldman, Berkman, the Slavic platformists like Arshinov and Makhno, etc.) is when he confesses the classic philosophy of Marx and Engels that "[w]here there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power."  It's too bad in the USSR there _were_ classes as well as rich and poor.  Stalin might've accidentally done everyone a favor and got rid of himself had he obeyed Marxist dogma. 
* Spelling errors were fixed.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

> Originally Posted by emka71aln  Just a little tidbit to see if anyone will take a pro-Stalinist side   If you would like, I am a pro-Stalinist. About people killed, I've seen a number of 2 million people. 7 million is just funny. It's more like overestimated bs by Krushёv, which then was overestimated by other idiots. Nobody proved that. Last archive researches have discovered only 400 000. By the way Stalin didn't kill ordinary people. They were killed by people from high police management.

 Your naivity makes me laugh... It also makes me sad...   

> Yozh, you are so smart guy; you know how to position military forces and fortifications and how to choose friends in a foreign government; I would like you to be my President.

 Well, I might listen to my generals who _do_ know how to do such things...   ::  And about "friends in foreign governments": Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf" in 1923!!! In it, he said he wanted to invade the USSR, destroy the state and enslave it's people. I'd say Stalin _could_ have known what kind of person the man was...   ::   
Can't be your President, I'm not born in Russia. Too bad, would have done your country some good!   ::

----------


## mike

[quote=Gollandski Yozh] 

> Originally Posted by emka71aln  Just a little tidbit to see if anyone will take a pro-Stalinist side   If you would like, I am a pro-Stalinist. About people killed, I've seen a number of 2 million people. 7 million is just funny. It's more like overestimated bs by Krushёv, which then was overestimated by other idiots. Nobody proved that. Last archive researches have discovered only 400 000. By the way Stalin didn't kill ordinary people. They were killed by people from high police management.

 Your naivity makes me laugh... It also makes me sad...   

> Yozh, you are so smart guy; you know how to position military forces and fortifications and how to choose friends in a foreign government; I would like you to be my President.

 Well, I might listen to my generals who _do_ know how to do such things...   ::  And about "friends in foreign governments": Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf" in 1923!!! In it, he said he wanted to invade the USSR, destroy the state and enslave it's people. I'd say Stalin _could_ have known what kind of person the man was...   ::   
Can't be your President, I'm not born in Russia. Too bad, would have done your country some good!   :: [/quote:2csi8vzo] 
You forget that Stalin tried to broker an alliance with England and France in the 30s against Germany, but was rejected.  It is safe to say he did know what was going to happen to Russia once the German momentum began.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

But that was already _after_ Hitler had come to power. Before that, Germany and the USSR were working closely together in military matters.

----------


## mike

> But that was already after Hitler had come to power. Before that, Germany and the USSR were working closely together in military matters.

 Yes.....because neither Germany nor the USSR wanted a war to break out while both were so bankrupted and unprepared for it as well as desiring to fortify their post-WWI territories and secure peace agreements with neighboring states.  Also, during the 1920s Germany seemed "primed" for a Communist revolution.  I'm sure Stalin did not want to jeopardize this from happening by undermining Weimar's silent tolerance for the popular Communist Party and allying with the bourgeois reformist government of the Social Democrats, especially when the Nazis never had more than 3% of the national vote until the 30s and thus were not considered much of a threat (he also had no way of knowing Hitler would manipulate his way into power through force and intimidation and establish a dictatorship in place of the republic).  It is easy to say "he shouldn't have taken Hitler so lightly" considering all of the atrocities he committed.  But, as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

No matter how "small" Hitler seemed to be, he was the man who had vowed to destroy Communism and it's homeland - the USSR. That's like the Americans supporting Bin Laden!  
Oh, wait...   ::

----------


## N

Read this if you want to learn other side of story:  http://www.x-libri.ru/elib/smi__958/00000001.htm 
It's about so-called Stalin's purges, constitution etc
All the more reason to learn Russian  ::

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

Read Volkogonov... 
And I already _know_ how to read in Russian. I read Volkogonov in Russian, Zhukov's memoirs, Rokossovsky's memoirs etc. 
Your "so-called" disgusts me. It's like saying the Holocaust never happened.  
You can believe what you wanna believe, but Stalinism=fascism, no matter how you look at it...

----------


## N

Volkogonov is biased.
Zhukov had the reason to hate Stalin.
Rokossovsky wrote abt Stalin in high terms. 
And I don't know what Stalinism is. What do you understand by this?Fascism is ideology. Is Stalinism ideology? Never heard that Stalin invented new one.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

> Volkogonov is biased.

 And someone _supporting_ Stalin isn't?   ::   Yeah, right....   ::   
Let me guess, Volkogonov is biased because he writes about Stalin in a _negative_ way? So, if I were to write bad, bad things about Hitler, does that make me biased?    

> Zhukov had the reason to hate Stalin. 
> Rokossovsky wrote abt Stalin in high terms.

 The examples I gave about Zhukov and Rokossovsky were to show you that I don't need to learn Russian to read the link you posted. I've read better in Russian, thank you very much. Also a fair deal of stalinist propaganda BS, don't need to read more about that.   

> And I don't know what Stalinism is. What do you understand by this?Fascism is ideology. Is Stalinism ideology? Never heard that Stalin invented new one.

 Stalinism is commonly used to describe the form of Communism Stalin created in the USSR: rapid industrialization at a high price, collectivization, strict control over the state by one man etc. 
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...

----------


## N

Спокойствие! Только спокойствие!   ::   
I gave the link to interview with very respected Russian historian, who was not caught in a lie yet. His interview is full of facts. 
If you don't want to read it - no need.  
emka71aln asked for arguments and I gave the link. That's all.

----------


## bad manners

> Originally Posted by N  Volkogonov is biased.   And someone _supporting_ Stalin isn't?

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

> I've read better in Russian, thank you very much. Also a fair deal of stalinist propaganda BS, don't need to read more about that.

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

> Stalinism is commonly used to describe the form of Communism Stalin created in the USSR: rapid industrialization at a high price, collectivization, strict control over the state by one man etc.

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

> Well, you believe what you want to believe. No matter what I say, you won't be convinced. It's like explaining to a Nazi that black people aren't inferior. No change in hell you'll get through...

 Funny, you leave just the same impression.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

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

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

----------


## N

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

 His last book - "Тайны Кремля. Сталин, Молотов, Берия, Маленков" 
He prepared  for the press monography "Сталин и политические реформы в СССР. 1933-1937 годы" - this interview was a sort of intro of this monography. But unfortunately I cannot find it in stores.

----------


## bad manners

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

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

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

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

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

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

 I know. His name is Suvorov and he's full of sh*t. "Mein Kampf" proves nothing, though. The fact that Hitler was planning to attack in 1923 already, doesn't mean that his actual attack in 1941 couldn't have been a reaction to Soviet preparations.  
However, I agree with you (and so do most serious historians who have totally trashed Suvorov on the basis of _sources_) that it is "alternative history" and Stalin wasn't planning to attack in 1941.   _I_ don't have to know/read all the sources for that. Historians that are familiar with the matter and have access to the same sources as Suvorov, have done that job for me.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

> Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh  Give me a title and I'll read the book. This "interview" proves nothing. I want sources.   His last book - "Тайны Кремля. Сталин, Молотов, Берия, Маленков"

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

----------


## N

To Gollandski Yozh: 
O! I just have checked my bookstore and found that his book is printed already: 
Ю.Жуков. Иной Сталин: Политические реформы в СССР в 1933-1937 гг.  http://www.mdk-arbat.ru/bookcard.asp?FIRST=366965

----------


## bad manners

[quote=Gollandski Yozh] 

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

 No, but I _know_ others will. And Volkogonov would have been crushed if he had made things up.[/quote:4uwci41b] 
That is a bit dangerous. The others are mere humans, and they have biases. For example, you would probably trust anybody saying "bad Stalin" without any further examination, and you would probably just reject "good Stalin" without any further examination just the same. 
Before Хрущёв, most of the western historians had been bashing Stalin "traditionally". They could not have had any serious foundations for their claims on GULAG, say. The data were classified and they could not conduct sociological studies in the USSR. 
After Хрущёв, all historians were bashing Stalin because of Хрущёв's declarations. That has been going on for decades. After a couple of generations of historians, nobody is even going to doubt what has become the "Common Truth" now. 
I cannot judge Stalin by the claims of the historians now. So many lies have been piled on top of his deeds (which he predicted). But the majority of the Russian people value Stalin very highly. Those who dislike him are few and far between, but they happen to be the Russian интеллигенция, and their voice is louder than that of the rest of Russia. You should remember that the Russian интеллигенция has always disliked the Russian rulers and the Russian state. It is just its nature. A famous statement is: "I will always be in opposition no matter what government" (sorry, I forget the author). Дерьмо нации, as Lenin aptly characterized.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

OK, badmanners, whatever...   ::   
I love Stalin! He's a saint! He saved our Rodina! Hurrah for Stalin!  
And quoting Lenin doesn't really help your case...

----------


## bad manners

> OK, badmanners, whatever...    
> I love Stalin! He's a saint! He saved our Rodina! Hurrah for Stalin!

 Typical. No real arguments. I'm not blaming you, though. You are conditioned by whatever "sovietology" "studies" you had. Ёжик в тумане. 
And he actually did save _your_ Rodina, by the way.   

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

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

----------


## scotcher

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

 haha 
and I can't stress this highly enough... 
ha  
And that's all the response you deserve.

----------


## bad manners

> But the majority of the Russian people value Stalin very highly. Those who dislike him are few and far between, but they happen to be the Russian интеллигенция...
> 			
> 		  haha 
> and I can't stress this highly enough... 
> ha  
> And that's all the response you deserve.

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

----------


## DrRick

From my reading ("Stalin's Secret War," the "KGB Chronicles" and others), beyond the millions sent to the Gulag for "political incorrectness", there were the hundreds of thousands of POWs freed from German captors to be returned home, only to be shot or exiled because "they had seen the West." 
This was not new with Stalin, but concentration camps (long used by the Tsars under less harsh conditions -- food, clothing, labor, etc) were re-employed by Lenin by 1919 to combat anti-revolutionary rebellions across the country. At least according to Solzhenitsyn. 
On my first trip to Ukraine, I visited the remains of a Baptist church which was destroyed in the late 1930's -- every man in the church was sent to the camps and never returned because... they were Baptists. Many Orthodox and Catholic priests suffered the same fate. 
Industrialization? Perhaps. But behind the "building of a nation" was the single-minded 'power of the State.'

----------


## bad manners

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

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

> At least according to Solzhenitsyn.

 That a serious source?  ::    

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

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

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

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

----------


## Zeus

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

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

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

 It's an oversimplification again. Or rather misunderstanding.

----------


## scotcher

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

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

----------


## 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.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

> Typical. No real arguments.

 OK, let's examine your arguments, then: 
1. "You were brainwashed!" 
Yep, that's sure to kill any discussion. "You were fed propaganda, _I_, however, know the full truth..." 
Hmmm, I wonder who's brainwashed? The one growing up under a totalitarian regime that was founded by Stalin, or the one growing up in a democracy with free access to both sides of the story? 
2. "The intelligentsia, who are _bad_, think Stalin is _bad_, hence he must be _good_." 
This is a strange way of reasoning.  
First, you haven't proven that the intelligentsia is bad. Sure, Lenin thought they were bad, but if I were to establish a dictatorship, I also wouldn't love that part of the nation that uses it's brains. 
Second, even if they really are bad, those intelligentsia guys, does that mean the person _they_ see as bad, is in reality _automatically_ a good guy? I'm sure the intelligentsia in Russia also doesn't love Hitler. Must be a good guy, then... 
3. "Most Russians agree with me, so I'm right." 
Like scotcher said, that's not _my_ observation. I've also met quite a lot of Russians and although most defend the USSR, hardly anyone has ever defended Stalin.

----------


## bad manners

> Originally Posted by bad manners  But the majority of the Russian people value Stalin very highly.   Can't agree with this. It's definitely a marginal minority. Most of Russians (at least those who are able to think) regard Stalin _appropriately_, and this cannot be put into a simple axis 'bad-good', 'low-high'. As any historical phenomenon, he cannot be just estimated with a school mark.

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

----------


## bad manners

> 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.

----------


## scotcher

Atta boy. When discussion fails, resort to hurling insults. 
Always the sign of a reasoned and well thought-through position.

----------


## N

> 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.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

> 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...   ::

----------


## N

> 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   ::

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

> 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!  ::

----------


## scotcher

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

 touch

----------


## bad manners

[quote=Gollandski Yozh] 

> 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.

----------


## N

> 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/

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

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!   ::   ::

----------


## mike

> 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.

----------


## bad manners

> 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...

----------


## Scorpio

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?

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

> 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...   ::   ::

----------


## bad manners

> 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.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

@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

----------


## bad manners

> 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.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

> 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...

----------


## Jasper May

> 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'   

> 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)

----------


## N

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

> 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.   

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

 Excuse me but he never said that...   

> 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   ::

----------


## Jasper May

@N: And I respect everything in Russia but Stalin. Don't get me wrong.
I did understand what you were talking about. I'm not dumb and I do know something about the subject. Насчёт 'our' knowledge being utterly one-sided, I'd say the majority of Russians' is as well. 
So maybe it's not proven that he himself, in person, killed anyone. As someone in this thread said, he did give some of the direct orders (40,000+ was it?). Why so few? You try and sign millions of deathwarrants. That doesn't mean he didn't have anything to do with it or even had no knowledge of it. 
I did understand what Bad Manners was saying. It still is a kind of medieval attitude, isn't it? "Ooo, they know something we don't, they must be witches/devils/enemies of the state." Is it proven that they ever did anything illegal/wrong? Or are they just bastards because they criticize Russia? Which of course is an American attitude. 
And the quote is most definitely associated with Stalin. Maybe not an authoritative source, but look: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 01380.html
Or did Chrushchev invent this quote and attribute it to Stalin?  ::

----------


## bad manners

> @Scorpio 
> Denying the famine? The USSR was producing food _for export_ to pay for the industrialization. The famine should never, ever have happened.

 Are you unable to read? He said it clearly, famines had been regular in Russia before Stalin and before Lenin. Tolstoy said "голод на Руси не когда хлеб не родится, а когда не родится лебеда". Do you even know what "лебеда" is? 
Likewise, Russia had been exporting food and having famines before 1917. The communists did not cause it. But it is remarkable that they actually stopped it. That famine in the Ukraine was the last to happen.

----------


## N

> So maybe it's not proven that he himself, in person, killed anyone. As someone in this thread said, he did give some of the direct orders (40,000+ was it?).

 It was not the "direct orders". That's a good example of misinterpretation.  

> I did understand what Bad Manners was saying. It still is a kind of medieval attitude, isn't it? "Ooo, they know something we don't, they must be witches/devils/enemies of the state."

 No, actually he said that they know nothing.  ::    

> And the quote is most definitely associated with Stalin. Maybe not an authoritative source, but look: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 01380.html

 Yes you are right, it's not an authoritative source  ::

----------


## bad manners

> 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.

 That is incorrect. Stalin did not have anything even remotely resembling "dictatorship" since 1921. He was the secretary general since 1921, but originally it was a technical position. There were lots of "старые большевики" who were very influential. Stalin gained full power in 1937, when those were no more. But it is well known that the "purges" stopped in 1937 precisely after the old-timers had been dealt with. Thus it is not very clear who was the driving force behind the purges. I know that you're going to say "Stalin, who else, anybody knows that" but that's not going to convince me. 
Many of those "repressed" were then actually returned shortly after 1937, apparently as soon as it was discovered that they were still returnable. As sad as it sounds in this particular case, bureaucracy exists everywhere, so I can image it took some time. The return of the repressed clearly indicates a shift in the policy, and I attribute that shift to Stalin's coming to full power, when he could stop the madness. But I admit that I'm speculating here.   

> 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...

 Yes, let's discuss the numbers. When some hot shots say that Stalin killed ten, twenty or more millions, then he was just as bad as Hitler. Some wise guys even say that he was worse than Hitler because he killed more people in Russia than Hitler did. But as it turns out that he "killed" no more than 1.4 million, then he's definitely a far cry from being worse than Hitler. I said "no more" because we cannot attribute 1.4 million to Stalin, as I remarked above.

----------


## bad manners

> 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

 That's why I said "good for nothing" was a necessary condition. The educated guys who have taken the time to study the Russian history separately from вранья Никиты Кукурузника (AKA the "democratic" version) have a lot more balanced position. At the very least they start to realize how many lies and fabrications are there. The rest may or may not follow, but still. Unfortunately, that does require a deliberate attempt, while the "default" version is "Stalin is a bloody murderer, the USSR is an evil empire". That should be the biggest shame for the Russians.

----------


## Jasper May

Bad Manners didn't say the intelligentsia knew nothing, in the posts I read. 
Anyway, @Gollandski Yozh etc., it's a bit like convincing holocaust revisionists. I'm open to everything, but it needs a lot more proof than what those/these people come up with to convince me. 
If someone on this forum can direct me to a convincing, well-researched, documented and critical essay proving that Stalin wasn't a tyrant, complete with reactions from other authorities on the subject (western and Russian), I'd be more than happy to read it. Even if it's Russian. Until then I'm going to leave this thread. Don't want to ruin our work-relations here, do we? ::

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

Jasper May, for a "clown" you're quite intelligent.  ::  I must agree with you. If bad manners even doubts the lowest number available (1,4 million), I'd say we are fighting a useless fight here.  
Fine, BM, Stalin wasn't a killer. You believe that. I believe what I know are the facts. Let's just all believe our own "propaganda". You'll be happy to live in a fairy tale world where Uncle Joe is like Ded Moroz and we'll live in reality with Stalin trying his best to make Hitler look like a naughty schoolboy.

----------


## bad manners

> Jasper May, for a "clown" you're quite intelligent.  I must agree with you.

 For the record, I meant another person when I said clown. I thought the context [or rather picture] was clear. I apologize if I was not clear enough on that. I never meant to insult Jasper. In fact, I'm delighted by his genuine interest for the Russian language, culture and history. Yet I find it pointless to discuss what we're discussing here with him. That requires certain perspective that he simply cannot have.   

> Fine, BM, Stalin wasn't a killer. You believe that. I believe what I know are the facts. Let's just all believe our own "propaganda".

 Sigh. You confirm my worst worries. That is a matter of faith for you. You don't provide arguments, and you ignore the arguments of the others. Isn't it troubling you that the people whom you seem to love may have a history completely different than that ingrained into you?

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

> Sigh. You confirm my worst worries. That is a matter of faith for you. You don't provide arguments, and you ignore the arguments of the others. Isn't it troubling you that the people whom you seem to love may have a history completely different than that ingrained into you?

 No arguments? I gave you Scorpio's source! 1,4 million deaths! What more do you want? Make Stalin a saint? If you think he wasn't responsible for any deaths, it's YOU who are going against the majority of the thinking world. Please, prove this. I can point at whole libraries written about Stalin being an evil SOB. You call this "propaganda". How do expect me to convince you, then?

----------


## bad manners

[quote=Gollandski Yozh] 

> Sigh. You confirm my worst worries. That is a matter of faith for you. You don't provide arguments, and you ignore the arguments of the others. Isn't it troubling you that the people whom you seem to love may have a history completely different than that ingrained into you?

 No arguments? I gave you Scorpio's source! 1,4 million deaths! What more do you want? Make Stalin a saint? If you think he wasn't responsible for any deaths, it's YOU who are going against the majority of the thinking world. Please, prove this. I can point at whole libraries written about Stalin being an evil SOB. You call this "propaganda". How do expect me to convince you, then?[/quote:3gdku7h9] 
Oh. So you do agree with 1.4 million now. Then you should take back your recent comparison of Stalin with Hitler. 
I say that he surely was responsible. I reject the number of 1.4 million. Because I know how the Russian bureaucracies work. If there is a particular subject they can report on, they will. If that subject is as important as "the number of anti-soviet elements, trotskyist and kulaks executed or imprisoned" they will try their best to show figures that they think should please their superiors, that is, large figures. Especially when the employees are the старые чекисты, hardened by their old deeds. The biggest sin Stalin ever committed was to give them the very ability to report on that subject. Could he have done otherwise? Historically, I think he did the right thing taking the "extreme communists" away from power. I doubt they would give in voluntarily. So the NKVD had to be plugged in. They surely did their best and energetically so to fulfill the expectations of their superiors (to the extent they understood it). Do you honestly believe that out of ~700 thousand executed in 1937-1938 every single one was reported to Stalin? I'm sure he knew about the most prominent persons, and the responsibility for their fate lies with him. On the other hand, it is precisely the same persons who deserved it most. I'm sure he knew the grand total as well, could he stop it? Would he want to? Do you think he would authorize any execution if he knew that the person was innocent?  How could he verify that in the first place? Did he try to do anything to verify that? 
I do not have answers to these questions. I do not think anybody does, either. But I think it is unfair to answer them by "yes he was guilty". I suggest that you read "Вадим Кожинов Россия. Век XX-й (1901-1939)." if you genuinely want to see how these questions _might_ be answered.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

> Oh. So you do agree with 1.4 million now. Then you should take back your recent comparison of Stalin with Hitler.

 No (misreading is _very_ convenient sometimes), I said earlier that 1,4 million deaths is "mass" murder in my book. I don't care if he killed 20 million (closer to my truth, at least), 5 million, 1,4 million or "only" 200,000, he's still a mass murderer to me.  
I say Stalin was a mass murderer. Period. There are also people denying the Holocaust and they have all the "proof" they need, i.e. only what they want to see.  
Stalin knew nothing of all this? That's a joke. He executed Ezhov, claiming he had been doing things behind Stalin's back. After this came Beria, who was an even bigger butcher. Sure, and Stalin knew _nothing_ about all this. Having the power to stop the killings without using it makes you 100% responsible, even if he didn't sign every death sentence himself. Like Ezhov, Beria could only go as far as Stalin let him. In the end, it was Stalin who made the madness stop, but he was also the one who started it.

----------


## Zeus

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

 It's very hard to say what would happen. Maybe (and even possibly) without Stalin the world would be so different that it would be incorrect to say about all that 'eternal slavery' and wars at all. Even if so, it's too hard to predict what would other parties (forces) do. I prefer not to speculate about it. 
And secondly. I don't like your conception of intelligentsia. Actually, any of them. As any generalisation, it loses the point too easily. Western world lives without such "прослойка", even though it does have such kind of people (e.g. Greens in Australia  ::  ). I realise Russia has some special environment for these people (and there is no one to blame for it), but still the emphasis on them is stupid. (I even think it's partly because of the traditional Russian approach to blame some definite group in everything - a current government, intelegentsia, Jews...  ::  ). But the worst thing is that many individuals transfer such attitude to all educated people.

----------


## Zeus

> Originally Posted by Jasper May  So maybe it's not proven that he himself, in person, killed anyone. As someone in this thread said, he did give some of the direct orders (40,000+ was it?).   It was not the "direct orders". That's a good example of misinterpretation.

 N, it's absolutely not important. It's an old сказака о хорошем царе и плохих боярах. Anyway, as well as a commander has full responsibility for his unit, as a director is responsible for his works and people, Stalin (and any state governor, especially a dictator) was directly responsible for everything his government did.

----------


## scotcher

Bad Manners is using any available evidence that supports his world view to further his tenuous argument, whilst simultaneously disregarding the mountains of evidence that contradict those views, labeling anyone who challenges his opinions as 1) incapable of understanding the issue, or 2) stupid, or 3) brain-washed, or 4) biased, while at the same time totally failing to aknowledge that exactly the same charges could just as easily be levelled at him in light of the fact that he has still offered absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up his, frankly appauling, beliefs. 
And when all else fails, he starts calling people names. 
Is there anywhere this thread can go from here? 
Clown Out  ::

----------


## bad manners

[quote=Gollandski Yozh] 

> Oh. So you do agree with 1.4 million now. Then you should take back your recent comparison of Stalin with Hitler.

 No (misreading is _very_ convenient sometimes)[/quote:2g7zgv3h] 
Sigh again. Then I'll repeat that it's a matter of trust for you. You trust what you want to trust.   

> Stalin knew nothing of all this? That's a joke.

 Where did I say that? I said quite plainly that I'm sure he knew "the grand total". Whether he really could stop it is an entirely different matter.   

> After this came Beria, who was an even bigger butcher.

 That has to be proved yet. Whatever Никита Сергеевич said is not necessarily true. They executed Beria for a ridiculous charge (working for a number of foreign intelligence services). The trial was not held openly, and the materials look very much like fake.   

> Having the power to stop the killings without using it makes you 100% responsible, even if he didn't sign every death sentence himself.

 You need to prove that he had the power first. You argue like a kid, one single man in charge of everything. I can tell that you're fresh from a university and never ever worked even in a medium size organization (long enough). Have you ever considered why Nicholas the Second was overthrown? Because he was barely aware of the "настроениях в низах", food deficit, and so on. When it finally occurred to him that he could slacken the tension by feeding the populace, it was already too late. Are you going to say that he was not as powerful as Stalin? Now that would really be a joke, a самодержец less powerful than somebody who at least in principle was subordinate to the Party and the Politburo in particular, not to mention that he was not even a member of the government. Yet you сотоварищи ignore this analogy. История учит тому, что она ничему не учит.  
And I take it you're going to ignore the reference I gave, right? Credo quia absurdum.

----------


## bad manners

> Originally Posted by bad manners  That I can agree with. When I wrote "value highly" I did not mean they all say "дорогой товарищ Сталин, спасибо за наше счастливое детство" all the time. But those who are able to think, excluding those интеллигенция types who can but hate everything around them, understand perfectly well that without comrade Stalin they would not have had any childhood at all. None, zero, zilch, nada. Those few who would have survived would have lived in enternal slavery, able only to count up to 500 and sign, and perhaps read their master's orders, Hitler hismself was not quite sure about the latter.   It's very hard to say what would happen. Maybe (and even possibly) without Stalin the world would be so different that it would be incorrect to say about all that 'eternal slavery' and wars at all. Even if so, it's too hard to predict what would other parties (forces) do. I prefer not to speculate about it.

 The world would have been different right enough. I've mentioned the most likely picture. Waging a war against Russia and exterminating the Slavs and the other untermenschen were an ideefixe for Hitler, it had been his leitmotiv since well before Stalin became a "dictator". It was there in Mein Kampf, and it was there in his talks with Bormann et al, and most importantly it was done in the occupied territories. There is nothing to speculate about.   

> And secondly. I don't like your conception of intelligentsia.

 Then ignore it. It is not even secondary to my argument, it is tertiary. Historically the intelligentsia has played a horrible role in the history of Russia, it brought the Bolsheviks in 1917 and it brought the humiliation in 1985-1992 and ever since. There might be nice people there, they are everywhere, but on the grand scale it looks disgusting.   

> But the worst thing is that many individuals transfer such attitude to all educated people.

 And because you're educated you don't like it, eh? Let's not get personal about it. By the Russian standards I'm an интеллигент myself. I'm sure that when the intelligentsia _has_ done something that makes the lives of _all_ the people in Russia more enjoyable, it will receive full credit. Right now I can think of only one such deed, the freedom of speech, but as the Russian government mostly ignores whatever is said about it...

----------


## Scorpio

> @Scorpio 
> Denying the famine? The USSR was producing food _for export_ to pay for the industrialization. The famine should never, ever have happened.

 I'm *denying the famine*?!
Yozh, did you actually *read* what I wrote?   

> "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

 Yes, there was essential amount of grain export during Stalin's time -- and one of most important reasons for it was a dire need for building a powerful industry. Because without it the powerful agriculture is not possible, too.
Isn't is obvious, that agricultural sector of economy needs appropriate equipment -- tractors, seeder, combine harvesters, etc? That's one of important reasons, why forced industrialization of the country was needed. Are you still blaming Stalin for it?

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

BM, comparing Nicholas I, a weak willed man, with Stalin, who had a strong will ever since he was Koba, is ridiculous. 
Hitler never ever signed a document approving the deportation of Jews and their gassing. Still, nobody doubts he knew about this. Trains had to be used, rail capacity, people, etc. It was done in his name, following his ideas. 
Now, about Stalin. Do you really think that if Stalin hadn't known about all this, nobody would have told him: "Tovarish Stalin, I should let you know what is going on in the country. The security service is killing people without your permission and thus weakening the nation." You find such people everywhere; taking matters to the superiors of their superiors just to benefit from it themselves. This never happened. Why? Because it was all ordered and/or condoned by Stalin. 
You claim he didn't have the _power_ to stop it. That's just a joke. He _did_ have the power to stop Hitler, but not some sadists of the NKVD? 
And please, you said you didn't want to call Jasper a clown, now you call me a kid. Is it really that hard to defend your Glorious Leader without name calling? Just pathetic.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

@Scorpio 
In other words, people starved for their own _benefit_?  
"Yes, poor Ukrainians, now you all are dying of hunger, because we are exporting food, but don't worry, in two years you will all have brand new _tractors_! Aren't you happy? And you thank it all to our Glorious Leader, tovarish Stalin!"

----------


## Scorpio

> @Scorpio 
> In other words, people starved for their own _benefit_?  
> "Yes, poor Ukrainians, now you all are dying of hunger, because we are exporting food, but don't worry, in two years you will all have brand new _tractors_! Aren't you happy? And you thank it all to our Glorious Leader, tovarish Stalin!"

 Yozh, are you sarcastic? Why?
Yes, they were *starving for their own (and future generations) benefit*. Please, give me an example of any famine in Ukraine, happened between 1945 and 1991. You can't? Aren't their absence somewhat beneficial? 
There's the difference between the Stalin's times and present days: I have no idea, for whose benefits people in Ukraine (and in Russia, and other former Soviet republics...) are starving *now*.  Corrupt local authorities? Corrupt western-beloved nation-wide politicians? Corrupt world economy "elite"? 
But not *for their own benefit*, I'm 100% sure.

----------


## bad manners

> BM, comparing Nicholas I, a weak willed man, with Stalin, who had a strong will ever since he was Koba, is ridiculous.

 Yeah. Nicholas II (I believe you actually mean II, right?) was weak and good by definition, and Stalin was strong and evil by definition. The environment of one was manipulating the ruler by definition, and the environment of the other was manipulated by the ruler by definition again. Way to go, my friend. Any other stereotypes you want to share?   

> Now, about Stalin. Do you really think that if Stalin hadn't known

 Do you even read what I write? I have  A-D-M-I-T-T-E-D   T-W-O   T-I-M-E-S that Stalin probably knew about the numbers. Did he know that the NKVD was abusing the power? How could he know? Do you imagine they told him "yes comrade Stalin, we understand that we've killed too many and we must say that we've killed many without any reason". You say that Stalin was Evil and Dreadful, yet you find it natural that those subordinate to this Evil would admit that they'd made terrible errors. In reality, I think they would say "Yes, we had executed a few, but they were the enemy of the state, which they admitted, please have a look at these papers. The respected comrades of our troikas had scrutinized these papers and found them guilty and they were dealt with in full accordance with the law." Do you even realize that Stalin could (and did!) have business more important than supervising the NKVD all the time? Like I said, you do not seem to know anything about how hierarchies work.   

> You find such people everywhere; taking matters to the superiors of their superiors just to benefit from it themselves. This never happened. Why? Because it was all ordered and/or condoned by Stalin.

 How touching. Assume there was somebody who had the guts (mind you, in front of the Evil and Dreadful one) to advocate the alleged enemy. You can even imagine that you're Stalin yourself. What would you do? If you're sensible man, you'll want to make sure that what is said is true. How? You can delegate the task or you can do it yourself. Let's say you want to make _real_ sure about that. Then you'll do it yourself. So, you go out of your office, get into your car, and, surrounded by escort, arrive at a jail. And you find a Potemkin village there. You don't think that the NKVD types will not try to conceal that they're spending their time fabricating cases, instead of Fighting the Real Enemy of the State, or do you? But even if you find that a particular case is fabricated, does that mean that all are fabricated? Are you going to check them all yourself? So you _have_ to delegate the task. Guess what's gonna happen next. An excercise in "organizational thinking".    

> You claim he didn't have the _power_ to stop it. That's just a joke. He _did_ have the power to stop Hitler, but not some sadists of the NKVD?

 He did much to stop Hitler. He industrialized the country, and gave the country a chance to fight on equal terms with Germany. But the war was won by the country, not by him individually. 
Or think about it that way: the "sadists of the NKVD" were internal enemy, essentially criminals. A country that can win over a very powerful external enemy will not automatically win over the crime. Take the USA, for example. They have won many wars, but they cannot win over the crime and corruption inside. But of course "the USA is nice and good by definition, they are weak and cannot fight the crime by definition, Stalin and the USSR are bad by definition, and they are strong and evil and can do whatever they want by definition". Yeah, I know.   

> And please, you said you didn't want to call Jasper a clown, now you call me a kid.

 The attitude that you are demonstrating is indeed not very mature. You ignore the fact that the USSR had one of the biggest bureaucracies in the world, and you attribute all the power to one man. Calling him a dictator does not help, tsars could be called such dictators as well, but "they were weak and Stalin was strong". I know, you needn't repeat.   

> Is it really that hard to defend your Glorious Leader without name calling? Just pathetic.

 So far I've called only one name. Your irony misses the target here, Stalin was not my leader. 
So, I can see you're not going to consult the sources you've been given? I can see you're going to repeat "the famine, the 110 million killed" ad nauseum. It's clear like hell you're going to call these sources "communist propaganda" without reading them. Не читал, но не одобряю. I hope you're aware of the origin of this phrase.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

BM, you call _my_ sources propaganda by brain washed historians. What gives you the right to tell me _your_ sources are the God given Truth? For every book you give me that says Stalin wasn't a mass murder, I can give you ten well documented books that claim the opposite. 
110 million? Did I ever say that? You must be getting senile... I may act like a kid, but you act like an old man who thinks it all used to be better (most of the time due to selective memory). Trashing the intelligentsia for being critical. A little more room for critisizm in Russia's long history might have helped. Also, you forget that Pushkin, Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, the Cadets also belonged to the intelligentsia. For a people that label the thinking, critical part of the nation "whiners", the future looks bleak indeed. 
And I didn't claim all Tsars were weak. YOU compared Stalin to Nicholas II, not I. Nicky was weak, not his father, for example. Nor was Stalin.  
And in the huge Soviet bureaucracy do you really think Stalin couldn't have found _one_ man he trusted he could make a personal representative to check the facts? Why do you say Stalin industrialized the USSR? That wasn't Stalin, that was the huge Soviet bureaucracy...   ::  The bad things were done by others, the good things were done under direct guidance from Stalin, is that it? Like Zeus said, it's just the same old story of the Good Tsar and the Bad boyars.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

> Originally Posted by Gollandski Yozh  @Scorpio 
> In other words, people starved for their own _benefit_?  
> "Yes, poor Ukrainians, now you all are dying of hunger, because we are exporting food, but don't worry, in two years you will all have brand new _tractors_! Aren't you happy? And you thank it all to our Glorious Leader, tovarish Stalin!"   Yozh, are you sarcastic? Why?
> Yes, they were *starving for their own (and future generations) benefit*. Please, give me an example of any famine in Ukraine, happened between 1945 and 1991. You can't? Aren't their absence somewhat beneficial? 
> There's the difference between the Stalin's times and present days: I have no idea, for whose benefits people in Ukraine (and in Russia, and other former Soviet republics...) are starving *now*.  Corrupt local authorities? Corrupt western-beloved nation-wide politicians? Corrupt world economy "elite"? 
> But not *for their own benefit*, I'm 100% sure.

  ::   
Than the Jews must be really thanking Hitler right now. Hadn't they been dying in large numbers during WWII, Israel wouldn't have existed.... 
Look, people who think everything is justified in the name of the Greater Good scare me to death. They are always ready to take innocent lives in their quest for a future Utopia.  
Collectivization and before that the _mir_ stood in the way of progress. It wasn't necessary to kill hundreds of thousands (I can feel a fight on numbers coming here...). No collectivization = higher food production. Look at the West or Eastern Europe (more on the same technological level as Russia at that time). Stalin screwed everything up with collectivization (killing numerous so-called "kulaks" in the process) and later "saved" the people by mechanizing the country side. Yeah, right...

----------


## bad manners

> BM, you call _my_ sources propaganda

 Stop spreading the lies. I've never called your sources propaganda. Until now, I have used the word propaganda two times. I'm quoting myself: 
1. What Stalinist propaganda have you read to date? I'm afraid you've mostly read anti-Stalinist propaganda, which has a way greater volume, and is by and large the only kind of literature about USSR/Stalin available in the so-called West. [Notice that it is not an affirmative statement but an inquiry. And it was after you called something propaganda.] 
2. It's clear like hell you're going to call these sources "communist propaganda" without reading them. 
That's it. Would you care to quote me saying _your_ sources _were_ propaganda? BTW, even if I wanted I could not do that, you've never mentioned your sources. What are you sources, eh? 
And it is _you_ who calls whatever I write propaganda every second time. Go and check this thread. Or do you want me to quote you on that? 
Ditto for "brainwashing". I only used that term once, not at you, but at a clown whose brain was washed to void emptiness. 
Summarizing, you have ascribed me what I have never done. Not once, but a few times. Now I think you firmly believe that I use the words "propaganda" and "brainwashing" at anybody and all the time. This is precisely what you and the likes of you have done to Stalin. You have ascribed him a lot of nonsense, then have repeated that a gazillion times, and have convinced one another that he did that. Thank you for demonstrating that process in its entirety. Stalin is bad by definition and 2000000 lemmings cannot be wrong.    

> For every book you give me that says Stalin wasn't a mass murder, I can give you ten well documented books that claim the opposite.

 You have said that a million times now. Go f****** ahead and give me your sources, preferably with direct quotes. Will you?   

> 110 million? Did I ever say that?

 Go ahead and say, after all, _what_ number of deaths he caused. So far you have carefully avoided saying an exact number that suits your beliefs. Just don't give me the crap like "1, 5, 10, 20, etc millions, I don't care, he is a mass murderer anyway". 110 millions came from an article by Solzhenitsyn, who I guess you'd love to agree with. The more the merrier, isn't it? Stalin was a filthy murderous swine who killed all of them just for the pleasure of it, right? I wonder what prevented him from killing everybody, would you elaborate? Was it that he wanted to save a few of them so they could kill the entire human race on planet Earth?   

> A little more room for critisizm in Russia's long history might have helped.

 Helped what? The cretins helped the Bolsheviks to get a hold of the country. Would you like them to provide more assistance of the kind?   

> Also, you forget that Pushkin, Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, the Cadets

 You really need a refresher on the Russian history. Pushkin and Tolstoy were noble, that means they could never be intelligentsia. Dostoyevsky was an "intelligent", that's right, so what? The Cadets were a party, they could be anything; besides, what's so special about that particular party of losers?   

> Nicky was weak, not his father, for example. Nor was Stalin.

 By definition again? Just because that axiom makes your theory self-consistent?   

> And in the huge Soviet bureaucracy do you really think Stalin couldn't have found _one_ man he trusted he could make a personal representative to check the facts?

 And that man would be known to nobody in the NKVD, right? Then he would be executed on spot as a spy. If he and his function are known, then every stupid jerk in the NKVD will understand that this guy is as important as Stalin himself. You can reapply my original argument from here.    

> Why do you say Stalin industrialized the USSR? That wasn't Stalin, that was the huge Soviet bureaucracy...   The bad things were done by others, the good things were done under direct guidance from Stalin, is that it?

 You may know a few facts about the Russian history, and you are full of misconceptions about it, but you have absolutely no idea about organizations and economy. 
Stalin initiated the industrialization. Any doubts about it? Then he could monitor and control its progress by looking at the economic metrics. They cannot be faked. So he initiated and he could monitor and control. He had full control, so he receives the full credit.  Simple enough? 
Can that be said about the purges? The 1.4 million men killed during 32 years were not noticeable given the timespan and the total population. Russia is losing _more_ than that every year now, and few seem to be concerned about it. (But Stalin is bad by definition, and even though the total population grew up despite the wars and the famine, it must be a figment of our imagination. Stalin is bad by definition. The current Russian government, bad though it is because it’s Russian, by definition, is still better than Stalin because they are killing more people than he did but they do it nicely and without exchanging their deaths for a better life for the rest of the population.)   

> Like Zeus said, it's just the same old story of the Good Tsar and the Bad boyars.

 And because the story is about Russia, it cannot be true. By definition, of course.

----------


## Zeus

> That has to be proved yet. Whatever Никита Сергеевич said is not necessarily true. They executed Beria for a ridiculous charge (working for a number of foreign intelligence services). The trial was not held openly, and the materials look very much like fake.

 This makes me laugh. Does it matter? The most notorious criminals are always charged for ridiculous offences. Al Capone has been caught for tax evasion, you know  ::    

> never ever worked even in a medium size organization (long enough)

 And on this argument. It's still irrelevant if a high-level manager doesn't know something on lower level. Any failure of his subordinates is his fault anyway. That's why high officers are often resigned because of their inferior's faults. In a word, Stalin can be blamed just for creating (or maintaining, doesn't matter) the system where he didn't know (if that is the argument) vital facts. Nicolas II too, his fall is largely his fault. And don't even say Stalin was technically not in the government.

----------


## Zeus

> The world would have been different right enough. I've mentioned the most likely picture.

 I'm not sure it's the most likely one. Too simple.   

> Historically the intelligentsia has played a horrible role in the history of Russia, it brought the Bolsheviks in 1917 and it brought the humiliation in 1985-1992 and ever since. There might be nice people there, they are everywhere, but on the grand scale it looks disgusting.

 I don't agree with the concept itself, that intelligentsia (or whoever) as a whole played some role. 
The second thing is that, even if so, it's not correct to blame someone in all sins. "We have the government we deserve" is not just empty words. No group, including bolsheviks, can be isolated from the society it is in. If we have 'intelligentsia', then there are historical and cultural reasons for that. It is part of us. Part of you.

----------


## Zeus

> they were *starving for their own (and future generations) benefit*

 Угу. "К светлому будущему, в колонну по два, вперед шагом марш!" Знаем...  ::

----------


## bad manners

> Originally Posted by bad manners  That has to be proved yet. Whatever Никита Сергеевич said is not necessarily true. They executed Beria for a ridiculous charge (working for a number of foreign intelligence services). The trial was not held openly, and the materials look very much like fake.   This makes me laugh. Does it matter? The most notorious criminals are always charged for ridiculous offences. Al Capone has been caught for tax evasion, you know

 He was caught and charged and found guilty openly. He had a fair trial. Beria was executed, the charge looks like shit, the evidence is a joke. Then some years after they said, "well, you know, he did not really work for foreign intelligence, he was a mass murderer instead. TRUST US on that!". Does that not look strange to you?   

> [quote:ggpc4qft]never ever worked even in a medium size organization (long enough)

 And on this argument. It's still irrelevant if a high-level manager doesn't know something on lower level. Any failure of his subordinates is his fault anyway. That's why high officers are often resigned because of their inferior's faults. In a word, Stalin can be blamed just for creating (or maintaining, doesn't matter) the system where he didn't know (if that is the argument) vital facts. Nicolas II too, his fall is largely his fault. And don't even say Stalin was technically not in the government.[/quote:ggpc4qft] 
That's a good argument. Remember, however, that same system existed for ages before him and continues now. Don't say that the Bolsheviks re-created the system. They did, but even before Stalin. He inherited it anyway. And it is remarkable how the system is resistant too all the changes that has happened in Russia. 
The argument was not that he did not know, the argument was that 1) it was almost impossible to verify, 2) the scale was not as large as some believe (e.g., there are more held in the Russian penitentiary system now than it was back than; more in the US prisons now than it was in the GULAG), so it might not be as alarming, 3) the general opinion in the USSR was "we're surrounded by enemies" -- which was true -- so finding a big number of spies and saboteurs might seem natural. 
Anyway, even if Stalin was guilty in that, that's a totally different can of worms.

----------


## bad manners

> Originally Posted by bad manners  The world would have been different right enough. I've mentioned the most likely picture.   I'm not sure it's the most likely one. Too simple.

 You can agree or disagree, but the twenty millions of Slavs and Jews killed in Poland, Ukraine and Byelorussia did not have that option. Факты упрямая вещь.   

> I don't agree with the concept itself, that intelligentsia (or whoever) as a whole played some role.

 Fine. If it did not play any role, then what's the fuss about it?

----------


## mike

[quote=bad manners] 

> Originally Posted by "bad manners":l1ry063e  The world would have been different right enough. I've mentioned the most likely picture.   I'm not sure it's the most likely one. Too simple.

 You can agree or disagree, but the twenty millions of Slavs and Jews killed in Poland, Ukraine and Byelorussia did not have that option. Факты упрямая вещь.[/quote:l1ry063e] 
I don't know how you can be so sure that without Stalin things would've been vastly different (regarding Hitler, that is).  Trotsky (I am not in favor of either one, so do not argue against this post as being a pro-Trotsky one, I am simply giving an example) was a much wiser militarist than Stalin not to mention a Ukrainian Jew, so it is doubtful he would've cooperated with Germany at any time during Hitler's rise in power.  How can we be so sure?  Well, let us compare Stalin's "wait-and-see" attitude with the beliefs held by Trotsky in the years leading up to Hitler's seizure of Germany.  We will examine first his opinion of Hitler and second whether or not his control of the USSR would've led to being unprepared for any kind of military defense against the Nazis. 
From "For A Workers' United Front Against Fascism" (1931):   

> Hitler emphasizes that he is against a coup d'etat. In order to strangle democracy once and for all, he wants to come to power by no other route than the democratic road. Can we seriously believe this?

  

> It is quite possible that Hitler's courtesies to democratic parliamentarism may, moreover, help to set up some sort of coalition in the immediate future in which the fascists will obtain the most important posts and employ them in turn for their coup d'etat For it is entirely clear that the coalition, let us assume, between the Center and the fascists will not be a stage in the democratic solution of the question, but a step closer to the coup d'etat under conditions most favorable to the fascists.

  

> Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!

 In "Hitler and the Red Army" he warned:   

> One cannot sow grain and plant cabbages with his back turned to the West, from which, for the first time since 1918, comes the greatest threat, which can be a mortal danger if it is not paralyzed in time.

 So it is clear that Trotsky (and probably many others in the Comintern who were too cowardly to say something to Stalin) recognized Hitler as a serious threat, even if Stalin did not.  As to whether or not Trotsky would've been able to establish a powerful-enough economy it is hard to say because he was not a nationalist and almost certainly would've focused all of his efforts on toppling the capitalist economies of the rest of Europe--starting with Germany--rather than spend two decades trying to industrialize Russia.  It is also impossible to know how strong the USSR's economy would be during this time, but it is fair to say that if Trotsky had stuck to the pseudosocialism of the NEP it certainly would've been stronger than Stalin's USSR of the same time period (though it would be much weaker than the post-WW2 USSR if we assume no other countries were overthrown by the Communists under Trotsky). 
The solution Trotsky outlined (in "Germany and the USSR") in the early 30s for eliminating Hitler before he became a serious threat was not as reliant on sheer numbers and industrialization, though, as it was merely to position Red Army troops along the border of Germany and induce the German Communists (and Social Democrats if they were willing) into starting an uprising.  He assumed Hitler would've known what was going on and declared the USSR responsible for encouraging it, and this would have given the Red Army an excuse to attack the border as a matter of "self-defense." 
Your claim that anybody but Stalin would've been unable to match the threat of the Nazis in World War 2 rests solely on the belief that anyone else would've been stupid enough to repeat Stalin's mistakes prior to the declaration of war.

----------


## bad manners

> As to whether or not Trotsky would've been able to establish a powerful-enough economy it is hard to say because he was not a nationalist and almost certainly would've focused all of his efforts on toppling the capitalist economies of the rest of Europe--starting with Germany--rather than spend two decades trying to industrialize Russia.

 That means he would not have been able to establish a powerful economy. As far as I can see, he did not care much about that. 
As for his being more military-wise, that does not stand any critique. He failed miserably in Poland, against her laughably weak army. The Germans would have eaten him for breakfast. I suspect that the executions of the military commanders established by Trotsky (Тухачевский et al) were well justified.   

> It is also impossible to know how strong the USSR's economy would be during this time, but it is fair to say that if Trotsky had stuck to the pseudosocialism of the NEP it certainly would've been stronger than Stalin's USSR of the same time period

 And why is that? 
Besides, if Trotsky had remained, he would have done something stupid like attacking Germany, just like you say, and that would have been the end of it all.   

> The solution Trotsky outlined (in "Germany and the USSR") in the early 30s for eliminating Hitler before he became a serious threat was not as reliant on sheer numbers and industrialization, though, as it was merely to position Red Army troops along the border of Germany and induce the German Communists (and Social Democrats if they were willing) into starting an uprising.  He assumed Hitler would've known what was going on and declared the USSR responsible for encouraging it, and this would have given the Red Army an excuse to attack the border as a matter of "self-defense."

 In the unlikely event that the Red Army had been successful, the great powers would surely have offered support to Hitler. That's quite obvious.   

> Your claim that anybody but Stalin would've been unable to match the threat of the Nazis in World War 2 rests solely on the belief that anyone else would've been stupid enough to repeat Stalin's mistakes prior to the declaration of war.

 I do not see any power that could have stopped Hitler. Nobody actually did. I do not think that if Stalin had not been there, anybody would. If Trotsky had been there instead, then the European countries would have been even more pleased by having a stronger Germany to shield them from him. That leaves only the USSR itself, but it would have been a failure, with or without Stalin. The only way out was to have a strong economy, strong industry, intensive agriculture, and eventually a strong army. Not having them was what brought Russia on her knees in WWI. Stalin or not, that had to be done. I doubt it could be done by NEP alone.

----------


## mike

> Originally Posted by mike  As to whether or not Trotsky would've been able to establish a powerful-enough economy it is hard to say because he was not a nationalist and almost certainly would've focused all of his efforts on toppling the capitalist economies of the rest of Europe--starting with Germany--rather than spend two decades trying to industrialize Russia.   That means he would not have been able to establish a powerful economy. As far as I can see, he did not care much about that.

 Firstly, the economy of Russia in the 1920s and 30s was not powerful anyway.  The industrial production output goals of Stalin's five-year plans, while an amazingly leap from the days of Lenin, were rarely if ever achieved.  The output that _was_ reaped was of such low quality as to make it a practically unexportable commodity.  A Stalin-led economy and one that followed the NEP are impossible to compare because it is impossible to know how the largely agrarian Bolshevik nation would've flourished or perished had it existed for another five or six years.  Remember that it was not an industrialized Russia who defeated Napoleon, the 19th century's "unstoppable dictator" who everyone believed would take over the world.  Too many people underestimate the ability of a people to defend their homes without being forced at gunpoint to do so. 
Second, I was under the impression that the alleged purpose of state socialism is not to create a "powerful economy" but a self-sufficient one.   

> As for his being more military-wise, that does not stand any critique. He failed miserably in Poland, against her laughably weak army. The Germans would have eaten him for breakfast. I suspect that the executions of the military commanders established by Trotsky (Тухачевский et al) were well justified.

 If we are to believe his autobiography, then Trotsky was opposed to the war in Poland from the beginning and believed only a diplomatic solution was possible.  It was Lenin who decreed that it be attacked, and assuming that once the Red Army made a few minor victories the peasants of the Polish nation would rise up and conquer the country themselves.  They were thus vastly unprepared for the seige of Warsaw with no shortage of the blame resting solely on Lenin's lack of foresight. 
Which one of the two was responsible for unifying a national army of 5 million soldiers in roughly 12 months' time?  Stalin or Trotsky?  And the military commanders you speak of were, although from Tsarist times and thus of questionable loyalty to the Communist Party, absolutely necessary to win the Civil War.  Their military experience was drastically needed to defeat the Whites, Polish, Allies, etc.  I agree that perhaps they were no longer needed once this war was over, but I have a hard time believing _anybody's_ execution is well justified.  This is more of an ideological difference between you and I so there is no point in focusing on it.  It will only lead to an off-topic argument that never ends. 
By the way, if we are to talk about humilitiating and embarrassing defeats against much weaker and pathetic militaries perhaps we should discuss Stalin's Winter War where, even with the enjoyment of a working industry and modernized army, the Reds were picked off like sitting ducks by a bunch of snipers and biathletes as they stupidly trudged across open terrain and marched into ambushes one after another.  In most cases with Russia's own weapons, from the captured arsenals in Helsinki.  What were the casualty ratios again?  35:1 or something?  Brilliant strategist indeed!   

> [quote:bf9e45l3]It is also impossible to know how strong the USSR's economy would be during this time, but it is fair to say that if Trotsky had stuck to the pseudosocialism of the NEP it certainly would've been stronger than Stalin's USSR of the same time period

 And why is that?[/quote:bf9e45l3] 
Because during the early years of Stalin's economic plan the country was actually _weaker_ than it was in the early 1920s.  No one is denying the USSR came out of World War 2 a global superpower.  But I hope you also have the good sense not to deny that at the time period that our argument rests upon, the years leading to Hitler's seizure of Germany, Stalin's Russia was no stronger than it would have been had it been left under one of Lenin's proselytes.   

> Besides, if Trotsky had remained, he would have done something stupid like attacking Germany, just like you say, and that would have been the end of it all.

 It all depends on many factors, most of which we can only guess and create estimates of rather than argue for sure.  Germany after WW1 was nothing.  It wouldn't have been much of a battle for the Red Army had it staged an offensive war against the depression-ruined Weimar republic.  It wasn't until the mid-30s that it began a serious rearmament policy.  Trotsky wanted to attack much earlier than this (at least 1930).  If you want to say that had Trotsky been placed in command in the late 1930s on the same path that Stalin had followed then yes, he probably would have lost most of the battles on the Eastern front due to his dependence on foreign heavy industry.  But I think under Trotsky most likely Germany would've become a member of the Soviet Union by 1935 at the latest.  As for whether or not this would've led to a major conflict with the West, I don't know.  They were deep in the Great Depression by then so it is doubtful they would go against it.  Remember that they did not bother to confront Hitler until he had already begun invading them.  Anyway, this is getting too deep into hypothetical fantasy possibilities and is detracting from any tangible discussion so I will not think about it any further.   

> [quote:bf9e45l3]
> The solution Trotsky outlined (in "Germany and the USSR") in the early 30s for eliminating Hitler before he became a serious threat was not as reliant on sheer numbers and industrialization, though, as it was merely to position Red Army troops along the border of Germany and induce the German Communists (and Social Democrats if they were willing) into starting an uprising.  He assumed Hitler would've known what was going on and declared the USSR responsible for encouraging it, and this would have given the Red Army an excuse to attack the border as a matter of "self-defense."

 In the unlikely event that the Red Army had been successful, the great powers would surely have offered support to Hitler. That's quite obvious.[/quote:bf9e45l3] 
Based on what?  And it is not so unlikely to believe, but you are thinking from the wrong angle.  The Red Army was meant only to be an offensive support to a catalyzed revolt.  Until the 1930s almost half of German voters identified themselves as socialists and communist sympathizers so it is unlikely that any of them would oppose it.  Just because the SDP were apologists for the ruling class in the failed revolution in World War 1 does not mean the German masses would be fooled a second time by Social Democrats telling them to give up their arms and seek a mediation with the Chancellor the same way they did with the Kaiser.  Their reformist credibility had been shot.  I believe this is one reason why their favor declined dramatically in the late 1920s.  As for the great powers, what support could they offer in 1930 that would not be met by massive opposition from a public at home who were 20% unemployed, starving, and were suddenly told to go fight against a popular leftist uprising in the burgeoning East?   

> [quote:bf9e45l3]Your claim that anybody but Stalin would've been unable to match the threat of the Nazis in World War 2 rests solely on the belief that anyone else would've been stupid enough to repeat Stalin's mistakes prior to the declaration of war.

 I do not see any power that could have stopped Hitler. Nobody actually did. I do not think that if Stalin had not been there, anybody would. If Trotsky had been there instead, then the European countries would have been even more pleased by having a stronger Germany to shield them from him. That leaves only the USSR itself, but it would have been a failure, with or without Stalin. The only way out was to have a strong economy, strong industry, intensive agriculture, and eventually a strong army. Not having them was what brought Russia on her knees in WWI. Stalin or not, that had to be done. I doubt it could be done by NEP alone.[/quote:bf9e45l3] 
But again your argument that no one could have stopped Hitler relies on the belief that whoever was in charge would do the same things as Stalin in regards to foreign policy.  Trotsky and the other paleo-Leninists fully supported unifying the Social Democrats (about half of Germany) with the Communist Party against the fascists.  Stalin did not.  Trotsky et al supported attempting to ignite revolutions in other countries using the Red Army as a mobile means of supporting these revolutions (something that Lenin also encouraged).   Until the anarchists and republicans in Spain asked for help fighting Franco in return for giving up control over their country in the late 30s, Stalin did not support this view either.  His isolationist policies might have helped Russia defend itself against Germany in World War 2, but whether or not the whole thing could've been avoided by stroking the German proletariat before Hitler abolished the government is the point I am driving at.

----------


## bad manners

> By the way, if we are to talk about humilitiating and embarrassing defeats against much weaker and pathetic militaries perhaps we should discuss Stalin's Winter War where, even with the enjoyment of a working industry and modernized army, the Reds were picked off like sitting ducks by a bunch of snipers and biathletes as they stupidly trudged across open terrain and marched into ambushes one after another.  In most cases with Russia's own weapons, from the captured arsenals in Helsinki.  What were the casualty ratios again?  35:1 or something?  Brilliant strategist indeed!

 I'll address the rest of your message later. 
This 35:1 is BS. I'll fetch Liddel Hart's WWII and quote what he thinks on the Winter War later on. For the time being, please be aware that the total casualties of the Red Army were ~120 thousand.  The Finnish casualties, according to the Finns, were ~50 thousand (and I bet they were higher). That's less than 3:1. Given the character of the environment (winter, hardly passable terrain, bad transport infrastructure on the Soviet side) and the nature of the fortifications the Soviets had to deal with, that is not bad at all. 
Let's do some calculations. The Soviets could not have put more than 2 million troops there. The Finns could have easily put 100 thousand. Assume that the Soviets had been wiped out completely; the alleged 35:1 ratio means the Finns would have suffered 57 thousands casualties. They would still have had almost half their army! And they could have easily mobilized 50 thousands more to kill two more millions of the Soviets! So why did they surrender then? 
Talking about the 35:1 ratio is just the typical, no, *archetypical* kind of BS one so often finds in "democratic" accounts on the Russian history. Similar to 10, 20, 110 millions killed by the NKVD and evil Stalin. 
The only real problem the Soviets had at that war was the lack of good transportation; they had only one narrow-gauge railway, which did not even go close to Finland, and they could not switch and mass troops as easily as the Finns did, who enjoyed a developed railway network that ran in multiple layers along the frontier.

----------


## mike

> Originally Posted by mike  By the way, if we are to talk about humilitiating and embarrassing defeats against much weaker and pathetic militaries perhaps we should discuss Stalin's Winter War where, even with the enjoyment of a working industry and modernized army, the Reds were picked off like sitting ducks by a bunch of snipers and biathletes as they stupidly trudged across open terrain and marched into ambushes one after another.  In most cases with Russia's own weapons, from the captured arsenals in Helsinki.  What were the casualty ratios again?  35:1 or something?  Brilliant strategist indeed!   I'll address the rest of your message later. 
> This 35:1 is BS. I'll fetch Liddel Hart's WWII and quote what he thinks on the Winter War later on. For the time being, please be aware that the total casualties of the Red Army were ~120 thousand.  The Finnish casualties, according to the Finns, were ~50 thousand (and I bet they were higher). That's less than 3:1. Given the character of the environment (winter, hardly passable terrain, bad transport infrastructure on the Soviet side) and the nature of the fortifications the Soviets had to deal with, that is not bad at all.

 You tell people they have to back up their claims with evidence or else such claims are worthless, yet you provide none yourself!  Excellent work, really excellent.  When you say "the total casualties of the Red army were ~120 thousand" what are you basing that on that you know with such certainty?  You have to give some sort of a citation if you are going to make such a specific claim.  As far as I know most historical estimates range from 200,000 at the lowest to 600,000 at the highest for Soviet casualties.  Actually, Kruschev estimated it at 1m, but of course, nothing he said was true so I will not bother mentioning him.  And you question the legitimacy of the Finnish numbers but not the official Soviet ones?  Which country would have more to gain by fabricating its casualty lists?  The outnumbered victim or the humiliated aggressor with a less than perfect record of honesty?  I'm sorry, not to be prejucided or anything, but I would not even ask the Soviet government to look at its watch and tell me what time it was.  Forget about accurate numbers of its losses in a war.   

> Let's do some calculations. The Soviets could not have put more than 2 million troops there. The Finns could have easily put 100 thousand. Assume that the Soviets had been wiped out completely; the alleged 35:1 ratio means the Finns would have suffered 57 thousands casualties. They would still have had almost half their army! And they could have easily mobilized 50 thousands more to kill two more millions of the Soviets! So why did they surrender then? 
> Talking about the 35:1 ratio is just the typical, no, *archetypical* kind of BS one so often finds in "democratic" accounts on the Russian history. Similar to 10, 20, 110 millions killed by the NKVD and evil Stalin.

 I don't think you will find this ratio in any accounts on Russian history.  It was merely an exaggeration of the staggering differences to illustrate a point about the sloppiness of Stalin's failure in Finland.  I had no idea what the actual ratio was other than it being grossly disproportionate in favor of the Finns.  And the reason they surrendered is because they were drastically outnumbered and running out of supplies.  To call the Winter War a Soviet success is a pretty narrow and subjective conclusion of what happened in my opinion.  If you think losing this many men and coming out of it with 10% of the land that you intended to conquer is a victory then do me a favor and don't ever become a military leader.  That is psychotic.  By the way, I don't deny the "20 million killed by Stalin" statistic is bullshit.  This is often quoted from the "Black Book of Communism," the authors of which later admitted they added the number of people who died due to natural disasters (they actually include drownings and heat exhaustions from floods and droughts!) and wars to along with the genuine deaths.  I am neither a supporter of capitalism nor of authoritarian leftism, and I understand that both sides have something to gain by "fudging" the facts of each other's crimes.  But we will not go into what that something is.   

> The only real problem the Soviets had at that war was the lack of good transportation; they had only one narrow-gauge railway, which did not even go close to Finland, and they could not switch and mass troops as easily as the Finns did, who enjoyed a developed railway network that ran in multiple layers along the frontier.

 Great.  I really do not want to spend my time thinking of all the logistical reasons why Stalin lost his evil, imperialist war against Finland.  But I think it shows he is not the tactical genius you seem to believe he was.

----------


## N

To Mike 
I can suggest the Krivosheev's statistics book 
On-line version is available here  http://www.rus-sky.org/history/library/w/ 
About Russo-Finnish war and casualties: http://www.rus-sky.org/history/library/w/w04.htm#008  AFAIK this book was translated to English and considered as serious source.

----------


## mike

Hm, if I am reading this correctly (if I am not, forgive me) then the relevant data is this part: 
Сводная таблица людских потерь советских войск в советско-финляндской войне 30.11.1939-13.03.1940 гг. (составлена по первоначальным донесениям)
Виды потерь 	Командиры 	Младшие командиры 	Бойцы 	Всего
Безвозвратные
Убито и умерло на этапах санэвакуации 	Количество 	5027 	9741 	48010 	65384 [ 442 ]
% к потерям 	  	  	  	19,6
Пропало без вести 	Количество 	830 	2042 	16024 	19610 [ 443 ]
% к потерям 	  	  	  	5,9
Попало в плен 	Количество 	- 	- 	- 	-
% к потерям 	  	  	  	 
Небоевые потери 	Количество 	- 	- 	- 	-
% к потерям 	  	  	  	 
Итого безвозвратных потерь 	Количество 	5857 	11783 	64034 	84994 [ 444 ]
% к потерям 	  	  	  	25,5
% к численности личного состава 	Все потери 	  	  	  	10,0
Среднемесячные 	  	  	  	2,95
Санитарные
Ранено, контужено, обожжено 	Количество 	11780 	23675 	145755 	1 86584 [ 445 ]
% к потерям 	  	  	  	56,0
Заболело 	Количество 	335 	635 	5792 	51892 [ 446 ]
% к потерям 	  	  	  	15,6
Обморожено 	Количество 	257 	729 	8315 	9614 [ 447 ]
% к потерям 	  	  	  	2,9
Итого санитарных потерь 	Количество 	12372 	25039 	159862 	248090 [ 448 ]
% к потерям 	  	  	  	74,5
% к численности личного состава 	Все потери 	  	  	  	29,2
Среднемесячные 	  	  	  	8,6
Всего потерь 	Количество 	18229 	36822 	223896 	333084 [ 449 ]
% к потерям 	  	  	  	100
% к численности личного состава 	Все потери 	  	  	  	39,3
Среднемесячные 	  	  	  	11,55 
If this doesn't show up right you can search for it in the webpage to see the table better formatted.  The significant part is that it says in all Russia lost 333,084 troops.  Can we all agree on that as a number for the Soviets losses then?  If we take the estimate bad manners gave for the Finns of 50,000 then this comes out to a ratio of 6.7:1 (rounded up from 6.661693).  I actually saw a Finnish website earlier that gave a number of 69,000 for Finnish casualties.  This comes out to a ratio of about 5:1.  Either way it is much higher than the 300% that bm was estimating earlier.

----------


## N

Krivosheev wrote:   

> По финским источникам людские потери Финляндии в войне 1939-1940 гг. составили 48 243 чел. убитыми, 43 тыс. чел. ранеными [ 488 ]. По другим официальным источникам финская армия потеряла в этой войне 95 тыс. чел. убитыми и 45 тыс. чел. ранеными [ 489 ].

 So at least Finns lost 48,243 KIA and 43,000 wounded.  
Soviets lost 333,084 KIA, MIA and *wounded*.   *Maximal* figures of Soviets KIA is 126,875.
This figure we can compare with(*minimal*) Finnish - 48,243 KIA.

----------


## bad manners

> You tell people they have to back up their claims with evidence or else such claims are worthless, yet you provide none yourself!  Excellent work, really excellent.

 I told you I'd fetch the book and give you a quotation; I just do not have it at hand now. Thanks to N, you have the sources now. 
120 KIA versus 50 KIA
330 total versus 100 total 
It is a normal ratio of casualties when attacking a heavily fortified area. Why do you think anyone planning an offensive wants at least triple numerical superiority?   

> As far as I know most historical estimates range from 200,000 at the lowest to 600,000 at the highest for Soviet casualties.

 That's why I like these "estimates" so much.   

> Actually, Kruschev estimated it at 1m, but of course, nothing he said was true so I will not bother mentioning him.

 That would have been wise.   

> And you question the legitimacy of the Finnish numbers but not the official Soviet ones?  Which country would have more to gain by fabricating its casualty lists?  The outnumbered victim or the humiliated aggressor with a less than perfect record of honesty?

 I question the legitimacy of the Finnish numbers. I'm not aware of any attempts by Finland to correct the outrageous lies about the performance of the adversaries and the casualties. As for the record of honesty, this whole discussion centers around the lies *about* the USSR, and there are a lot of them. Who has a perfect record of honesty, BTW?   

> I don't think you will find this ratio in any accounts on Russian history.  It was merely an exaggeration of the staggering differences to illustrate a point about the sloppiness of Stalin's failure in Finland.

 A failure. Nice. The country won the war, got more than it asked before the war, yet it is a failure. What kind of absurd is that?   

> To call the Winter War a Soviet success is a pretty narrow and subjective conclusion of what happened in my opinion.

 It was a success. The USSR prevailed.   

> If you think losing this many men

 The losses are entirely within the normal limits for military operations of that kind.   

> and coming out of it with 10% of the land that you intended to conquer

 The USSR never wanted to get the whole of Finland. It wanted a small piece of it only. And it got more than what was asked before the war.   

> is a victory then do me a favor and don't ever become a military leader. That is psychotic.

 Any war results in casualties. An offensive against a strongly fortified area results in greater casualties. So what? That's war for you. Stalin wanted to get that without waging a war, but the Finns were stubborn.   

> Great.  I really do not want to spend my time thinking of all the logistical reasons why Stalin lost his evil, imperialist war against Finland.  But I think it shows he is not the tactical genius you seem to believe he was.

 Did I ever say he was a *tactical* genius? He had his generals and marshals for it. Strategically, the winter war was a success. As far as I know, it was the world's first large offensive on that (difficult) kind of terrain, in that kind of climate, and against that kind of fortifications. Even if a few mistakes were made in the beginning, that was because nobody had done it before. Not to mention that the experience derived from that war could be more important than the immediate results of the war. 
But we were comparing with Trotsky. Poland was a real failure, both in political and military terms. It was what stopped the "world revolution" once and for all. And I'm afraid the losses were heavier, because the army was beat.

----------


## mike

> Originally Posted by mike  You tell people they have to back up their claims with evidence or else such claims are worthless, yet you provide none yourself!  Excellent work, really excellent.   I told you I'd fetch the book and give you a quotation; I just do not have it at hand now. Thanks to N, you have the sources now.

 Save your energy.  I regret being the last one on the forum to recognize how pointless it is discussing Stalin with N and bad manners.  It is my fault for not bothering to fully read the rest of the topic until now.   

> 120 KIA versus 50 KIA
> 330 total versus 100 total 
> It is a normal ratio of casualties when attacking a heavily fortified area. Why do you think anyone planning an offensive wants at least triple numerical superiority?

 For one thing, the legitimacy of these numbers is not out of the woods yet.  The numbers for the Finnish casualties are attributed to "Finnish sources," yet the endnote refers vaguely to an article in a Soviet magazine from the 80s and another from the early 90s.  There is no indication of what these sources were or when/how the numbers were obtained.  I just don't understand the double standard you have here, bad manners.  The Finns' numbers are skewed because they were the enemy, Kruschev's numbers are skewed because he hated Stalin, so apparently the only person in the world whose figures we can rely on are the pro-Soviet military leader Krivosheev--who, by the way, claims to have based his casual figures on "official Finnish numbers."  One cannot really know what that means since: A) while he spends a paragraph explaining the origin of the Red Army statistics he attributes a whole two endnotes to two Russian magazines from 1989 and 1993 for his resources in obtaining the Finnish figures, B) I'm having a hard time finding _any_ numbers similar to these that don't come from the book itself (in other words these mysterious "official Finnish statistics" are nowhere to be found), and C) to my knowledge the Finnish government has _never_ stated that they know for sure the amount of casualties.  So either Krivosheev has a really liberal definition for the word "official" (as in, maybe he just asked some guy from Finland once) or he has contact with somebody who for some reason knows these exact casualty numbers down to the ones' place for the Finnish losses yet refuses to reveal himself to the government of Finland.  Again, it is just completely insane how you two will refuse to believe anything critical of the position you already have while naively accepting anything that supports such position as the God's truth (which is an ironic choice of words on my part since you remind me of a certain other group that acts like this).   

> [quote:20k9v3sx]As far as I know most historical estimates range from 200,000 at the lowest to 600,000 at the highest for Soviet casualties.

 That's why I like these "estimates" so much.   

> Actually, Kruschev estimated it at 1m, but of course, nothing he said was true so I will not bother mentioning him.

 That would have been wise.   

> And you question the legitimacy of the Finnish numbers but not the official Soviet ones?  Which country would have more to gain by fabricating its casualty lists?  The outnumbered victim or the humiliated aggressor with a less than perfect record of honesty?

 I question the legitimacy of the Finnish numbers. I'm not aware of any attempts by Finland to correct the outrageous lies about the performance of the adversaries and the casualties. As for the record of honesty, this whole discussion centers around the lies *about* the USSR, and there are a lot of them. Who has a perfect record of honesty, BTW?[/quote:20k9v3sx] 
The whole discussion did center around the lies about Stalin, but all of the people defending this point (you, N, Tupolev) have turned everyone off.  All that is left is me because I got here late, and I couldn't care less about this topic.  Stalin killed a million people, Stalin killed 200,000 people...Who cares?  Arguing about what degree of being an stupid asshole Stalin was  is like arguing over which animal is responsible for the mess that you stepped in.  Either way you're still talking about a piece of shit.  And which do you think is the reason nobody is talking?  Because you are right and the vast majority of the world are wrong...or something else that I will be polite and not say?   

> [quote:20k9v3sx]
> I don't think you will find this ratio in any accounts on Russian history.  It was merely an exaggeration of the staggering differences to illustrate a point about the sloppiness of Stalin's failure in Finland.

 A failure. Nice. The country won the war, got more than it asked before the war, yet it is a failure. What kind of absurd is that?[/quote:20k9v3sx] 
You're right.  It's not a failure.  Any time 330,000 die needlessly for the sake of imperialism and paranoia it is a glorious victory for the misunderstood Дядя.  

> [quote:20k9v3sx]To call the Winter War a Soviet success is a pretty narrow and subjective conclusion of what happened in my opinion.

 It was a success. The USSR prevailed.[/quote:20k9v3sx] 
And that is indeed a rather narrow and subjective conclusion of what happened.   

> [quote:20k9v3sx]If you think losing this many men

 The losses are entirely within the normal limits for military operations of that kind.[/quote:20k9v3sx] 
No, they aren't.  You're thinking of a conventional war, not global conquest.  There was no strategic military value in controlling Karelia save that it gave Stalin an easy way to launch an offensive against the capital later.  The Winter War was the equivalent of the US involvement in Korea or Vietnam, only they lost a lot more soldiers than the US did in a fraction of the time.   

> [quote:20k9v3sx]and coming out of it with 10% of the land that you intended to conquer

 The USSR never wanted to get the whole of Finland. It wanted a small piece of it only. And it got more than what was asked before the war.[/quote:20k9v3sx] 
Once again you are the most gullible person in the world.  It "wanted" just a small piece of Lithuania too.  What happened there?  This is how Stalin annexed countries.  It was *standard practice* for him.  Maybe he learned it from Hitler with the Sudetenland, I don't know.  You can't possibly be that naive though to believe Stalin was not planning to invade Finland.  He spent most of the 1930s trying to bolster a Finnish revolution and subvert the government.  When the USSR declared war on Finland part of the declaration even stated that the Red Army would march to Helsinki and seize its power.  Had the Finns not given such a surprisingly strong resistance in one of the worst winters in history it is hard to believe this would not have come true.   

> [quote:20k9v3sx]is a victory then do me a favor and don't ever become a military leader. That is psychotic.

 Any war results in casualties. An offensive against a strongly fortified area results in greater casualties. So what? That's war for you. Stalin wanted to get that without waging a war, but the Finns were stubborn.[/quote:20k9v3sx] 
Aw, so Stalin was trying to do it the easy way!  It was Finland's fault for not giving up their territory to him.  This is so idiotic.  You are apparently nothing but an empty-headed apologist for every crime ever committed by this man.  How you can even come to the conclusion that a country is to blame for defending its interests against someone who wants to annex part of their land is beyond me.  I tell you what:  Let Washington make a nice offer to Moscow for a piece of Russia with half a million inhabitants living on it and we'll see if you defend our President for wanting to do things the peaceful way while your country was too stubborn to acquiesce.  When we lose a great deal of soldiers but Russia is weak and gives in, you can write all you want in here defending our country to all the naysayers poisoned by propaganda from other "democratic nations" and use the unbiased, impartial resources by the neocon patriots like Wall Street Journal and Fox News.   

> [quote:20k9v3sx]Great.  I really do not want to spend my time thinking of all the logistical reasons why Stalin lost his evil, imperialist war against Finland.  But I think it shows he is not the tactical genius you seem to believe he was.

 Did I ever say he was a *tactical* genius? He had his generals and marshals for it. Strategically, the winter war was a success. As far as I know, it was the world's first large offensive on that (difficult) kind of terrain, in that kind of climate, and against that kind of fortifications. Even if a few mistakes were made in the beginning, that was because nobody had done it before. Not to mention that the experience derived from that war could be more important than the immediate results of the war.[/quote:20k9v3sx] 
Don't care.   

> But we were comparing with Trotsky. Poland was a real failure, both in political and military terms. It was what stopped the "world revolution" once and for all. And I'm afraid the losses were heavier, because the army was beat.

 We were...but you never replied to my last argument pertaining to him.  You began talking only about the Winter War.  I am still waiting for this response.  And the world revolution never existed to begin with.  It was all in the Communist Party's imagination because the foreign representatives were too gutless to tell the Bolsheviks that the masses in the Western world were not going to come and save them from the blockades.  Instead they would just say, "Yeah...any day now we are expecting the revolution here in France/England/US.  The workers there have seen what can be accomplished and are becoming restless."  With the exception of Germany it was total bullshit.  So Trotsky stopped nothing that didn't already fail to exist, and it is no surprise the Red Army failed to secure Warsaw.  Trotsky openly protested being sent there at all, considering the entire thing to be a disaster waiting to happen.

----------


## bad manners

> I told you I'd fetch the book and give you a quotation; I just do not have it at hand now.

 I have it now. There are no numbers in it, though, but I will quote much of its account, because it shows with utmost clarity that the statements of “stupid Russians killed 35 to 1” and “its being a failure” are not even propaganda, they are science fiction about a parallel universe. Like many other statements on the USSR. 
Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War
Originally published: NY, Putnam 1971. ISBN 0-306-80912-5. 
Chapter 5 The Finnish War 
Following the partition of Poland, Stalin was anxious to safeguard Russia’s Baltic flank against a future threat from his temporary colleague, Hitler. Accordingly, the Soviet Government lost no time in securing strategic control of Russia’s old-time buffer-territories in the Baltic. By October 10 it had concluded pacts with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania which enabled its forces to garrison key-points in those countries. On the 9th conversations began with Finland. On the 14th the Soviet Government formulated its demands. These were defined as having three main purposes. 
First, to cover the sea approach to Leningrad […]. For this purpose the Finns were asked to cede the islands of Hogland, Seiskari, Lavanskari, Tytarskari, and Loivisto, in exchange for other territories; also to lease he port of Hangoe for thirty years so that the Russians might there establish a naval base with coastal artillery, capable, in conjunction with the naval base at Paldaski on the opposite coast, of blocking access to the Gulf of Finland. 
Second, to provide better cover on the land approach to Leningrad by moving back the Finnish frontier in the Karelian Isthmus, to a line which would be out of heavy artillery range of Leningrad. The re-adjustments of the frontier would still leave intact the main defences on the Mannerheim Line. 
Third, to adjust the frontier in the far north ‘in the Petsamo region, where the frontier was badly and artificially drawn’. It was a straight line running through the narrow isthmus of the Rybachi peninsula and cutting off the western end of that peninsula. This re-adjustment was apparently designed to safeguard the sea approach to Murmansk by preventing an enemy establishing himself on the Rybachi peninsula. 
In exchange for these re-adjustments of territory the Soviet Union offered to cede to Finland the districts of Repola and Porajorpi – an exchange which, even according to the Finnish White Book, would have given Finland an additional 2,134 square miles in compensation for the cession to Russia of areas totalling 1,066 square miles. 
An objective examination of these terms suggests that they were framed on a rational basis, to provide a greater security to Russian territory without serious detriment to the security of Finland. They would, clearly, have hindered the use of Finland as a jumping-off point for any German attack on Russia. But they would not have given Russia any appreciable advantage for an attack on Finland. Indeed, the territory which Russia offered to cede to Finland would have widened Finland’s uncomfortably narrow waistline. 
[…] The Finns, however, refused this offer. […] On the 30th [of November] the Russian invasion began. 
The original advance ended in a check that astonished the world. A direct push from Leningrad up the Karelian Isthmus came to a halt in the forward layers of the Mannerheim Line. An advance near Lake Ladoga did not make progress. At the other end of the front the Russians cut off the small part of Petsamo on the Arctic Ocean, as a mean of blocking the entry of help to Finland by that route. 
[…] 
Another effect of Finland’s early successes was that it reinforced the general tendency to underrate the Soviet military strength. This view was epitomised in Winston Churchill’s broadcast assertion of January 20, 1940, that Finland ‘had exposed, for the world to see, the military incapacity of the Red Army’. His misjudgement was to some extent shared by Hitler – with momentous consequences the following year. 
More dispassionate examination of the campaign, however, provided better reasons for the ineffectiveness of the original advance. There was no sign of proper preparations to mount a powerful offensive, furnished with large stocks of munitions and equipment from Russia’s vast resources. There were clear signs that the Soviet authorities had been misled by their sources of information about the situation in Finland, and that, instead of reckoning on serious resistance, they imagined that they might have to do no more than back up a rising of the Finnish people against an unpopular Government. The country cramped an invader at every turn, being full of natural obstacles that narrowed the avenues of approach and helped the defence. Between Lake Ladoga and the Arctic Ocean the frontier appeared very wide on the map but in reality was a tangle of lakes and forests, ideal for laying traps as well as for stubborn resistance. Moreover, on the Soviet side of the frontier the rail communications consisted of the solitary line from Leningrad to Murmansk, which in its 800-mile stretch had only one branch leading to the Finnish frontier. This limitation was reflected in the fact that the ‘waistline’ thrusts which sounded so formidable in the highly coloured reports from Finland were made with only three divisions apiece, while four were employed in the outflanking manoeuvre north of Ladoga. 
Much the best approach to Finland was through the Karelian Isthmus between Lake Ladoga and the Gulf of Finland, but this was blocked by the Mannerheim Line and the Finn’s six active divisions, which were concentrated there at the outset. The Russian thrusts farther north, though they fared badly, served the purpose of drawing part of the Finnish reserves thither while thorough preparations were being made, and fourteen divisions brought up, for a serious attack on the Mannerheim Line. This was launched on February 1, under the direction of General Meretskov. Its weight was concentrated on a ten-mile sector near Summa, which was pounded by tremendous artillery bombardment. As the fortifications were pulverised, tanks and sledge-carried infantry advanced to occupy the ground, while the Soviet air force broke up an attempted countermoves. After little more than a fortnight of this methodical process a breach was made through the whole depth of the Mannerheim Line. The attackers then wheeled outward […] Once a passage was forced and their communications menaced, eventual collapse was certain. […] 
On March 6, 1940, the Finnish Government sent a delegation to negotiate peace. Beyond the earlier Soviet conditions, Finland was now asked to cede areas in the communes of Salla and Kunsamo, the whole of the Karelian Isthmus, including Viipari [now Viborg, Russia], and also the Finnish part of the Fisher Peninsula [Rybachi]. They were also asked to build a railroad from Kemijarvi to the frontier (which was not yet established) to link up to the Russian spur. On March 13 it was announced that the Soviet terms had been accepted. 
In the radically changed circumstances, particularly after the disastrous collapse in the Summa sector of the Mannerheim Line on February 12, the new Soviet terms were remarkably moderate. […] In raising his requirements so little, Stalin too showed statesmanship, while evidently anxious to be quit of a commitment which had occupied more than a million [sic!] of Russia’s troops, as well as a high proportion of her tanks and aircraft, at a time when the crucial spring of 1940 was looming near. 
Whereas conditions in Poland were more favourable to a Blitzkrieg offensive than anywhere else in Europe [sic!], Finland offered a most unsuitable theatre for such a performance, especially at the time of the year when the invasion was staged [now compare Trotsky’s failure in Poland with Stalin’s success in Finland]. 
[…] 
In Finland, by contrast, the defender profited by having a much better system of internal communications, both rail and road, than the attacker possessed on his side of the frontier. […] The Russians would have to advance anything from 50 to 150 miles from the railway before crossing the frontier, and considerably father before they could threaten any point of strategic importance. That advance, moreover, had to be made through a country of lakes and forests, and over poor roads that were now deep in snow. 
[…] 
Moreover, beyond the strategic difficulties of assembling any large forces on the apparently exposed parts of the Finnish frontier and pushing them deep into the enemy’s country, lay the tactical difficulty of overcoming the resistance of defenders who knew the ground and were able to exploit its advantages. Lakes and forests tend to shepherd an invading force into narrow channels of advance where it can be swept by machine-gun fire; they offer innumerable opportunities for concealed flanking manoeuvres as well as for guerrilla harassing. To penetrate into such a country in face of a skilful foe is hazardous enough even in summer; it is much more difficult to attempt in the Arctic winter, when heavy columns are as clumsy as a man in clogs trying to grapple with an opponent in gym-shoes.

----------


## bad manners

> And which do you think is the reason nobody is talking? Because you are right and the vast majority of the world are wrong...or something else that I will be polite and not say? [...] You are apparently nothing but an empty-headed apologist for every crime ever committed by this man.

 If you're going to continue in this way, we better stop right now.   

> How you can even come to the conclusion that a country is to blame for defending its interests against someone who wants to annex part of their land is beyond me.

 Did I ever blame it?   

> I tell you what:  Let Washington make a nice offer to Moscow for a piece of Russia with half a million inhabitants living on it and we'll see if you defend our President for wanting to do things the peaceful way while your country was too stubborn to acquiesce.  When we lose a great deal of soldiers but Russia is weak and gives in, you can write all you want in here defending our country to all the naysayers poisoned by propaganda from other "democratic nations" and use the unbiased, impartial resources by the neocon patriots like Wall Street Journal and Fox News.

 That's a totally different topic. Remember that you wanted to compare the performance of Trotsky and Stalin in military affairs. As for the political background, have a look at Liddell Hart's account on that. I hope you're not going to blame *him* for apologia.   

> [quote:2mmdp0wk]But we were comparing with Trotsky. Poland was a real failure, both in political and military terms. It was what stopped the "world revolution" once and for all. And I'm afraid the losses were heavier, because the army was beat.

 We were...but you never replied to my last argument pertaining to him.  You began talking only about the Winter War.  I am still waiting for this response.
[/quote:2mmdp0wk] 
I will. I hope we're finished on the winter now.   

> And the world revolution never existed to begin with.  It was all in the Communist Party's imagination because the foreign representatives were too gutless to tell the Bolsheviks that the masses in the Western world were not going to come and save them from the blockades.

 Fully agree. Problem is, it was in Trotsky's imagination as well, while Stalin appears more sensible in this regard.   

> With the exception of Germany it was total @@@@.

 I wouldn't bet on Germany. I simply cannot imagine their marriage with the Russian, they'd been too hostile. I *think* it would've been a failure.

----------


## bad manners

> Again, it is just completely insane how you two will refuse to believe anything critical of the position you already have while naively accepting anything that supports such position as the God's truth (which is an ironic choice of words on my part since you remind me of a certain other group that acts like this).

 Ironical indeed. Do you think that your usage of the words like "you naively accepting" will persuade anybody that *your* position is God's truth? Do you think that your referring to the "common knowledge" that "Stalin is bad regardless of how many he killed" and "the Soviets lost the war anyway" means anything in particular? It only means that you once genuinely believed that Stalin indeed killed 110 million, and that the Soviets lost 35 to 1. Since you cannot prove anything of the kind, you refer to the "common knowledge".   

> The whole discussion did center around the lies about Stalin, but all of the people defending this point (you, N, Tupolev) have turned everyone off.  All that is left is me because I got here late, and I couldn't care less about this topic.

 So why waste your time here? Carry on with your *vital* activities.   

> Stalin killed a million people, Stalin killed 200,000 people...Who cares?  Arguing about what degree of being an stupid asshole Stalin was  is like arguing over which animal is responsible for the mess that you stepped in.  Either way you're still talking about a piece of @@@@.

 Yup. First you define Stalin as an "asshole", "piece of shit", etc, and then there is no point in arguing. It is funny how all your arguments boil down to that in the end. “You just know.” And you're not the first here to have done it.   

> You're right.  It's not a failure.  Any time 330,000 die needlessly for the sake of imperialism and paranoia it is a glorious victory for the misunderstood Дядя.

 I just like how casually you distort the truth. A keystroke, and the number of deaths has almost tripled. One more iteration, and it's one million. Say hi to comrade Хрущёв. 
Oh, I know, I know. Now you're going to say "who cares, 120, 330". If you don't, then don't talk about the numbers. Just say: "Stalin is a piece of shit. Period. Fuck the numbers." That is *so* convincing.   

> The Winter War was the equivalent of the US involvement in Korea or Vietnam, only they lost a lot more soldiers than the US did in a fraction of the time.

 What you say about Vietnam is a joke. The Americans failed there. Completely. That alone is sufficient. They did manage to kill a lot of people there, and many of those were civilian. Is that what you're so proud of? An interesting dualism, that. When A "kills a lot of people", A is great. When B "kills a lot of people", B is shit. But that's surely because B is shit by definition. 
Secondly, the American casualties were 360 thousand. http://www.vietnamwar.com/. And they lost that war. That's what you should call psychotic, and I'll fully agree.   

> Once again you are the most gullible person in the world.  It "wanted" just a small piece of Lithuania too.  What happened there?  This is how Stalin annexed countries.  It was *standard practice* for him.

 I don't care. Annexing other countries was honorable business back then. Everybody who could did so.   

> I am still waiting for this response.

 1. Trotsky was saying about his "unwillingliness to go into Poland" in the aftermath. If there is any evidence that he actually did so, then I do not know about it. I'm not saying it does not exist, I just do not know. Somehow, I think he had enough authority to refuse had he actually wanted to. 
2. Economy might have been thriving at NEP. That itself is not sufficient for making high explosives, tanks and aircraft. Russia simply did not have any serious facilities for that, at WWI she depended on the allies. 
3. Germany could be weak, but what makes you think that the USSR was a lot better off at that time? There is an interesting dualism in your attitude here. You said that Finland was weak and ran low on armaments and ammunition; yet you said she was a formidable enemy and the USSR failed there. Now Germany is weak and poor just like Finland, yet in this case the USSR should prevail. In early thirties the Red Army was a lot weaker than in 1940, yet it should prevail just the same. I don't buy this communist crap, patriotism/nationalism would have been stronger a feeling, and those communists would have become Nazi in no time, just like they actually did even without an external threat. 
4. Napoleon was ultimately defeated because he was a brilliant tactician but a poor strategist. In Europe he did not have to be a strategist because the space was small and tactics alone would suffice. Not so in Russia. He could win one battle, but the Russians would just go somewhere else. Then the question of supplies, reinforcements and holding the ground had to be addressed, but it was never done. I recall that he was shocked when the Russians burned villages and crops; he actually expected them to leave them intact. It was mostly patience on the Russian part that finished him. That and the winter.

----------


## mike

> Originally Posted by mike  Again, it is just completely insane how you two will refuse to believe anything critical of the position you already have while naively accepting anything that supports such position as the God's truth (which is an ironic choice of words on my part since you remind me of a certain other group that acts like this).   Ironical indeed. Do you think that your usage of the words like "you naively accepting" will persuade anybody that *your* position is God's truth? Do you think that your referring to the "common knowledge" that "Stalin is bad regardless of how many he killed" and "the Soviets lost the war anyway" means anything in particular? It only means that you once genuinely believed that Stalin indeed killed 110 million, and that the Soviets lost 35 to 1. Since you cannot prove anything of the kind, you refer to the "common knowledge".

 No, I don't think it will persuade anyone of anything, but then I don't have to.  I'm not the one here who has the burden of proof upon them to prove it's all true.  Historical acceptance is already on my side.  The onus is on those people proving the positive assertion.  So when I refer to "common knowledge" there is a certain degree of credibility, for the same reason that someone believing in gravity or lightning can assert faith in "common knowledge."  It is not up to them to prove to people who deny gravity exists that it does.  It is up to those who deny it exists to prove that it doesn't.  Since there's roughly 6.5bn people in the world and maybe you and 20,000 of them don't think Stalin was a douchebag, I'd say it's pretty close to being conventional wisdom. 
BTW I told you already that the "35 to 1" number was hyperbole.  And I don't think Stalin killed 110 million people.  I don't really care what number you want to whittle it down to.  The fact that the purges existed at all makes him deserving of a nice bullet in the brain as far as I'm concerned.   

> [quote:5re8qq0f]The whole discussion did center around the lies about Stalin, but all of the people defending this point (you, N, Tupolev) have turned everyone off.  All that is left is me because I got here late, and I couldn't care less about this topic.

 So why waste your time here? Carry on with your *vital* activities.[/quote:5re8qq0f] 
I am a masochist, I suppose.   

> [quote:5re8qq0f]Stalin killed a million people, Stalin killed 200,000 people...Who cares?  Arguing about what degree of being an stupid asshole Stalin was  is like arguing over which animal is responsible for the mess that you stepped in.  Either way you're still talking about a piece of @@@@.

 Yup. First you define Stalin as an "asshole", "piece of @@@@", etc, and then there is no point in arguing. It is funny how all your arguments boil down to that in the end. “You just know.” And you're not the first here to have done it.[/quote:5re8qq0f] 
Actually we were arguing about something completely unrelated to Stalin's historical role.  I suppose you've forgotten already.  Our argument was pertaining specifically to his necessity in eliminating Hitler from Europe.  If you want to go back and pretend that "first I defined Stalin as blah blah blah" then go ahead.  Everyone can go back to the page my original post was on and see that it in fact wasn't my argument at all.  But he was an asshole now that you mention it.  And I'm fairly sure he was lacking as much downstairs as up- if you get my meaning.  You can whine about this not being relevant to political argument if you want.  I don't really care.  I'm not writing a college thesis here.  I'm arguing with some guy on the internet.  I don't believe professionalism or maturity factors into the equation anywhere.  If they did I would never bother.   

> [quote:5re8qq0f]
> You're right.  It's not a failure.  Any time 330,000 die needlessly for the sake of imperialism and paranoia it is a glorious victory for the misunderstood Дядя.

 I just like how casually you distort the truth. A keystroke, and the number of deaths has almost tripled. One more iteration, and it's one million. Say hi to comrade Хрущёв. 
Oh, I know, I know. Now you're going to say "who cares, 120, 330". If you don't, then don't talk about the numbers. Just say: "Stalin is a piece of @@@@. Period. @@@@ the numbers." That is *so* convincing.[/quote:5re8qq0f] 
Actually I just wanted to lure you into whining about this so I could point out that you misquoted the numbers yourself.  Go back and check out where you first talk about the numbers.  You say, and I quote:   

> This 35:1 is BS. I'll fetch Liddel Hart's WWII and quote what he thinks on the Winter War later on. For the time being, please be aware that the total casualties of the Red Army were ~120 thousand. The Finnish casualties, according to the Finns, were ~50 thousand (and I bet they were higher). That's less than 3:1. Given the character of the environment (winter, hardly passable terrain, bad transport infrastructure on the Soviet side) and the nature of the fortifications the Soviets had to deal with, that is not bad at all.

 Oh!  The total casualties of the Red Army were ~120,000.  But wait...later on you say:   

> I told you I'd fetch the book and give you a quotation; I just do not have it at hand now. Thanks to N, you have the sources now. 
> 120 KIA versus 50 KIA
> 330 total versus 100 total

 I don't understand, bad manners.  How did we go from saying there were 120,000 casualties to saying there were 120,000 deaths?  Did you think nobody would notice?   

> [quote:5re8qq0f]
> The Winter War was the equivalent of the US involvement in Korea or Vietnam, only they lost a lot more soldiers than the US did in a fraction of the time.

 What you say about Vietnam is a joke. The Americans failed there. Completely. That alone is sufficient. They did manage to kill a lot of people there, and many of those were civilian. Is that what you're so proud of? An interesting dualism, that. When A "kills a lot of people", A is great. When B "kills a lot of people", B is @@@@. But that's surely because B is @@@@ by definition.[/quote:5re8qq0f] 
Actually, my point was that it was a highly expensive war in which a lot of people died for no clearly valuable reason.  I never made any implication that the Vietnam war was something I'm proud of.   

> Secondly, the American casualties were 360 thousand. http://www.vietnamwar.com/. And they lost that war. That's what you should call psychotic, and I'll fully agree.

 Hm, 360,000 over about 10 years for nothing compared to 330,000 in half of one year for 40,000 km2 (or 200kmx200km).   

> [quote:5re8qq0f]Once again you are the most gullible person in the world.  It "wanted" just a small piece of Lithuania too.  What happened there?  This is how Stalin annexed countries.  It was *standard practice* for him.

 I don't care. Annexing other countries was honorable business back then. Everybody who could did so.[/quote:5re8qq0f] 
...   

> [quote:5re8qq0f]I am still waiting for this response.

 1. Trotsky was saying about his "unwillingliness to go into Poland" in the aftermath. If there is any evidence that he actually did so, then I do not know about it. I'm not saying it does not exist, I just do not know. Somehow, I think he had enough authority to refuse had he actually wanted to.[/quote:5re8qq0f] 
No one in power had the authority to refuse to do what Lenin told them.  Every time Lenin split with the Party they still caved in.   

> 2. Economy might have been thriving at NEP. That itself is not sufficient for making high explosives, tanks and aircraft. Russia simply did not have any serious facilities for that, at WWI she depended on the allies.

 You're right, and being as obsessive as he was with the military I'm sure Trotsky would've proceeded down a similar path.   

> 3. Germany could be weak, but what makes you think that the USSR was a lot better off at that time? There is an interesting dualism in your attitude here. You said that Finland was weak and ran low on armaments and ammunition; yet you said she was a formidable enemy and the USSR failed there. Now Germany is weak and poor just like Finland, yet in this case the USSR should prevail. In early thirties the Red Army was a lot weaker than in 1940, yet it should prevail just the same. I don't buy this communist cr@p, patriotism/nationalism would have been stronger a feeling, and those communists would have become Nazi in no time, just like they actually did even without an external threat.

 Germany in 1930 is a comparatively easier target than Finland in 1939.  You've said yourself that Finland's extremely cold climate led primarily to the loss.  And we're talking about how the Red Army would've been under Trotsky, not Stalin.  So it is pointless to discuss how strong it was in 1930 or 1940, because this is how it was under his lead, not the former's.  You can't know how anyone else would've done it differently.   

> 4. Napoleon was ultimately defeated because he was a brilliant tactician but a poor strategist. In Europe he did not have to be a strategist because the space was small and tactics alone would suffice. Not so in Russia. He could win one battle, but the Russians would just go somewhere else. Then the question of supplies, reinforcements and holding the ground had to be addressed, but it was never done. I recall that he was shocked when the Russians burned villages and crops; he actually expected them to leave them intact. It was mostly patience on the Russian part that finished him. That and the winter.

 Hitler was neither a brilliant tactician *nor* strategist, and there are many times when he would do something against all of the sane advisement of his commanders simply because he thought it a good idea.  He stopped the air raids on England at a time when he came close to nearly crushing London completely--which a lot of people who write big books about history like Sir John H Hapablap-Smythe or whoever you quoted considering to a stroke of pure incompetence.  He also ignored his navy so much that there were still Jewish officers onboard a lot of the warships (although why they would want to serve in it still is beyond me).  So you tell me how much of a serious threat he posed to the world.  I don't buy this about the Nazis taking over the earth if it weren't for the Soviet Union and Stalin.  The USSR is responsible for ending the war when it did.  It probably would've gone on for a lot longer if Hitler had never invaded Russia.  But then guess what?  The atomic bomb still would've been developed, it would've been dropped on Berlin, and that's the end of the glorious Third Reich.  Stalin or not the Allies would've won World War 2.  All he accomplished was winning it in a much quicker amount of time, and for that the *people of the USSR* should be thanked and remembered.  Not him.  One must wonder how much quicker it would've been over had he not executed most of his experienced officers in order to replace them with fresh graduates who would be more loyal to him.

----------


## bad manners

> No, I don't think it will persuade anyone of anything, but then I don't have to.  I'm not the one here who has the burden of proof upon them to prove it's all true.  Historical acceptance is already on my side.  The onus is on those people proving the positive assertion.

 Well, if it all boils down to "acceptance", then I don't give a shit about that acceptance. Two billion lemmings and so on. The onus is always on those proving the negative assertion. So far it has been proven mostly with lies alone. When the lies are debunked, the scale of Stalin's bad deeds is reduced well below the normal Russian level.   

> It is not up to them to prove to people who deny gravity exists that it does.  It is up to those who deny it exists to prove that it doesn't.

 Even here your analogy is flawed. Gravity does not exist. Ask any physicist.    

> BTW I told you already that the "35 to 1" number was hyperbole.  And I don't think Stalin killed 110 million people.  I don't really care what number you want to whittle it down to.

 See above. With his real (not imaginary) "accomplishments" he would not even rank third among the Tsars.   

> The fact that the purges existed at all makes him deserving of a nice bullet in the brain as far as I'm concerned.

 Ouch. And I remember your saying something about certain ideological difference between you and me.   

> Actually we were arguing about something completely unrelated to Stalin's historical role.  I suppose you've forgotten already.  Our argument was pertaining specifically to his necessity in eliminating Hitler from Europe.  If you want to go back and pretend that "first I defined Stalin as blah blah blah" then go ahead.  Everyone can go back to the page my original post was on and see that it in fact wasn't my argument at all.

 In a thread named "pro or anti-Stalin" I'm arguing about that. Only that. You can choose a different thread if this one does not suit your expectations.   

> But he was an asshole now that you mention it.  And I'm fairly sure he was lacking as much downstairs as up- if you get my meaning.  You can whine about this not being relevant to political argument if you want.

 I'm not whining. You're mixing your arguments with shit without any coercion whatsoever.   

> [quote:11gij4zf]
> I just like how casually you distort the truth. A keystroke, and the number of deaths has almost tripled. One more iteration, and it's one million. Say hi to comrade Хрущёв. 
> Oh, I know, I know. Now you're going to say "who cares, 120, 330". If you don't, then don't talk about the numbers. Just say: "Stalin is a piece of @@@@. Period. @@@@ the numbers." That is *so* convincing.

 Actually I just wanted to lure you into whining about this so I could point out that you misquoted the numbers yourself.  Go back and check out where you first talk about the numbers.  You say, and I quote:   

> This 35:1 is BS. I'll fetch Liddel Hart's WWII and quote what he thinks on the Winter War later on. For the time being, please be aware that the total casualties of the Red Army were ~120 thousand. The Finnish casualties, according to the Finns, were ~50 thousand (and I bet they were higher). That's less than 3:1. Given the character of the environment (winter, hardly passable terrain, bad transport infrastructure on the Soviet side) and the nature of the fortifications the Soviets had to deal with, that is not bad at all.

 Oh!  The total casualties of the Red Army were ~120,000.  But wait...later on you say:   

> I told you I'd fetch the book and give you a quotation; I just do not have it at hand now. Thanks to N, you have the sources now. 
> 120 KIA versus 50 KIA
> 330 total versus 100 total

 I don't understand, bad manners.  How did we go from saying there were 120,000 casualties to saying there were 120,000 deaths?  Did you think nobody would notice?
[/quote:11gij4zf] 
I apologize, I was quoting from memory. But that was not relevant to my assertion, because the ratio is the same, and we were talking about the ratio, of killed if I remember correctly. 
That's quite different from your misquotation.   

> Actually, my point was that it was a highly expensive war in which a lot of people died for no clearly valuable reason.  I never made any implication that the Vietnam war was something I'm proud of. 
> [quote:11gij4zf]Secondly, the American casualties were 360 thousand. http://www.vietnamwar.com/. And they lost that war. That's what you should call psychotic, and I'll fully agree.

 Hm, 360,000 over about 10 years for nothing compared to 330,000 in half of one year for 40,000 km2 (or 200kmx200km).
[/quote:11gij4zf] 
Oh, arithmetic. I'm fascinated by arithmetic, you know. So: 330,000 / 0.5 / 40,000 = 16,5 men per year per sq. km. On the other hand: 360,000 / 10 / 0 = infinity. The Americans in Vietnam fared infinitely worse than the Soviets in Finland. Even ignoring the climatic and "enemy toughness" factors. You should really try harder when you select models to compare.   

> [quote:11gij4zf]
> 1. Trotsky was saying about his "unwillingliness to go into Poland" in the aftermath. If there is any evidence that he actually did so, then I do not know about it. I'm not saying it does not exist, I just do not know. Somehow, I think he had enough authority to refuse had he actually wanted to.

 No one in power had the authority to refuse to do what Lenin told them.  Every time Lenin split with the Party they still caved in.
[/quote:11gij4zf] 
Whatever. He failed. So much for his military aptitude.   

> Germany in 1930 is a comparatively easier target than Finland in 1939.  You've said yourself that Finland's extremely cold climate led primarily to the loss.

 Not the climate alone. The terrain and the fortifications. The Russians can handle cold weather without much problem. They spend half a year below freezing.   

> And we're talking about how the Red Army would've been under Trotsky, not Stalin.  So it is pointless to discuss how strong it was in 1930 or 1940, because this is how it was under his lead, not the former's.  You can't know how anyone else would've done it differently.

 I might throw in a few other arguments, but I have a feeling you'll object with this same argument. So I'll agree. That leaves the question open.   

> Hitler was neither a brilliant tactician *nor* strategist, and there are many times when he would do something against all of the sane advisement of his commanders simply because he thought it a good idea.

 His commanders were good tacticians. Some of them were able strategists. I don't think he ever made any tactical decisions, he was mostly concerned with strategic issues. He did have a few good ideas, but then he performed badly in other cases.   

> He stopped the air raids on England at a time when he came close to nearly crushing London completely--which a lot of people who write big books about history like Sir John H Hapablap-Smythe or whoever you quoted considering to a stroke of pure incompetence.

 Then you need to read them again. Because they say he was obsessed with the idea of attacking the USSR and when he saw that the air offensive was not going on perfectly, it was all the better for him so he could concentrate his efforts on the USSR. If not for the USSR, he would have pulverized the UK in a couple of months.    

> He also ignored his navy so much that there were still Jewish officers onboard a lot of the warships (although why they would want to serve in it still is beyond me).  So you tell me how much of a serious threat he posed to the world.

 He wanted to get rid of the USSR first and then get rid of or come to terms with the UK; either way the Navy could wait.   

> I don't buy this about the Nazis taking over the earth if it weren't for the Soviet Union and Stalin.  The USSR is responsible for ending the war when it did.  It probably would've gone on for a lot longer if Hitler had never invaded Russia.  But then guess what?  The atomic bomb still would've been developed, it would've been dropped on Berlin, and that's the end of the glorious Third Reich.

 Had he finished with the USSR, he would have finished with the UK pretty soon. That means no atomic bomb would have ever been dropped on Berlin, because the US did not have a bomber which could reach Berlin from the US or even Africa. It would have never been dropped even if the US had had such a bomber, because it would have been met by a Luftwaffe way stronger than it really was in 1945. It would not have been dropped in 1945 because the implosion design critically depended on the explosive lenses that were researched in England. And finally even if it had been dropped, that would not have caused much damage to Berlin, let alone Hitler's bunker. The success of the atomic bomb in Japan depended on the material the Japanese used for their buildings, wood. Most of the city burned down, while the shock wave did not cause much damage past 1km off the epicenter. And the US could not have used more than just a few atomic bombs, because it took months to make just one. Actually, it was mostly the considerations above that prevented the US from using the atomic bomb on the USSR before 1949, it would not have been effective.    

> Stalin or not the Allies would've won World War 2.

 BS. No USSR means no UK in no time, and then there is at least parity with the US; not to mention that until 1943 the US could hardly cope with Japan; imagine what would have happened had Hitler *actively* helped the Japanese.   

> One must wonder how much quicker it would've been over had he not executed most of his experienced officers in order to replace them with fresh graduates who would be more loyal to him.

 More loyal? Those executed (the high ranked) were charged with plotting a conspiracy, and as they were hardcore Trotskyists I suspect it was not very untrue. They were no good in purely military affairs, either, as Poland demonstrated. It was not fresh graduates alone anyway. The most famous Soviet generals and marshals were old-timers.

----------


## mike

> Originally Posted by mike  No, I don't think it will persuade anyone of anything, but then I don't have to.  I'm not the one here who has the burden of proof upon them to prove it's all true.  Historical acceptance is already on my side.  The onus is on those people proving the positive assertion.   Well, if it all boils down to "acceptance", then I don't give a @@@@ about that acceptance. Two billion lemmings and so on. The onus is always on those proving the negative assertion. So far it has been proven mostly with lies alone. When the lies are debunked, the scale of Stalin's bad deeds is reduced well below the normal Russian level.

 Yes, everyone is wrong except you.  And you can prove it with your 3 books by completely unbiased Russian historians with no possible motive to clear Stalin's name.  This is about as believable as Ann Coulter's treatment of Joseph McCarthy.  It's called selling books and being famous because you know there are dupes out there willing to believe whatever you want them to.  I'm sure gaining political power doesn't hurt either.   

> [quote:41nt4fma]It is not up to them to prove to people who deny gravity exists that it does.  It is up to those who deny it exists to prove that it doesn't.

 Even here your analogy is flawed. Gravity does not exist. Ask any physicist.[/quote:41nt4fma]   ::   ::   Anything else you want to deny while we're at it?  The earth is not round?  The number of Jews exterminated in Germany?  Dinosaurs perhaps?   

> [quote:41nt4fma]BTW I told you already that the "35 to 1" number was hyperbole.  And I don't think Stalin killed 110 million people.  I don't really care what number you want to whittle it down to.

 See above. With his real (not imaginary) "accomplishments" he would not even rank third among the Tsars.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
I don't deny the Tsars were as abominable if not worse than the Premiers of the USSR.  Anyone who disagrees is romanticizing history to the point of voluntary ignorance and nostalgia.  But this is not an excuse in my book.  "Well things are awful but they used to be worse."  This is too complacent an outlook on life.   

> [quote:41nt4fma]The fact that the purges existed at all makes him deserving of a nice bullet in the brain as far as I'm concerned.

 Ouch. And I remember your saying something about certain ideological difference between you and me.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
The difference being one is capital punishment for crimes (in the case of the military officers we are not even talking murder, we're talking about being executed for lesser crimes) committed by citizens and the other tyranny and despotism by those who allegedly are looking out for the citizens they are killing/torturing.  I do not believe the end always justifies the means (for example I opposed the war in Iraq, but I am not going to lose any sleep when Saddam Hussein is killed), but I do not feel any compassion for dead tyrants.   

> [quote:41nt4fma]Actually we were arguing about something completely unrelated to Stalin's historical role.  I suppose you've forgotten already.  Our argument was pertaining specifically to his necessity in eliminating Hitler from Europe.  If you want to go back and pretend that "first I defined Stalin as blah blah blah" then go ahead.  Everyone can go back to the page my original post was on and see that it in fact wasn't my argument at all.

 In a thread named "pro or anti-Stalin" I'm arguing about that. Only that. You can choose a different thread if this one does not suit your expectations.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
And nobody made you respond to me.   

> [quote:41nt4fma]But he was an asshole now that you mention it.  And I'm fairly sure he was lacking as much downstairs as up- if you get my meaning.  You can whine about this not being relevant to political argument if you want.

 I'm not whining. You're mixing your arguments with @@@@ without any coercion whatsoever.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
I don't know what you're referring to precisely.  My ad hominems of Stalin or of you?  The latter are a case of being easily annoyed and angry that I am not going to apologize to anyone for, the former are a lack of sympathy for a member of government.  Especially the authoritarian ones.   

> [quote:41nt4fma][quote:41nt4fma]
> I just like how casually you distort the truth. A keystroke, and the number of deaths has almost tripled. One more iteration, and it's one million. Say hi to comrade Хрущёв. 
> Oh, I know, I know. Now you're going to say "who cares, 120, 330". If you don't, then don't talk about the numbers. Just say: "Stalin is a piece of @@@@. Period. @@@@ the numbers." That is *so* convincing.

 Actually I just wanted to lure you into whining about this so I could point out that you misquoted the numbers yourself.  Go back and check out where you first talk about the numbers.  You say, and I quote:   

> This 35:1 is BS. I'll fetch Liddel Hart's WWII and quote what he thinks on the Winter War later on. For the time being, please be aware that the total casualties of the Red Army were ~120 thousand. The Finnish casualties, according to the Finns, were ~50 thousand (and I bet they were higher). That's less than 3:1. Given the character of the environment (winter, hardly passable terrain, bad transport infrastructure on the Soviet side) and the nature of the fortifications the Soviets had to deal with, that is not bad at all.

 Oh!  The total casualties of the Red Army were ~120,000.  But wait...later on you say:   

> I told you I'd fetch the book and give you a quotation; I just do not have it at hand now. Thanks to N, you have the sources now. 
> 120 KIA versus 50 KIA
> 330 total versus 100 total

 I don't understand, bad manners.  How did we go from saying there were 120,000 casualties to saying there were 120,000 deaths?  Did you think nobody would notice?
[/quote:41nt4fma] 
I apologize, I was quoting from memory. But that was not relevant to my assertion, because the ratio is the same, and we were talking about the ratio, of killed if I remember correctly. 
That's quite different from your misquotation.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
Only if we assume that these numbers are correct...which you've offered no evidence of except that "Krivosheev is respectable."  Somehow he is able to pinpoint the exact number of casualties when no one else to this day is certain, so he must be right.  Sure.   

> [quote:41nt4fma]
> Actually, my point was that it was a highly expensive war in which a lot of people died for no clearly valuable reason.  I never made any implication that the Vietnam war was something I'm proud of. 
> [quote:41nt4fma]Secondly, the American casualties were 360 thousand. http://www.vietnamwar.com/. And they lost that war. That's what you should call psychotic, and I'll fully agree.

 Hm, 360,000 over about 10 years for nothing compared to 330,000 in half of one year for 40,000 km2 (or 200kmx200km).
[/quote:41nt4fma] 
Oh, arithmetic. I'm fascinated by arithmetic, you know. So: 330,000 / 0.5 / 40,000 = 16,5 men per year per sq. km. On the other hand: 360,000 / 10 / 0 = infinity. The Americans in Vietnam fared infinitely worse than the Soviets in Finland. Even ignoring the climatic and "enemy toughness" factors. You should really try harder when you select models to compare.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
The models are meant as a basic analogy, not a precise one.  If we were being precise then you would've already pointed out that Vietnam was not a territory the Americans planned to own.  We were helping the French retain a remnant of its dying colonialism and preventing communism from spreading.  Had I known you were going to focus on the differences between the two analogies rather than the overall similarity I would have given it a second thought.  I thought, on some crazy instinct, you might be able to see the forest for the trees.  I apologize for being wrong.   

> [quote:41nt4fma][quote:41nt4fma]
> 1. Trotsky was saying about his "unwillingliness to go into Poland" in the aftermath. If there is any evidence that he actually did so, then I do not know about it. I'm not saying it does not exist, I just do not know. Somehow, I think he had enough authority to refuse had he actually wanted to.

 No one in power had the authority to refuse to do what Lenin told them.  Every time Lenin split with the Party they still caved in.
[/quote:41nt4fma] 
Whatever. He failed. So much for his military aptitude.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
Based on one invasion that it is doubtful anyone in his place would've won you come to the conclusion that he was a worse military leader than Stalin .  I wish I could enjoy such a simplicity in logic.   

> [quote:41nt4fma]Germany in 1930 is a comparatively easier target than Finland in 1939.  You've said yourself that Finland's extremely cold climate led primarily to the loss.

 Not the climate alone. The terrain and the fortifications. The Russians can handle cold weather without much problem. They spend half a year below freezing.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
Right, right.  So I guess you're not disagreeing with me then that Germany would've been a much easier country to invade in 1930 than Finland was in 1939.   

> [quote:41nt4fma]And we're talking about how the Red Army would've been under Trotsky, not Stalin.  So it is pointless to discuss how strong it was in 1930 or 1940, because this is how it was under his lead, not the former's.  You can't know how anyone else would've done it differently.

 I might throw in a few other arguments, but I have a feeling you'll object with this same argument. So I'll agree. That leaves the question open.   

> Hitler was neither a brilliant tactician *nor* strategist, and there are many times when he would do something against all of the sane advisement of his commanders simply because he thought it a good idea.

 His commanders were good tacticians. Some of them were able strategists. I don't think he ever made any tactical decisions, he was mostly concerned with strategic issues. He did have a few good ideas, but then he performed badly in other cases.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
Well, I am no expert on Hitler so I cannot even begin to argue about it.  But I have read accounts from his former "able strategists" that he would demand to be involved in the planning of every major operation and give his own directives as to what should be done regardless of what they thought of these plans.  The seriousness of his mistakes or how much responsibility for the losses he is accountable for I could not say.   

> [quote:41nt4fma]He stopped the air raids on England at a time when he came close to nearly crushing London completely--which a lot of people who write big books about history like Sir John H Hapablap-Smythe or whoever you quoted considering to a stroke of pure incompetence.

 Then you need to read them again. Because they say he was obsessed with the idea of attacking the USSR and when he saw that the air offensive was not going on perfectly, it was all the better for him so he could concentrate his efforts on the USSR. If not for the USSR, he would have pulverized the UK in a couple of months.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
Well, I consider that to be pretty incompetent on his part, don't you?  Perhaps it is just me, I don't know.  I am not a military strategist.  But if I were fighting two men I would not beat one to the point of submission and then stop, and focus on the much stronger second man (who was making no attack on me this whole time) while allowing the first to recuperate.  This doesn't seem like something a competent man would do.   

> [quote:41nt4fma]He also ignored his navy so much that there were still Jewish officers onboard a lot of the warships (although why they would want to serve in it still is beyond me).  So you tell me how much of a serious threat he posed to the world.

 He wanted to get rid of the USSR first and then get rid of or come to terms with the UK; either way the Navy could wait.    

> I don't buy this about the Nazis taking over the earth if it weren't for the Soviet Union and Stalin.  The USSR is responsible for ending the war when it did.  It probably would've gone on for a lot longer if Hitler had never invaded Russia.  But then guess what?  The atomic bomb still would've been developed, it would've been dropped on Berlin, and that's the end of the glorious Third Reich.

 Had he finished with the USSR, he would have finished with the UK pretty soon. That means no atomic bomb would have ever been dropped on Berlin, because the US did not have a bomber which could reach Berlin from the US or even Africa. It would have never been dropped even if the US had had such a bomber, because it would have been met by a Luftwaffe way stronger than it really was in 1945. It would not have been dropped in 1945 because the implosion design critically depended on the explosive lenses that were researched in England.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
Yes, I did not think of this.  Had he not invaded the USSR this would probably come true.  The point I set out to make was that Stalin alone was not responsible for Russia's self-defense.  I have no idea what point I thought I was making by mentioning this about Hitler never invading the Soviet Union.   

> And finally even if it had been dropped, that would not have caused much damage to Berlin, let alone Hitler's bunker. The success of the atomic bomb in Japan depended on the material the Japanese used for their buildings, wood. Most of the city burned down, while the shock wave did not cause much damage past 1km off the epicenter. And the US could not have used more than just a few atomic bombs, because it took months to make just one. Actually, it was mostly the considerations above that prevented the US from using the atomic bomb on the USSR before 1949, it would not have been effective.

 Well, you're assuming somehow the Germans would know the real effectiveness of the weapon and how long it would take to be built.  They could not have possibly known either of these things (just as the Japanese couldn't know how many the US had left or how easy it would be to deliver them).  And the bombing of Berlin need not necessarily kill Hitler or his officers to get the point across.   

> [quote:41nt4fma]Stalin or not the Allies would've won World War 2.

 BS. No USSR means no UK in no time, and then there is at least parity with the US; not to mention that until 1943 the US could hardly cope with Japan; imagine what would have happened had Hitler *actively* helped the Japanese.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
Who said the USSR wouldn't exist?  I said without Stalin.  Maybe it is to you, but the words "Stalin" and "USSR" are not synonymous in my opinion.   

> [quote:41nt4fma]One must wonder how much quicker it would've been over had he not executed most of his experienced officers in order to replace them with fresh graduates who would be more loyal to him.

 More loyal? Those executed (the high ranked) were charged with plotting a conspiracy, and as they were hardcore Trotskyists I suspect it was not very untrue. They were no good in purely military affairs, either, as Poland demonstrated. It was not fresh graduates alone anyway. The most famous Soviet generals and marshals were old-timers.[/quote:41nt4fma] 
Yes, and I'm sure the evidence against them was real and the trials fair as was customary in the Soviet Union, particulary under Stalin.

----------


## bad manners

> Yes, everyone is wrong except you.  And you can prove it with your 3 books by completely unbiased Russian historians with no possible motive to clear Stalin's name.  This is about as believable as Ann Coulter's treatment of Joseph McCarthy.  It's called selling books and being famous because you know there are dupes out there willing to believe whatever you want them to.  I'm sure gaining political power doesn't hurt either.

 Funnily enough, the same argument applies to the anti-Stalin arguments. Think about it, mike.   

> [quote:3a7xlq34]Even here your analogy is flawed. Gravity does not exist. Ask any physicist.

  ::   ::   Anything else you want to deny while we're at it?  The earth is not round?  The number of Jews exterminated in Germany?  Dinosaurs perhaps?
[/quote:3a7xlq34] 
I do not mean to insult, but you *are* clueless about gravity, mike. I'll not even try quoting textbooks on field theory, general relativity and cosmology, I suspect you will not understand what they say. 
Oh, and the Earth is not round. It is three-dimensional so it cannot be. It is not spherical either, it is a geoid. I don't care about the Jews and dinosaurs.   

> I don't deny the Tsars were as abominable if not worse than the Premiers of the USSR.  Anyone who disagrees is romanticizing history to the point of voluntary ignorance and nostalgia.  But this is not an excuse in my book.  "Well things are awful but they used to be worse."  This is too complacent an outlook on life.

 But it is a fair one. Back then, it was the standard practice in Russia, and it was not as terrible as it looks now. Why do you refer to today's standards when judging the past? If we go further back, a lot more cruelties were being done, outside Russia, too, which would seem unthinkable today.   

> [quote:3a7xlq34]Ouch. And I remember your saying something about certain ideological difference between you and me.

 The difference being one is capital punishment for crimes (in the case of the military officers we are not even talking murder, we're talking about being executed for lesser crimes) committed by citizens and the other tyranny and despotism by those who allegedly are looking out for the citizens they are killing/torturing.  I do not believe the end always justifies the means (for example I opposed the war in Iraq, but I am not going to lose any sleep when Saddam Hussein is killed), but I do not feel any compassion for dead tyrants.[/quote:3a7xlq34] 
Strangely enough, by then current law conspiracies were punishable with the capital punishment.   

> And nobody made you respond to me.

 You're free to ignore my messages, too.    

> [quote:3a7xlq34][quote:3a7xlq34]But he was an asshole now that you mention it.  And I'm fairly sure he was lacking as much downstairs as up- if you get my meaning.  You can whine about this not being relevant to political argument if you want.

 I'm not whining. You're mixing your arguments with @@@@ without any coercion whatsoever.[/quote:3a7xlq34] 
I don't know what you're referring to precisely.  My ad hominems of Stalin or of you?  The latter are a case of being easily annoyed and angry that I am not going to apologize to anyone for, the former are a lack of sympathy for a member of government.  Especially the authoritarian ones.
[/quote:3a7xlq34] 
Shitty arguments are just that, they smell. They make you smell, too.   

> Only if we assume that these numbers are correct...which you've offered no evidence of except that "Krivosheev is respectable."  Somehow he is able to pinpoint the exact number of casualties when no one else to this day is certain, so he must be right.  Sure.

 I gave you another argument why 35 to 1 was laughable. You're still welcome to proving Krivosheev wrong, though.    

> [quote:3a7xlq34]
> Oh, arithmetic. I'm fascinated by arithmetic, you know. So: 330,000 / 0.5 / 40,000 = 16,5 men per year per sq. km. On the other hand: 360,000 / 10 / 0 = infinity. The Americans in Vietnam fared infinitely worse than the Soviets in Finland. Even ignoring the climatic and "enemy toughness" factors. You should really try harder when you select models to compare.

 The models are meant as a basic analogy, not a precise one.  If we were being precise then you would've already pointed out that Vietnam was not a territory the Americans planned to own.[/quote:3a7xlq34] 
Just like Finland was not a territory the Soviets planned to own, except a tiny plot of it.   

> Had I known you were going to focus on the differences between the two analogies rather than the overall similarity I would have given it a second thought.  I thought, on some crazy instinct, you might be able to see the forest for the trees.  I apologize for being wrong.

 What bloody similarities? The Americans were waging a war for no reason save an imaginary one, they were doing it thousands miles from home, they were sweating in T-shirts sitting in helos rather than wading waist-deep in snow, they never came across any fortifications, they were doing it against an enemy whose principal weapon was AK-47 (on the ground), they were massacring civilians by a village. Forest? I can see the forest, but can you?   

> [quote:3a7xlq34]Whatever. He failed. So much for his military aptitude.

 Based on one invasion that it is doubtful anyone in his place would've won you come to the conclusion that he was a worse military leader than Stalin .  I wish I could enjoy such a simplicity in logic.
[/quote:3a7xlq34] 
I wish that too. Only a jerk like Trotsky could entrust that to a fool like Тухачевский, who failed in a country that is ideal for highly mobile warfare, with numerical superiority in all troops and cavalry in particular. The latter is a reference to highly mobile warfare, proto-Blitzkrieg, FYI; but as you've demonstrated your ignorance in military matters (I’m referring to your perception of the finnish war, the atomic bomb, etc), I doubt you will understand. 
And finally, had he been such a brilliant militarist, who had allegedly felt a coming disaster in Poland, he should have done everything and persuaded the Party to cancel the invasion. He was not the smallest member of the party, you know, and he could have done so. His alleged inability to do so is again an indication of his impotence in military matters. His stupid "world revolution" obsession is an indication of his impotence in political affairs.   

> [quote:3a7xlq34]Not the climate alone. The terrain and the fortifications. The Russians can handle cold weather without much problem. They spend half a year below freezing.

 Right, right.  So I guess you're not disagreeing with me then that Germany would've been a much easier country to invade in 1930 than Finland was in 1939.
[/quote:3a7xlq34] 
With then current Red Army, I doubt it would have been easier.   

> [quote:3a7xlq34]His commanders were good tacticians. Some of them were able strategists. I don't think he ever made any tactical decisions, he was mostly concerned with strategic issues. He did have a few good ideas, but then he performed badly in other cases.

 Well, I am no expert on Hitler so I cannot even begin to argue about it.  But I have read accounts from his former "able strategists" that he would demand to be involved in the planning of every major operation and give his own directives as to what should be done regardless of what they thought of these plans.  The seriousness of his mistakes or how much responsibility for the losses he is accountable for I could not say.
[/quote:3a7xlq34] 
Major operation. That's strategic. Like I said, he did have a few good ideas, and quite a few bad ones.    

> [quote:3a7xlq34]Then you need to read them again. Because they say he was obsessed with the idea of attacking the USSR and when he saw that the air offensive was not going on perfectly, it was all the better for him so he could concentrate his efforts on the USSR. If not for the USSR, he would have pulverized the UK in a couple of months.

 Well, I consider that to be pretty incompetent on his part, don't you?  Perhaps it is just me, I don't know.  I am not a military strategist.  But if I were fighting two men I would not beat one to the point of submission and then stop, and focus on the much stronger second man (who was making no attack on me this whole time) while allowing the first to recuperate.  This doesn't seem like something a competent man would do.
[/quote:3a7xlq34] 
I agree that was stupid. I do not want to discuss why he did so, that's completely irrelevant. Except for one thing: he genuinely believed in weakness of the Russian "colossus"; few doubt that it was due to his WWI perception of Russia, which was indeed weak. But suddenly she was not that weak anymore in 1941. Would you explain what exactly had happened in Russia between 1918 and 1941 that provided for such a bad surprise for him?   

> Yes, I did not think of this.  Had he not invaded the USSR this would probably come true.  The point I set out to make was that Stalin alone was not responsible for Russia's self-defense.  I have no idea what point I thought I was making by mentioning this about Hitler never invading the Soviet Union.

 Probably not alone. But if you, on one hand, charge him for all the bad that happened in Russia, then it would be fair to attribute him all the good, on the other.   

> Well, you're assuming somehow the Germans would know the real effectiveness of the weapon and how long it would take to be built.  They could not have possibly known either of these things (just as the Japanese couldn't know how many the US had left or how easy it would be to deliver them).

 The atomic bomb was *not* what put Japan on her knees. The Japanese government had been seeking peace before that happened. If you need quotations on that, I'll provide. 
Your arguments on alleged German ignorance about the weapon is laughable. Please do not be offended, but that shows your absolute cluelessness in science, just like with gravity. The Germans were trying to make one themselves, it is only thanks to repeated destructions of the key plants that they never made it. One does not even need to have such plants to estimate how long it takes to manufacture ~50 kg of highly enriched U-235 or make an equal amount of Pu-239. Such estimates can be off by a factor of two or three, but either two or six 20 kiloton bombs are nothing. 
And it would have been impossible anyway, for the reasons that you seem to have agreed with.   

> And the bombing of Berlin need not necessarily kill Hitler or his officers to get the point across.

 The Germans were suffering a lot more from the conventional bombing, entire cities were being wiped out, yet they continued their resistance.   

> Who said the USSR wouldn't exist?  I said without Stalin.  Maybe it is to you, but the words "Stalin" and "USSR" are not synonymous in my opinion.

 My point is that without Stalin the USSR would indeed have fallen in two or three months just like Hitler reckoned. Continue my argument from here.    

> Yes, and I'm sure the evidence against them was real and the trials fair as was customary in the Soviet Union, particulary under Stalin.

 Prove them wrong. Especially the particular case of Тухачевский et al.

----------


## Jasper May

Wow! This is getting more and more heated. And none of you is convincing the other side. None of you ever will. 
*Fuck off, Jasper! This is a serious discussion, and if you've got nothing to add, then sod off, you bastard!* 
Okay, okay, I'm leaving. Jeez. Relax.  ::

----------


## mike

> Originally Posted by mike  Yes, everyone is wrong except you.  And you can prove it with your 3 books by completely unbiased Russian historians with no possible motive to clear Stalin's name.  This is about as believable as Ann Coulter's treatment of Joseph McCarthy.  It's called selling books and being famous because you know there are dupes out there willing to believe whatever you want them to.  I'm sure gaining political power doesn't hurt either.   Funnily enough, the same argument applies to the anti-Stalin arguments. Think about it, mike.

 Well, I don't recall being on that side of this topic so I don't really care one way or the other.   

> [quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]Even here your analogy is flawed. Gravity does not exist. Ask any physicist.

  ::   ::   Anything else you want to deny while we're at it?  The earth is not round?  The number of Jews exterminated in Germany?  Dinosaurs perhaps?
[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
I do not mean to insult, but you *are* clueless about gravity, mike. I'll not even try quoting textbooks on field theory, general relativity and cosmology, I suspect you will not understand what they say.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
Yes, I am clueless.  Thank you for not burdening me with such things as evidence and wordy explanations.  I went to my friend, Matthew Flores, who has almost completed his degree in astrophysics and asked him if gravity does not exist.  At first he thought I was joking, and then when he realized I wasn't and I explained to him what you had said he proposed the following experiment to determine what (if any) are the gravitational effects of the earth: 
1.  Find an object in the room where you are sitting.
2.  Hold it out in front of you.
3.  Let it go. 
As I understand it (I will confess I spent most of physics class in high school drawing and reading the books on the shelf rather than listen to the teacher), Newtonian gravity has been disproven and gravitational attraction is only a bend in space-time, however it exists nonetheless so it is totally thoughtless to say it doesn't.  I guess we could ask woolliamser to explain it better.   

> Oh, and the Earth is not round. It is three-dimensional so it cannot be. It is not spherical either, it is a geoid. I don't care about the Jews and dinosaurs.

 Huh?  Three-dimensional objects can't be round?  WTF kind of nonsense is that?  A snowball is round.  A golf ball is round.  An egg is round.  A banana is round.  A fat man is round.  None of these objects have less than three dimensions.  They aren't spherically or cylindrically perfect, but nothing is.  The earth is round, so are all the stars and planets and moons.  Even children know this simple fact of the universe yet it has somehow eluded you.   

> [quote:cx6b4otl]I don't deny the Tsars were as abominable if not worse than the Premiers of the USSR.  Anyone who disagrees is romanticizing history to the point of voluntary ignorance and nostalgia.  But this is not an excuse in my book.  "Well things are awful but they used to be worse."  This is too complacent an outlook on life.

 But it is a fair one. Back then, it was the standard practice in Russia, and it was not as terrible as it looks now. Why do you refer to today's standards when judging the past? If we go further back, a lot more cruelties were being done, outside Russia, too, which would seem unthinkable today.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
The standards of today and 60 years ago are not as different as today and 100 years (or more).  And if we are talking about racial prejudices or cultural differences then sure, it is stupid to judge people like Wagner or Edison for having opinions that were considered "common knowledge" in those times.  But having a disregard for human life is not retroactively forgivable.  Since the invention of the written word and probably long before it people have understood this.  Killing somebody has always been looked down upon by at least some of the people as far back as human civilization can remember.   

> [quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]Ouch. And I remember your saying something about certain ideological difference between you and me.

 The difference being one is capital punishment for crimes (in the case of the military officers we are not even talking murder, we're talking about being executed for lesser crimes) committed by citizens and the other tyranny and despotism by those who allegedly are looking out for the citizens they are killing/torturing.  I do not believe the end always justifies the means (for example I opposed the war in Iraq, but I am not going to lose any sleep when Saddam Hussein is killed), but I do not feel any compassion for dead tyrants.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
Strangely enough, by then current law conspiracies were punishable with the capital punishment.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
Which is funny, since part of the Bolshevik platform was "the end of capital punishment."   

> [quote:cx6b4otl]And nobody made you respond to me.

 You're free to ignore my messages, too.
[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
Well that wouldn't be very polite.   

> [quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]But he was an asshole now that you mention it.  And I'm fairly sure he was lacking as much downstairs as up- if you get my meaning.  You can whine about this not being relevant to political argument if you want.

 I'm not whining. You're mixing your arguments with @@@@ without any coercion whatsoever.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
I don't know what you're referring to precisely.  My ad hominems of Stalin or of you?  The latter are a case of being easily annoyed and angry that I am not going to apologize to anyone for, the former are a lack of sympathy for a member of government.  Especially the authoritarian ones.
[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
@@@@ arguments are just that, they smell. They make you smell, too.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
Well, I guess I could just take the easy, cowardly way out every time and say, "Not to insult you bad manners, but I don't want to bring up a lot of things from large textbooks on the subject that would be too hard for you to comprehend.  Do not ask me the nature of such books or in what fantasy land they exist and prove you wrong, but just know that while any professional in this field could tell you that what I say is true, it is so complex a topic that I simply will not waste my time trying to tell someone who is such much lower than I am on an intellectual level.  Excuse me, I have to go now.  My computer is flying away because of the nonexistence of gravity."   

> [quote:cx6b4otl]
> Only if we assume that these numbers are correct...which you've offered no evidence of except that "Krivosheev is respectable."  Somehow he is able to pinpoint the exact number of casualties when no one else to this day is certain, so he must be right.  Sure.

 I gave you another argument why 35 to 1 was laughable. You're still welcome to proving Krivosheev wrong, though.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
I'd have to know where his evidence comes from first.  Considering his sources for the official Finnish numbers he claims to have come from two obscure Russian magazines that are over 10 years old I am going to have a little trouble doing this.  If you are so interested in proving to the world that he is beyond reproach maybe you would do me a favor and find these two magazines and discover what Finnish "officials" he is using?    

> [quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]
> Oh, arithmetic. I'm fascinated by arithmetic, you know. So: 330,000 / 0.5 / 40,000 = 16,5 men per year per sq. km. On the other hand: 360,000 / 10 / 0 = infinity. The Americans in Vietnam fared infinitely worse than the Soviets in Finland. Even ignoring the climatic and "enemy toughness" factors. You should really try harder when you select models to compare.

 The models are meant as a basic analogy, not a precise one.  If we were being precise then you would've already pointed out that Vietnam was not a territory the Americans planned to own.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
Just like Finland was not a territory the Soviets planned to own, except a tiny plot of it.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
Oh, give me a break!  Every nation that was within breathing room of the Soviet Union became a member, whether they liked it or not.  To believe Finland was not on the same list as the Baltic States is insane.   

> [quote:cx6b4otl]Had I known you were going to focus on the differences between the two analogies rather than the overall similarity I would have given it a second thought.  I thought, on some crazy instinct, you might be able to see the forest for the trees.  I apologize for being wrong.

 What bloody similarities? The Americans were waging a war for no reason save an imaginary one, they were doing it thousands miles from home, they were sweating in T-shirts sitting in helos rather than wading waist-deep in snow, they never came across any fortifications, they were doing it against an enemy whose principal weapon was AK-47 (on the ground), they were massacring civilians by a village. Forest? I can see the forest, but can you?[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
The excuse given for the Winter War is that Finland had vital areas near Leningrad and Kronstadt that Stalin wanted to use to protect himself against Germany's navy.  This is true.  The joint occupation of Porkkala and Naissaar would've all but quashed any attempt by the Nazis to attack Leningrad or Kronstadt.  But these areas are not the ones that the Soviets requested.  The original locations, like Hango, that Stalin requested in 1939 were of very little value against an invading German navy.  However, these locations _would_ be of great use to the Soviets if they were to begin an invasion into the Finnish mainland from them. 
Likewise in Karelia the locations of the new border would've made the Mannerheim line worthless as a defense against Russia (which is in actuality what Stalin probably would've liked), they overran two or three main Finnish artillery fortresses that would be of no practical use to the Nazis in an invasion but would definitely be crucial to the Finns protecting themselves against a future Soviet war. 
Similarly America claimed the country of Vietnam was vital to protecting itself from invasion and would be a very important military location for cooperation with the local people against its "enemy."  In reality, the Americans were only interested in preventing the spread of the domino effect and controlling the area. 
The "justification" you and most Stalin-sympathizers give is that Finland was to blame for the invasion because it would not go along with the peaceful, paltry requests of the USSR--even though such requests would in effect destroy Finland's attempt to ever defend itself against a Soviet aggressor and they had every right to refuse to cooperate.  So I'm still waiting for you to respond to my original proposition.  Let's say that the White House puts a deal on the table that requests only a few pieces of Russian territory that we say are vital to protecting our country.  This territory is populated by Russians but they would be given a generous number of weeks to pack up their things and move somewhere else.  We would be allowed to install military bases on this territory and use it for trafficking any equipment and cargo we see fit.  Although it would be physically impossible for Russia to estimate how many soldiers are passing through, we would establish a limit on paper of how many can enter.  These territories, though crucial to Russia's defense against an attack from the United States (oh, heaven forbid), are more important to the interests of the White House.  What I want you to tell me, bad manners, is whether or not you would get upset when we declared war on the Russian federation for not agreeing to the terms.   

> [quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]Whatever. He failed. So much for his military aptitude.

 Based on one invasion that it is doubtful anyone in his place would've won you come to the conclusion that he was a worse military leader than Stalin .  I wish I could enjoy such a simplicity in logic.
[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
I wish that too. Only a jerk like Trotsky could entrust that to a fool like Тухачевский, who failed in a country that is ideal for highly mobile warfare, with numerical superiority in all troops and cavalry in particular. The latter is a reference to highly mobile warfare, proto-Blitzkrieg, FYI; but as you've demonstrated your ignorance in military matters (I’m referring to your perception of the finnish war, the atomic bomb, etc), I doubt you will understand.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
This is such a great defense, but it is getting kind of old.  It is as if you believe anyone's opinion of a war is discounted because they did not study every battle and troop placement, and because of the failure of one invasion by one guy (Warsaw) he is a military idiot, while the failure of another invasion by the other (Finland) can be blamed on his subordinates.  But I forget this kind of logic is coming from the guy who thinks: 
1.  That gravity does not exist
2.  That anything bad done under Stalin he either had no knowledge of or was completely helpless to stop
3.  Things that are round are not round
4.  The annexation of countries was done all the time and was therefore not a bad thing
5.  The losses of 430,000 men on two sides of a war that lasted a few months are valid because one side gained 40,000km^2 that it didn't truly need and the other side made the mistake of believing it had the right to disagree with a diplomatic proposal that was grossly one-sided and suicidal to accept.
6.  Any book used to quote information on Stalin must come from an author who has sympathies for him   

> And finally, had he been such a brilliant militarist, who had allegedly felt a coming disaster in Poland, he should have done everything and persuaded the Party to cancel the invasion. He was not the smallest member of the party, you know, and he could have done so. His alleged inability to do so is again an indication of his impotence in military matters. His stupid "world revolution" obsession is an indication of his impotence in political affairs.

 Like I have said, what Lenin said was what got done.  Even during the last years when most of the Party were against Lenin and the NEP and considered it a betrayal of Communism they still did everything that he wanted because he was the boss.  Also, during the Civil War Lenin was not partial to listen to Trotsky.  It wasn't until Stalin began to split with the Leninists during the 20s in order to make a name for himself and disrespected Lenin's wife that he and Trotsky began to work closer.  Prior to this Lenin did not care much for Trotsky and considered him rigid and aloof (this is evidenced in Krupskaja's memoirs, "Reminiscences of Lenin").  I do not believe Trotsky was impotent in political affairs.  Political socializing perhaps.  He was certainly not as charismatic or effective with the people as Stalin was.  However, I was afraid from the start that this would turn into an argument of me defending Trotsky against Stalin as a better leader.  My argument was _supposed_ to be a question of whether or not Stalin as an individual was necessary, as you claim, to defeating Hitler.   

> [quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]Not the climate alone. The terrain and the fortifications. The Russians can handle cold weather without much problem. They spend half a year below freezing.

 Right, right.  So I guess you're not disagreeing with me then that Germany would've been a much easier country to invade in 1930 than Finland was in 1939.
[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
With then current Red Army, I doubt it would have been easier.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
Based on..?  The Red Army itself were not to be the head of the invasion.  I think in a sense Trotsky and Lenin's vision of the Red Army in regards to internationalism was a mirror of the Bolshevik vanguardism itself.  Merely the guidance of the masses in armed support, not a fully-functional invasion force.  Whether or not they would've succeeded in revolutionizing Germany, I have no doubt they would have eliminated Hitler and his heads or at least sent them into hiding.  So much for becoming Fuhrer of the Third Reich.   

> [quote:cx6b4otl][quote:cx6b4otl]Then you need to read them again. Because they say he was obsessed with the idea of attacking the USSR and when he saw that the air offensive was not going on perfectly, it was all the better for him so he could concentrate his efforts on the USSR. If not for the USSR, he would have pulverized the UK in a couple of months.

 Well, I consider that to be pretty incompetent on his part, don't you?  Perhaps it is just me, I don't know.  I am not a military strategist.  But if I were fighting two men I would not beat one to the point of submission and then stop, and focus on the much stronger second man (who was making no attack on me this whole time) while allowing the first to recuperate.  This doesn't seem like something a competent man would do.
[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
I agree that was stupid. I do not want to discuss why he did so, that's completely irrelevant. Except for one thing: he genuinely believed in weakness of the Russian "colossus"; few doubt that it was due to his WWI perception of Russia, which was indeed weak. But suddenly she was not that weak anymore in 1941. Would you explain what exactly had happened in Russia between 1918 and 1941 that provided for such a bad surprise for him?[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
Military buildup that I'm sure any leader in Stalin's place would've likewise created.  It is of course also a matter of self-defense of the homeland in WW2 versus a war for imperialism and private wealth that was exhausting the country of its ability to survive in WW1.  It is not hard to see why there would be more public support for the former than the latter.   

> [quote:cx6b4otl]Yes, I did not think of this.  Had he not invaded the USSR this would probably come true.  The point I set out to make was that Stalin alone was not responsible for Russia's self-defense.  I have no idea what point I thought I was making by mentioning this about Hitler never invading the Soviet Union.

 Probably not alone. But if you, on one hand, charge him for all the bad that happened in Russia, then it would be fair to attribute him all the good, on the other.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
I don't charge him for all the bad that happened in Russia.  I have attempted to distance myself from these arguments throughout ours.  I've read Martens' "Another View of Stalin" and I don't doubt a lot of it is true.  There is always a second side to every story.  What I blame him for is not doing a whole lot to remedy any of the crimes committed against the public when he was in a position of power to fix _all_ of them.  If he did not know about them then he was not a very good leader.  If he did know about them but never bothered to fix them then he is not a very good leader.  Either way he seemed generally uninterested in giving people any of the things promised to them by the constitution (religious freedom, speech, protest, assembly, etc.).   

> [quote:cx6b4otl]
> Well, you're assuming somehow the Germans would know the real effectiveness of the weapon and how long it would take to be built.  They could not have possibly known either of these things (just as the Japanese couldn't know how many the US had left or how easy it would be to deliver them).

 The atomic bomb was *not* what put Japan on her knees. The Japanese government had been seeking peace before that happened. If you need quotations on that, I'll provide.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
No, but it was what made the Japanese agree to unconditional surrender (they refused to agree to these terms before).   

> Your arguments on alleged German ignorance about the weapon is laughable. Please do not be offended, but that shows your absolute cluelessness in science, just like with gravity. The Germans were trying to make one themselves, it is only thanks to repeated destructions of the key plants that they never made it. One does not even need to have such plants to estimate how long it takes to manufacture ~50 kg of highly enriched U-235 or make an equal amount of Pu-239. Such estimates can be off by a factor of two or three, but either two or six 20 kiloton bombs are nothing. 
> And it would have been impossible anyway, for the reasons that you seem to have agreed with.

 Right!  They were working on one at the same time!  However, even the American scientists in the Manhattan project had no exact ideas of the capabilities of the atomic weapons on a city (Oppenheimer and Fermi were so horrified by what they had created that they later opposed all nuclear arms production).  It is doubtful the enemy could know this either, only make scientific guesses.   

> [quote:cx6b4otl]And the bombing of Berlin need not necessarily kill Hitler or his officers to get the point across.

 The Germans were suffering a lot more from the conventional bombing, entire cities were being wiped out, yet they continued their resistance.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
Because Hitler made them.  It was not a popular war among the Nazi administration in Germany in the end.  Why else would his officers try to have him assassinated?  Why else would they attempt to negotiate a surrender to the Allies behind Hitler's back?   

> [quote:cx6b4otl]Who said the USSR wouldn't exist?  I said without Stalin.  Maybe it is to you, but the words "Stalin" and "USSR" are not synonymous in my opinion.

 My point is that without Stalin the USSR would indeed have fallen in two or three months just like Hitler reckoned. Continue my argument from here.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
Only if we conclude that the events in Europe would've still led to World War 2.   

> [quote:cx6b4otl]Yes, and I'm sure the evidence against them was real and the trials fair as was customary in the Soviet Union, particulary under Stalin.

 Prove them wrong. Especially the particular case of Тухачевский et al.[/quote:cx6b4otl] 
Which?  All or just the ones against the military?  And do you mean under Stalin specifically or in general?  How about the fact that every member of the first Politburo except Molotov were convicted?  Also over 75% of Central Comm and roughly 50% of the congress?  Do you really believe every single one of these people were part of a massive conspiracy to overthrow Stalin, and that they received a fair and impartial examination of the evidence?  If so, you might have a future in writing scripts for the X-Files.  Their executions were about as legitimate as those of the peasants by the Cheka for being "bourgeois speculators"--i.e. trading bowls of soup, yarn, and tricks in return for money from foreign visitors because they were starving to death.  That is the Soviet justice system of the early 20th century.  I am not saying it was worse or more flawed in the 1930s than the 1920s, but certainly no less of a tragic joke.

----------


## N

> I'd have to know where his evidence comes from first. Considering his sources for the official Finnish numbers he claims to have come from two obscure Russian magazines that are over 10 years old I am going to have a little trouble doing this. If you are so interested in proving to the world that he is beyond reproach maybe you would do me a favor and find these two magazines and discover what Finnish "officials" he is using?

 His book is about *Russian/Soviet* casualties and he wrote abt Finns "by the way". I'd quoted him to show minimal Finns casualties - 45,000 KIA. That's all. You said yorself that you had seen estimates ~65,000 or so. You don't agree with 45,000 or we have a doubt that these "obscure" Russian magazines do exist? They exist and he refers to them becouse his book is in Russian and for Russian. You may find English version -  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 1?v=glance 
I'm sure in this version he refers to foreign sources (I mean abt Finns loses)

----------


## mike

> Originally Posted by mike  I'd have to know where his evidence comes from first. Considering his sources for the official Finnish numbers he claims to have come from two obscure Russian magazines that are over 10 years old I am going to have a little trouble doing this. If you are so interested in proving to the world that he is beyond reproach maybe you would do me a favor and find these two magazines and discover what Finnish "officials" he is using?   His book is about *Russian/Soviet* casualties and he wrote abt Finns "by the way". I'd quoted him to show minimal Finns casualties - 45,000 KIA. That's all. You said yorself that you had seen estimates ~65,000 or so. You don't agree with 45,000 or we have a doubt that these "obscure" Russian magazines do exist? They exist and he refers to them becouse his book is in Russian and for Russian. You may find English version -  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 1?v=glance 
> I'm sure in this version he refers to foreign sources (I mean abt Finns loses)

 I said 65,000 (actually I think I said 69,000 but I am too lazy to go back and find where we talked about it) _casualties_.  Not deaths.  A casualty is any soldier killed, captured, or otherwise taken out of action during a battle.  The place where I saw 65,000 casualties only attributed about 19,000 to deaths.  Krivosheev claims there were almost 50,000 killed and another 43,000 wounded.  This is a very major difference of opinion, which is why I would like to know where he gets his information.  I have no doubt the magazines exist, what I doubt is the "officiality" with which he cites them for his statistics.  One would think a book about casualty statistics would be interested in using more than two magazines from Soviet publishers for foreign statistics, especially about a war in which no definite estimates have _ever_ been decided upon by either side.  So I have a major problem with just relying on what your guy says are the official numbers just because you want me to believe they are right, especially when it is a mystery what these articles he cites actually say about them.  It is easy to understand why I cannot verify the information in them, but I'm sure these magazines would be in the archives at a library near you or bad manners.  For what it's worth I'll look at iconn.org for the book.

----------


## bad manners

> Yes, I am clueless.  Thank you for not burdening me with such things as evidence and wordy explanations.  I went to my friend, Matthew Flores, who has almost completed his degree in astrophysics

 Almost completed! What an authority!   

> he proposed the following experiment to determine what (if any) are the gravitational effects of the earth: 
> 1.  Find an object in the room where you are sitting.
> 2.  Hold it out in front of you.
> 3.  Let it go.

 Sure sure. Here's another experiment for you: 
1. Wait for a night with clear skies.
2. Observe the circular motion of stars. 
Congratulations! You've just obtained an experimental proof that the stars rotate about the Earth. Furthermore, the Earth is the center of the Universe, which was apparently created by somebody in seven days.   

> Newtonian gravity has been disproven and gravitational attraction is only a bend in space-time, however it exists nonetheless

 Sure sure. The aether exists too, and light propagation is elastic perturbations thereof. Or therein.   

> Huh?  Three-dimensional objects can't be round?  WTF kind of nonsense is that?  A snowball is round.  A golf ball is round.  An egg is round.  A banana is round.  A fat man is round.  None of these objects have less than three dimensions.  They aren't spherically or cylindrically perfect, but nothing is.  The earth is round, so are all the stars and planets and moons.  Even children know this simple fact of the universe yet it has somehow eluded you.

 Whatever. I know that you have a tendency to use vague ideas instead of the precise facts.   

> The standards of today and 60 years ago are not as different as today and 100 years (or more).  And if we are talking about racial prejudices or cultural differences then sure

 Yes we are. The events took place in Russia, not in Luxembourg (which itself has not-so-nice a record if you look closely).   

> Killing somebody has always been looked down upon by at least some of the people as far back as human civilization can remember.

 Stop that BS. The entire history of human civilization is killing lots of people. It is just that some are more equal than the others, when a political argument is needed.    

> Which is funny, since part of the Bolshevik platform was "the end of capital punishment."

 So? The whole of Stalin's policy is one saying good bye and fuck off to the Bolshevik platform. And the law is the law is the law whatever the platform anyway.   

> [quote:1faz2dvp][quote:1faz2dvp]And nobody made you respond to me.

 You're free to ignore my messages, too.
[/quote:1faz2dvp] 
Well that wouldn't be very polite.
[/quote:1faz2dvp] 
Then either ignore what you don't want to discuss or discuss it for fuck's sake.    

> Well, I guess I could just take the easy, cowardly way out every time and say, "Not to insult you bad manners, but I don't want to bring up a lot of things from large textbooks on the subject that would be too hard for you to comprehend.  Do not ask me the nature of such books or in what fantasy land they exist and prove you wrong, but just know that while any professional in this field could tell you that what I say is true, it is so complex a topic that I simply will not waste my time trying to tell someone who is such much lower than I am on an intellectual level.  Excuse me, I have to go now.  My computer is flying away because of the nonexistence of gravity."

 Exactly. When there is anything that you cannot communicate to me due to ignorance on my part, you can use that verbatim.    

> [quote:1faz2dvp]
> I gave you another argument why 35 to 1 was laughable. You're still welcome to proving Krivosheev wrong, though.

 I'd have to know where his evidence comes from first.  Considering his sources for the official Finnish numbers he claims to have come from two obscure Russian magazines that are over 10 years old I am going to have a little trouble doing this.  If you are so interested in proving to the world that he is beyond reproach maybe you would do me a favor and find these two magazines and discover what Finnish "officials" he is using?
[/quote:1faz2dvp] 
Oh. So you want more arithmetic. Let's do it, then. Have a look here:  http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd/casualti.htm 
They say: "The most recent list of the number of Finnish soldiers killed, relating to the Winter War, between 30 November 1939 and 31 December 1940": 26 662. They are talking about those *killed*. Only ~27 thousand, right? BTW notice how cleverly in the table just above they give 19 576 killed, so the total 66 406 of that table should be adjusted to ~73 thousand. Which is already pretty close to Krivosheev's total. But then look further at that same page: "After the war, in a meeting of the high council, Minister Molotov represented an estimate of 200 000 dead, wounded and missing Soviet soldiers. These figures contradicted even the lowest Finnish estimates. The numbers usually referred to, gives a Soviet death toll of at least 150 000 - 200 000, which would bring the total casualty near 400 000 - 600 000." First off, I doubt it very much that they would know what Molotov discussed at the Supreme Council. Given that they don't even know the correct term for that council, that looks very unlikely. Secondly, we know that the total Soviet losses were about ~330 thousand, *not* 400-500 thousand, so the "lie" factor of that page averages to 1.4. Thus: 73 * 1.5 = ~100. Pretty damn close to Krivosheevs's data.    

> [quote:1faz2dvp]Just like Finland was not a territory the Soviets planned to own, except a tiny plot of it.

 Oh, give me a break!  Every nation that was within breathing room of the Soviet Union became a member, whether they liked it or not.[/quote:1faz2dvp] 
Yup. Poland did, too.   

> To believe Finland was not on the same list as the Baltic States is insane.

 mike, I really want to avoid calling you an idiot. But you're provoking me. Badly. Look: Finland effectively *CAPITULATED*. Every single sensible man in the world understood that. Look at Liddell Hart's quotation I gave: "eventual collapse was certain", "In the radically changed circumstances, particularly after the disastrous collapse in the Summa sector of the Mannerheim Line on February 12, the new Soviet terms were remarkably moderate". Had Stalin wanted to have Finland in entirety, he would, nothing could have stopped him.   

> The excuse given for the Winter War is that Finland had vital areas near Leningrad and Kronstadt that Stalin wanted to use to protect himself against Germany's navy.  This is true.  The joint occupation of Porkkala and Naissaar would've all but quashed any attempt by the Nazis to attack Leningrad or Kronstadt.  But these areas are not the ones that the Soviets requested.  The original locations, like Hango, that Stalin requested in 1939 were of very little value against an invading German navy.

 You are *some* military expert, mike. One *real* military expert, whom I quoted earlier, holds a view totally opposite of yours. Namely: _An objective examination of these terms suggests that they were framed on a rational basis, to provide a greater security to Russian territory without serious detriment to the security of Finland. They would, clearly, have hindered the use of Finland as a jumping-off point for any German attack on Russia. But they would not have given Russia any appreciable advantage for an attack on Finland._ 
And in the end Hanko was successfully used to check Germans' invasion into the Baltic. In St. Petersburg, there is улица Пестеля, if I remember correctly, that is perpendicular to Фонтанка, and just at that intersection there is a building, whose facade says: "in memory of the heroic defenders of Hanko".   

> However, these locations _would_ be of great use to the Soviets if they were to begin an invasion into the Finnish mainland from them. 
> Likewise in Karelia the locations of the new border would've made the Mannerheim line worthless as a defense against Russia (which is in actuality what Stalin probably would've liked), they overran two or three main Finnish artillery fortresses that would be of no practical use to the Nazis in an invasion but would definitely be crucial to the Finns protecting themselves against a future Soviet war.

 Refer to Liddell Hart. He says clearly that "The re-adjustments of the frontier would still leave intact the main defences on the Mannerheim Line."   

> The "justification" you and most Stalin-sympathizers give is that Finland was to blame for the invasion because it would not go along with the peaceful, paltry requests of the USSR--even though such requests would in effect destroy Finland's attempt to ever defend itself against a Soviet aggressor and they had every right to refuse to cooperate.

 So Liddell Hart is a Stalin sympathizer now. Stop smoking that stuff, mike.   

> So I'm still waiting for you to respond to my original proposition.  Let's say that the White House puts a deal on the table that requests only a few pieces of Russian territory that we say are vital to protecting our country.  This territory is populated by Russians but they would be given a generous number of weeks to pack up their things and move somewhere else.

 The Finns were not asked to take their stuff and leave. It was entirely their choice. Not to mention that if they had accepted the original proposals, there would've been lots fewer of those in the occupied territories.   

> We would be allowed to install military bases on this territory and use it for trafficking any equipment and cargo we see fit.  Although it would be physically impossible for Russia to estimate how many soldiers are passing through, we would establish a limit on paper of how many can enter.  These territories, though crucial to Russia's defense against an attack from the United States (oh, heaven forbid), are more important to the interests of the White House.

 Isn't it what you *are* doing in Western Europe and in Central Asia now?   

> What I want you to tell me, bad manners, is whether or not you would get upset when we declared war on the Russian federation for not agreeing to the terms.

 Go ahead and try  :: )))) (Even though you could probably get most of that by just bribing the Russian authorities.) In this world, mike, it is the guys with big guns who decide what is good and what is not, what is fair and what is not. Save that humanitarian BS for the laymen.    

> 1.  That gravity does not exist

 Correct. You’re getting it. Slowly but surely.   

> 2.  That anything bad done under Stalin he either had no knowledge of or was completely helpless to stop

 Incorrect. I’m not going to repeat that all again.   

> 3.  Things that are round are not round

 Given your phenomenological definition of “round”, it might even be “square”, so that depends.   

> 4.  The annexation of countries was done all the time and was therefore not a bad thing

 Bad, but traditional. I hope you’re not a virgin female who faints when somebody kills a mosquito. Blaming *only* Stalin for that is ridiculous. You might have a look at the nice and pleasant Brits, who almost occupied Norway at just about the same time, yet you’re ignoring it, apparently because they were doing it in the nice and good English way.   

> 5.  The losses of 430,000 men on two sides of a war that lasted a few months are valid because one side gained 40,000km^2 that it didn't truly need

 Incorrect. Losses were below 200 000. The land proved to be necessary, since it’s only thanks to that buffer zone that Leningrad was not occupied on June 22, 1941.   

> and the other side made the mistake of believing it had the right to disagree with a diplomatic proposal that was grossly one-sided and suicidal to accept.

 Correct. The original requirements were benign, so only idiots would risk so much for so little. Actually, I think I know why there were so stubborn. Apparently the British and the French had given them a guarantee, just like they did to Poland. In that case the idiocy of the Finish government is gross, because Poland was more accessible to the British and the French than Finland was, yet they were unable to do a thing. Most likely it was sheer arrogance on the Finnish part, which is actually very consistent with their idea of “Great Finland”. Yet somehow you ignore the fact that the Finns had *openly* declared their intentions to occupy a part of Russia. Their cruelty during the early years of the civil war is well known, but you of course ignore all that.   

> 6.  Any book used to quote information on Stalin must come from an author who has sympathies for him

 I know that is what you think, mike. I, on the other hand, so far have only quoted two sources, none of which can be called sympathetic of Stalin.    

> Like I have said, what Lenin said was what got done.

 Whatever. A military commander who knows he cannot perform the task should resign. That’s standard practice in all armies. That happened even under Stalin, e.g., Zhukov threatened with his resignation a few times. And either got what he wanted or was relieved of his task. A military commander who cannot do so is impotent.   

> My argument was _supposed_ to be a question of whether or not Stalin as an individual was necessary, as you claim, to defeating Hitler.

 Then find somebody better than Trotsky. Even if we assume that Trotsky is a military genius, I doubt it very much that the USSR would have been a candy-mountain kind of country under him. That makes the whole discussion pointless.   

> Based on..?  The Red Army itself were not to be the head of the invasion.  I think in a sense Trotsky and Lenin's vision of the Red Army in regards to internationalism was a mirror of the Bolshevik vanguardism itself.  Merely the guidance of the masses in armed support, not a fully-functional invasion force.  Whether or not they would've succeeded in revolutionizing Germany, I have no doubt they would have eliminated Hitler and his heads or at least sent them into hiding.  So much for becoming Fuhrer of the Third Reich.

 That needs to be proven, mike. The Germans had been very nationalistic, they could declare themselves communists but had the Russians whom they almost organically hated appeared on the horizon, they would have put the brown shirts on. Which they actually did.    

> [quote:1faz2dvp] I agree that was stupid. I do not want to discuss why he did so, that's completely irrelevant. Except for one thing: he genuinely believed in weakness of the Russian "colossus"; few doubt that it was due to his WWI perception of Russia, which was indeed weak. But suddenly she was not that weak anymore in 1941. Would you explain what exactly had happened in Russia between 1918 and 1941 that provided for such a bad surprise for him?

 Military buildup that I'm sure any leader in Stalin's place would've likewise created.[/quote:1faz2dvp] 
Funny, funny. You agreed last time that Trotsky would not have done that. Nor Lenin.   

> It is of course also a matter of self-defense of the homeland in WW2 versus a war for imperialism and private wealth that was exhausting the country of its ability to survive in WW1.  It is not hard to see why there would be more public support for the former than the latter.

 That too. But you suggest that they should have invaded Germany. Non sequitur, mike.   

> I don't charge him for all the bad that happened in Russia.  I have attempted to distance myself from these arguments throughout ours.

 You are, mike. Each time you say “Stalin the asshole” and so on, you’re doing it, mike.   

> I've read Martens' "Another View of Stalin" and I don't doubt a lot of it is true.  There is always a second side to every story.  What I blame him for is not doing a whole lot to remedy any of the crimes committed against the public when he was in a position of power to fix _all_ of them.  If he did not know about them then he was not a very good leader.  If he did know about them but never bothered to fix them then he is not a very good leader.

 You still don’t get it, mike. The number of those “repressed” was not exactly as high as to agitate somebody who had seen much worse. I’ve reiterated that a few times, so I’m not going to repeat. I believe he’s solely responsible for the high-ranking guys, though, but that’s their personal business.   

> No, but it was what made the Japanese agree to unconditional surrender (they refused to agree to these terms before).

 Incorrect. I can provide quotations if you want. Not to mention that it was *not* unconditional. They had one condition, and it was granted. It was the sovereignty of the Emperor.   

> Right!  They were working on one at the same time!  However, even the American scientists in the Manhattan project had no exact ideas of the capabilities of the atomic weapons on a city

 Non sequitur, mike. First you said “they would have dropped the bomb on the Germans”. After that the Germans would have known the effects very well.   

> [quote:1faz2dvp] 
> The Germans were suffering a lot more from the conventional bombing, entire cities were being wiped out, yet they continued their resistance.

 Because Hitler made them.  It was not a popular war among the Nazi administration in Germany in the end.  Why else would his officers try to have him assassinated?  Why else would they attempt to negotiate a surrender to the Allies behind Hitler's back?
[/quote:1faz2dvp] 
It is irrelevant, mike. They *were* suffering a lot from “conventional bombardment” (actually even the Japanese were suffering a lot more from the conventional bombardment than they did from two A-bombs). That did not end the war. Ditto for a couple of A-bombs.    

> [quote:1faz2dvp]My point is that without Stalin the USSR would indeed have fallen in two or three months just like Hitler reckoned. Continue my argument from here.

 Only if we conclude that the events in Europe would've still led to World War 2.
[/quote:1faz2dvp] 
Most likely. It was the German revanchism and arrogance of the winners, not Stalin, what started that. Even if you prove that no Stalin would have meant no Hitler (which I’m not going to agree with unless you come up with a totally new argument), you will have to prove that “the other Germany” would have been a peaceful country, which will be very difficult to believe in.   

> [quote:1faz2dvp]Prove them wrong. Especially the particular case of Тухачевский et al.

 Which?  All or just the ones against the military?  And do you mean under Stalin specifically or in general?  How about the fact that every member of the first Politburo except Molotov were convicted?  Also over 75% of Central Comm and roughly 50% of the congress?  Do you really believe every single one of these people were part of a massive conspiracy to overthrow Stalin, and that they received a fair and impartial examination of the evidence?[/quote:1faz2dvp] 
Blah blah blah. I said very specifically: “prove that the case of Тухачевский et al was fabricated.” Prove it if you think you can, mike.

----------


## Mihkkal

Concerning the Hitler vs Stalin thing, I think old Djugashvilij was so much trouble alone, that it's not neccessary to pin Adolf on him as well. Not much good to be said about the man, as far as I can see.
Just read _Arkhipelag GULag_ by Solsjenitsyn, and see what I mean. Of course, as Solsjenitsyn points out: One man can't do it alone, it takes an army of beurocrats and a rotten system as well. 
If you're going to read it, beware though that Solsjenitsyn perhaps idealizes the tzar-age to some little extent, when it comes to torture, prison and such (though I don't doubt things got worse when Stalin took over). 
Oh, and to the individual who talked about "Bolsjevik scum" and how it was a good thing Stalin got rid of them... He/she should do us all a favour and think twice before advocating the murder of your political opponents. Even though they were an undemocratic an centralist bunch, whose _leaders_ got an awful lot of blood on their hands, there was no call for the killing sprees of the stalins-system - not among commoners, not in the Party. 
In Stalin's defense, though, he did stop Hitler from fleeing to Argentina, as this documentary comic shows: http://www.comics.aha.ru/rus/stalin/  ::

----------


## bad manners

> Concerning the Hitler vs Stalin thing, I think old Djugashvilij was so much trouble alone, that it's not neccessary to pin Adolf on him as well. Not much good to be said about the man, as far as I can see.
> Just read _Arkhipelag GULag_ by Solsjenitsyn, and see what I mean.

 Mihkkal, I've spent a lot of energy in this thread to stress this point: you should take all "critique" of Stalin with a huge grain of salt. Most of this critique consists of highly negative statements that are not supported by any evidence different than anecdotal evidence (which is the case with Солженицын). However, these negative claims have been consistently evangelized in the West, because it was an ideological instrument for their anti-Soviet doctrines, and also in Russia, because it also was an ideological instrument for internal "reforms" ("coups de etat" would be a better term). 
There is actually much good that can be said about the man. Education, healthcare, industry, agriculture. Yes, agriculture, because the "famine" in the Ukraine for which Stalin is always blamed was the last one to happen in Russia, while they had happened routinely before that.   

> Of course, as Solsjenitsyn points out: One man can't do it alone, it takes an army of beurocrats and a rotten system as well.

 That too.   

> If you're going to read it, beware though that Solsjenitsyn perhaps idealizes the tzar-age to some little extent, when it comes to torture, prison and such (though I don't doubt things got worse when Stalin took over).

 This is just a perfect example of this evangelized double-think: why precisely do you think it became worse under Stalin?   

> Oh, and to the individual who talked about "Bolsjevik scum" and how it was a good thing Stalin got rid of them... He/she should do us all a favour and think twice before advocating the murder of your political opponents. Even though they were an undemocratic an centralist bunch, whose _leaders_ got an awful lot of blood on their hands, there was no call for the killing sprees of the stalins-system - not among commoners, not in the Party.

 I don't care about "undemocratic and centralist". Irrelevant. The point that you seem to be missing is that those guys would have never said goodbye to their power voluntarily; they would have attempted a putsch if left alone. Which they actually did. You need to realize that they were the guys who always used force to get what they wanted, they did not accept compromises.

----------


## Sharikoff

::  Strange as it may seem... Sometimes we eagerly discuss things of the past, as if they were of the present day. We care about Stalin more than of terrorism, nuclear waste, poor economy, etc. Stalin is history; the history once learned how to deal with Stalin, so it will deal with all wouldbe Stalins. Nowadays Stalin or Hitler are nothing. A smart man with charisma is nothing cos' every image-maker can do the one out of you.
Stalin is a typical career man. Aren't you tired with jokes and rumour about Bill Gates? Stalin is the same. He is no symbol. He's not worth talking.

----------


## bad manners

> Strange as it may seem... Sometimes we eagerly discuss things of the past, as if they were of the present day. We care about Stalin more than of terrorism, nuclear waste, poor economy, etc. Stalin is history; the history once learned how to deal with Stalin, so it will deal with all wouldbe Stalins. Nowadays Stalin or Hitler are nothing. A smart man with charisma is nothing cos' every image-maker can do the one out of you.
> Stalin is a typical career man. Aren't you tired with jokes and rumour about Bill Gates? Stalin is the same. He is no symbol. He's not worth talking.

 Полиграф Полиграфович, я прекрасно понимаю, что для такого Интеллектуала как Вы, Сталин прост как две копейки, да и вообще является историческим ничтожеством. Действительно, кто такой Сталин? Так, недоучка из духовной семинарии. То ли дело Набоков! Создатель нетленных произведений. На русско-английском пиджине.

----------


## Sharikoff

> Полиграф Полиграфович, я прекрасно понимаю, что для такого Интеллектуала как Вы, Сталин прост как две копейки, да и вообще является историческим ничтожеством. Действительно, кто такой Сталин? Так, недоучка из духовной семинарии. То ли дело Набоков! Создатель нетленных произведений. На русско-английском пиджине.

 Дело вовсе не в интеллектуальности, коей я не могу похвастаться. И некоторых недоучек я очень уважаю; а вот карьеристов не люблю. 
Хотя, вынужден признать, мне очень симпатичен Никита Сергеевич Хрущев. Того тоже можно обвинить и недостатке образования, и в карьеризме - дескать, сделал себе имя на разоблачении сталинского культа личности. Но... вы слышали о концепции "лысый-кудрявый"? Суть в том, что в истории СССР "лысый" что-то строит, а "кудрявый" (т.е. с волосами) - снова разрушает. Посмотрите: Ленин (л) - Сталин (к) - Хрущев (л) - Брежнев (к) - Андропов (л) - Черненко (к) - Горбачев (л) - Ельцин (к). В этом смысле, мне гораздо больше импонируют лысые (не поймите превратно).

----------


## bad manners

> Originally Posted by bad manners  Полиграф Полиграфович, я прекрасно понимаю, что для такого Интеллектуала как Вы, Сталин прост как две копейки, да и вообще является историческим ничтожеством. Действительно, кто такой Сталин? Так, недоучка из духовной семинарии. То ли дело Набоков! Создатель нетленных произведений. На русско-английском пиджине.   Дело вовсе не в интеллектуальности, коей я не могу похвастаться. И некоторых недоучек я очень уважаю; а вот карьеристов не люблю. 
> Хотя, вынужден признать, мне очень симпатичен Никита Сергеевич Хрущев. Того тоже можно обвинить и недостатке образования, и в карьеризме - дескать, сделал себе имя на разоблачении сталинского культа личности. Но... вы слышали о концепции "лысый-кудрявый"? Суть в том, что в истории СССР "лысый" что-то строит, а "кудрявый" (т.е. с волосами) - снова разрушает. Посмотрите: Ленин (л) - Сталин (к) - Хрущев (л) - Брежнев (к) - Андропов (л) - Черненко (к) - Горбачев (л) - Ельцин (к). В этом смысле, мне гораздо больше импонируют лысые (не поймите превратно).

 Смешно. Правда. Но я говорил не о любви или нелюбви. Я говорил о пренебрежении масштабами личности. Вернее, об отказе данной конкретной личности в масштабах.

----------


## 44 Canon

The curator of a museum that one of my models use to be in personally met and talked with Stalin. Even despite the Curator being a communist, he found Stalin to be a psychotic and sick minded person.
 Stalin had no value for human life, as he even admitted in his own words.
 To him, human beings were nothing more then disposable resources and proved it in WW II.
 Yes,he succeeded in defeating the German army, at the expense of over a million Russians IN A SINGLE BATTLE!
 His industrial advancment also wasn't all it is sometimes cut out to be and with what little good it MAY have ever been, it still never justified the murder of millions upon millions of Russians.
 The Soviet Unions Holocaust was just as bad as the German, and Stalin himself was no better then Hitler. The only reason the Soviet Union was our allie in WW II, was because he was passive with other countries ( to a reasonable extent ) and shared the same enemy as the allied forces.
 How a Russian can like him is beyond me. The Russians were his first victims. He murdered millions of Russians, but didn't even scratch me, so the concern of Stalin belongs to the Russians, and the decision of weather or not they want to go through what he put them through all over again.
I prefer to not get in to a political debate about Stalin though. The man was a mass murderer and that is capitol crime against humanity. Their is nothing you can do to make up for that sort of behavior. That it's self is enough to say that he was a very bad leader, and the world is a better place without him and his empire. It doesn't NEED to go any further then that.

----------


## bad manners

> The curator of a museum that one of my models use to be in personally met and talked with Stalin.

 Yeah, and AlGore invented Internet.   

> Even despite the Curator being a communist, he found Stalin to be a psychotic and sick minded person.

 Even despite _not_ being a communist, I find your curator a psychotic and sick minded person. And because I say so, it is true.   

> Stalin had no value for human life, as he even admitted in his own words.

 Source, please.   

> To him, human beings were nothing more then disposable resources and proved it in WW II.

 Source, please.   

> Yes,he succeeded in defeating the German army, at the expense of over a million Russians IN A SINGLE BATTLE!

 Source, please.   

> His industrial advancment also wasn't all it is sometimes cut out to be

 Why is that?   

> and with what little good it MAY have ever been, it still never justified the murder of millions upon millions of Russians.

 Source, please.   

> The Soviet Unions Holocaust

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

> was just as bad as the German, and Stalin himself was no better then Hitler.

 Why is that?   

> The only reason the Soviet Union was our allie in WW II, was because he was passive with other countries ( to a reasonable extent ) and shared the same enemy as the allied forces.

 I nearly laughed my arse off. "was our allie [sic!]" He might as well not have been your "allie", he would have defeated Germany just the same. And perhaps taken the rest of Europe while he was at that.   

> How a Russian can like him is beyond me. The Russians were his first victims. He murdered millions of Russians,

 Source, please.   

> I prefer to not get in to a political debate about Stalin though.

 For a good reason. You don't know anything about what you're talking about, which is only natural given your problems with grammar.   

> The man was a mass murderer

 Source, please.

----------


## 44 Canon

This here can provide answers to allot of your source requets. 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 Campeign. 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 elses life from them.
 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.   

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

  I agree entirley. 
[/quote]Define "Soviet Unions Holocaust". And reference your source, please. 

> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM 
> Stalin was a murderor, plain and simple.
>  I myself have had my own experiencesin this arina, since the barbaric behavior of the Soviet Union didn't stop with Stalin.
>  When I lived in Alaska, we had Orthatox christians living near by. They had relijous elders, because their priests were murderd by the Soviets just for being priests, and the people living in the village themselves were marked for exicution before fleeing.

----------


## 44 Canon

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.

----------


## joysof

> 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.

----------


## bad manners

> 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.

----------


## 44 Canon

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.

----------


## bad manners

> 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.

----------


## Czar Nicholas

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.

----------


## mike

> 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.

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> 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.

----------


## Czar Nicholas

> 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.

----------


## Alexi

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.

----------


## 44 Canon

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!

----------


## Линдзи

> 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.    ::

----------


## 44 Canon

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.

----------


## Линдзи

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.

----------


## 44 Canon

You and I are on the same page.

----------


## Линдзи

> You and I are on the same page.

 ::thumbsup::

----------


## bad manners

> 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:   

> 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.   

> 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.

----------


## 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!

----------


## bad manners

> 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.

----------


## 44 Canon

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.

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> The people who claim otherwise alike yourself offer nothing of valid historical accounts, artifacts, footage etc. to show otherwise. Only flawd statistics.

 Statistics imho the only way for those who wants to count something. You should use statistics or otherwise you can't speak about numbers, just about your emotions. For example, where did you get your "tens millions" figure? Have you counted victims by yourself? There's no doubt that Stalin killed a lot of people, but it doesn't give you any right to get figures from nowhere and to expect that everyone will agree just because "Stalin was a barbarian".

----------


## Alexi

> Have you counted victims by yourself?

 _...uh, yes! Yes, I have counted each individual victim..._ 
Anyway, backing up a bit, I think someone took a stab at me because something I posted was statistically inaccurate. Maybe I should clear up what I said...   ::   
We're all working on the assumption that Stalin was a pretty 'bad' person. Well, then I say that anything beneficial credited to him would be outweighed by his badness.

----------


## bad manners

Here is an analogy for you, my dear tactics expert: imagine that somebody takes you to a court and says: "hey look, he's a serial killer with his guns and all". You say "prove that I killed anyone first". But the judge says "No, _you_ prove that you did _not_ kill 10 million people."

----------


## Friendy

> Here is an analogy for you, my dear tactics expert: imagine that somebody takes you to a court and says: "hey look, he's a serial killer with his guns and all". You say "prove that I killed anyone first". But the judge says "No, _you_ prove that you did _not_ kill 10 million people."

 That depends on whether we're reconstructing the trial or making an appeal.

----------


## VendingMachine

> Originally Posted by bad manners  Here is an analogy for you, my dear tactics expert: imagine that somebody takes you to a court and says: "hey look, he's a serial killer with his guns and all". You say "prove that I killed anyone first". But the judge says "No, _you_ prove that you did _not_ kill 10 million people."   That depends on whether we're reconstructing the trial or making an appeal.

 That depends on how bent the judge is. He might even have a telephone on his desk with a direct line to the other world from where the ghost of Stalin will call him if he isn't satisfied with the sentence...

----------


## 44 Canon

Stalin has been tried and convicted for those murders by history for half a century.
 It's not a secret. I've already posted all the information you need.
 Apparently, you must be in love with him, thus, nothing will convince you of what he did. He was a murder, plain and simple, and he did murder in to those numbers, plain and simple, and their is plenty of historical evidence that he did, plain and simple.
 Stalin as a good guy is nothing more then a figment of your own imagination.
 Go read the material I posted. Their is plenty in their exposing wear those numbers come from.
 I don't even know why I am talking to you. You are fixed on this stupid idea and nothing will seam to change you. Pride can be an ugly thing.
 You can just go on with your little game as far as I am concerned and keep living in your fantasy world.   

> By 1938, Conquest estimates that about 7 million Purge victims were in the labour/death camps, on top of the hundreds of thousands who had been slaughtered outright. In the worst camps, such as those of the Kolyma gold-mining region in the Arctic, the survival rate was just 2 or 3 percent (see the incarceration/death penalty case study).

 Here is a pretty accurate figure. Note that this is only the gendercide death toll. It doesn't include the military massacres and other stuff he had going. 
Arrests, 1937-1938 - about 7 million
Executed - about 1 million
Died in camps - about 2 million
In prison, late 1938 - about 1 million
In camps, late 1938 - about 8 million  
That figure was built on all of the finest and latest historical evidence, leaving a death toll of roughly 20 million.
 20 million is allot of people. Their is no good one can do to make up for that evil. Mind you that these are almost all Russians he killed.

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> Here is a pretty accurate figure. Note that this is only the gendercide death toll. It doesn't include the military massacres and other stuff he had going. 
> Arrests, 1937-1938 - about 7 million
> Executed - about 1 million
> Died in camps - about 2 million
> In prison, late 1938 - about 1 million
> In camps, late 1938 - about 8 million  
> That figure was built on all of the finest and latest historical evidence, leaving a death toll of roughly 20 million.

 One thing contradicts to this "pretty acurate figure" - demography. Show me this 20 million on this graph : 
Population of Russia in 20 century.

----------


## 44 Canon

That has no definitive definition to the death toll, only potential. That shows the population of Russia, not the kill rate. It is not unheard of for populations to increase during genocide. All you need are birth rates, and their was ALLOT of people being born world wide between 1919 and 1950.
 Actually, both Stalin and Hitler's rampages are visible in that chart. You can see a big gap their between the late 1930s and 40s, which would have been the time that most of the people in death camps would have been recorded for dead, as well as the Nazi stuff of course, who by them selves couldn't have taken that large of a bite out of the Soviet population. That's around 20% of the entire soviet population, despite the potentially high birth rate!

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> Actually, both Stalin and Hitler's rampages are visible in that chart. You can see a big gap their between the late 1930s and 40s, which would have been the time that most of the people in death camps would have been recorded for dead, as well as the Nazi stuff of course, who by them selves couldn't have taken that large of a bite out of the Soviet population. That's around 20% of the entire soviet population, despite the potentially high birth rate!

 I don't get it, you're trying to say that Stalin killed more people in Russia than Nazis? I wonder what do you think about how many people were killed by nazis then.

----------


## 44 Canon

They both killed ALLOT. Both were barbarians.

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> They both killed ALLOT. Both were barbarians.

 You try to speak by abstract definitions, like your "ALLOT".   ::   I see this as a lack of real knowledge, so I don't see any point to discuss, sorry. And don't take it as offence, I'm sure you can discuss guns or something else better. See you later.  ::

----------


## 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...

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

[quote="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.
[quote] 
I don't defend Stalin, I just want to see discussion full of facts, worth arguments and analysis from different positions, not just list of opinions shrinked to one sentence "this is ABSOLUTELLY BAD, that is ABSOLUTELLY GOOD".  The more man knows, the more colors he sees in the situation. If one sees things as white and black only, he should learn more.

----------


## 44 Canon

> You try to speak by abstract definitions, like your "ALLOT".  I see this as a lack of real knowledge, so I don't see any point to discuss, sorry. And don't take it as offence, I'm sure you can discuss guns or something else better. See you later.

  Apparently, you are either not very familiar with online slang, or are using it for some objective of yours. In addition, to make such judgment of other people, contradicts everything you have claimed yourself to be. In your own alleged prospective, you should be further investigating people.
 Clearly, you have no idea who or what kind of person you're talking to, and frankly, at this point in time, neither do I.   

> I don't defend Stalin, I just want to see discussion full of facts

 Then you will never find what you are looking for. History can not be proven beyond the coming of present existence.
 Maybe you should go talk with people who specialize in history of Stalin. Their truly is allot to know, I am sure.
 I know a guy who specializes in political history, and knows quite a bit on Stalin. I have briefly spoken to him about Stalin. He pretty much stated that Stalin was raised a barbarian and lived as one.
 This is not the place for in depth information on this.
 Stalin being a barbarian and mass murderer is as well known and determined as is that the .45ACP bullet has a great deal of stopping power.
 If you want to know the ballistic science behind the .45ACP, and what makes it so good at taking the fight out of people, then go to a forum who specializes in handguns, and you'll be given all the information you could hope for.
 If you want to know the details behind what Stalin did, exactly how the known statistics came to being about his death toll, which are the most accurate etc., then go to a forum that specializes in that subject.
 This forum specializes in various Russian stuff. 
 I specialize in a number of things, firearms being among them, and am quite familiar with some Russian firearms. If you really want me to make a thread, explaining deep details about Makarov pistols and Kalashnakove rifles, I will be more then happy to do so.
 Weather or not we will end up with a Stalin expert among us, has yet to be seen. If it happens, I will be right next to you in listening to what he has to say.
 Until then, I would suggest finding a forum that specializes in the subject.

----------


## mike

> I specialize in a number of things, firearms being among them, and am quite familiar with some Russian firearms. If you really want me to make a thread, explaining deep details about Makarov pistols and Kalashnakove rifles, I will be more then happy to do so.

 I come here so rarely that I have no idea what's going on anymore, but could you or one of the other firearms experts please make a thread explaining what a "Kalashnakove" is instead  ::

----------


## 44 Canon

Very well.  ::

----------


## bad manners

> Stalin has been tried and convicted for those murders by history for half a century. 
> It's not a secret. I've already posted all the information you need.

 Your information is laughable. Why should I regard some Canadian tabloid and some half-broken geosite page an accurate source of information? Is that gossip the kind of "trial and conviction by history" you’re talking about? You don't know anything on the subject, you cannot even mention the source of your beliefs -- but I would guess some US military boot camp. In the other thread you mentioned some WMD in Iraq -- when the whole world has known for more than a year that nothing of the kind ever existed -- again I sense the US boot camp indoctrination. You really ought to limit your judgment to your penis extenders, that seems to be the only area you know something about.   

> Pride can be an ugly thing.

 I have no idea what you're talking about, but there does seem to be an inferiority complex involved. Do you believe there is nothing you can be proud of? Oh while we're at that, ignorance _is_ ugly. As a courtesy, I won't even mention your grammatical abilities.   

> Arrests, 1937-1938 - about 7 million
> Executed - about 1 million
> Died in camps - about 2 million
> In prison, late 1938 - about 1 million
> In camps, late 1938 - about 8 million  
> That figure was built on all of the finest and latest historical evidence, leaving a death toll of roughly 20 million.

 That is total BS. Even Хрущёв who is known to have lied only mentioned 10 million. The actual figures have been given in this thread -- just a few days ago last time. If you don't believe these figures, have a look at Simon Sebag Montefiore's _Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar_: he gives the same numbers. FYI, this book is the latest and the most accurate source of the information on Stalin; biased, too, but this is as good as it gets these days.

----------


## 44 Canon

> Your information is laughable. Why should I regard some Canadian tabloid and some half-broken geosite page an accurate source of information? Is that gossip the kind of "trial and conviction by history" you’re talking about? You don't know anything on the subject, you cannot even mention the source of your beliefs -- but I would guess some US military boot camp. In the other thread you mentioned some WMD in Iraq -- when the whole world has known for more than a year that nothing of the kind ever existed -- again I sense the US boot camp indoctrination. You really ought to limit your judgment to your penis extenders, that seems to be the only area you know something about.

  Alright, you should listen to yourself. What, are you 6 years old?
I've given you plenty of information, while you have provided nothing at all. As I said earlier, you have a locked up mind, and anything you see that does not go hand in hand with what you WANT things to be, you will say the same thing about ( it's not credible, their lying, how can you believe that.
 Show that anything you have is more credible. Show me something to provide that Staling is innocent. You talk all this silliness, yet you provide nothing to support your own ideals. So far, you have contributed nothing but bad manners and your own opinion, while myself and everyone else has done the work.
 As far as I am concerned, if you like him so much, then by all means, go live under the rule of someone like him.   

> when the whole world has known for more than a year that nothing of the kind ever existed

 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 is simply an opinion of yours that their has been no sufficient evidence to ever support. A large portion of the world suspects and thinks that Iraq disarmed prior to the invasion but do not KNOW if they did and that's a FACT!

----------


## scotcher

David Kay, the man Bush sent to find WMDs, would tend to disagree with you:   

> "Anyone out there holding - as I gather Prime Minister Blair has recently said - the prospect that, in fact, the Iraq Survey Group is going to unmask actual weapons of mass destruction, are really delusional," he said.  
> "There is nothing there. There is a programme there. There was an intention of Saddam Hussein at some point to reconstitute it.  
> "There were clearly illegal activities, clear violations of UN Security Council resolutions. We have accumulated that evidence and really have accumulated that evidence to a considerable degree four months ago.  
> "There are not actual stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction."

 Source:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 778987.stm

----------


## bad manners

> Show that anything you have is more credible. Show me something to provide that Staling is innocent.

 Sure, right after you show that you did not rape and kill that underage boy.   

> This is another tribute to your lack of reason. The whole world to this very day DOES NOT know.

 Yeah, according to Fox News and some other "embedded" brainwashing. Pull your head out of your US military boot camp arse.   

> A large portion of the world suspects and thinks that Iraq disarmed prior to the invasion but do not KNOW if they did and that's a FACT!

 A large portion of the world is completely sure that the USA had no reason whatsoever to attack Iraq, except for its oil resources and W's hatred towards Saddam. The latter was recently relayed quite plainly by Richard Clarke, who said that on 9/11 the first thing that W asked was "is Saddam involved?" Upon hearing "no, it's Al-Qaeda", he said "anyway, search for a Saddam connection".

----------


## waxwing

> 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  ::

----------


## Alexi

> 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?..   ::

----------


## Alexi

> 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   ::

----------


## mike

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

> 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?

----------


## bad manners

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

----------


## Sean

Stalin is my friend.

----------


## Alexi

> 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

----------


## Czar Nicholas

> 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!

----------


## BJ

Crikey! I'm exhausted after reading that.

----------


## bad manners

> 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.

----------


## Alexi

> Crikey! I'm exhausted after reading that.

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

----------


## 44 Canon

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.

----------


## ronnoc37

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.

----------


## ronnoc37

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.

----------


## ronnoc37

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.

----------


## ronnoc37

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.

----------


## bad manners

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

----------


## ronnoc37

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?

----------


## bad manners

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.

----------


## ronnoc37

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.

----------


## bad manners

> I believe

 You needn'd say more.   

> you offer

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

----------


## ronnoc37

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

----------


## bad manners

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

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

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

----------


## Nova

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

 black+white=gray 
i don't think it's necessarily a western thing
-nor a western problem--no one wants to admit a shortcoming --or admit stubbornness 
it's perception of an individual, shaped by culture, etc... not only "western"
but, using if-then: 
IF  black+white=gray
THEN grey-black=white
and THEN grey-white=black 
it may appear gray, but it's still "black" and "white". *if* stalin's rule was good,*then* it was not evil
and *IF* stalin's rule was evil, *THEN* it was not good.  When you mix up good and evil, and say stalin can be both, you get...gray. 
no consistency 
Actually, to me, it seems MUCH easier to analyze the obvious..the black and the white...before diving into the gray, and sorting it out there.  and, so, thank you for bringin that up, alex, that it is now impossible to thoroughly analyze such things as stalin's rule. but i don't think that's going to be solved by seeing things as neutral or "gray".  that's being purposely blind to the truth of good and bad.  our own perspectives are so limited.  we all have our prejudices. pretending we know what we don't. and carrying on about what little we do (or think we do?) pointlessness, seemingly 
thankfully, most are capable of seeing in color (even those of us in the west   ::  )

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> black+white=gray 
> i don't think it's necessarily a western thing
> -nor a western problem--no one wants to admit a shortcoming --or admit stubbornness 
> it's perception of an individual, shaped by culture, etc... not only "western"
> but, using if-then: 
> IF  black+white=gray
> THEN grey-black=white
> and THEN grey-white=black 
> it may appear gray, but it's still "black" and "white".

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

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

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

----------


## NatashaVB

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

----------


## bad manners

It is remarkable that you find the best portrait of Stalin in a book written by the person who started all those fabrications on Stalin, which was the foundation of his political success.  
If you find any posts defending Stalin in this thread, then you should take a few lessons in English. Half the posts in this thread accuse Stalin in all kinds of nonsense (refer to your post for an example), and another half merely requests any evidence to support these accusation. None has been provided so far. Would you be willing to correct this unhappy discrepancy? 
Now, your claim "many of these historians are working toward a pre-conceived thesis". It equally (to put it mildly) applies to the kind of prose that you seem to adore. Except that you do not find _any_ facts in that prose.

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

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

----------


## NatashaVB

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

----------


## 44 Canon

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

  Plenty has been provided, you just claimed ( without any backing or references ) that it's false. 
 I have asked you on a number of occasions to back your own claims up, and you never once did ( except on one instance in the gun thread.
 I agree, that I don't recall you defending Stalin in blunt terms ( only calling anything against him "rubbish."
 Perhaps actually backing it up as "rubbish" ( therefore, defending Stalin ) is a line you are unwilling to cross. 
 As for another point, I know of very few dictators throughout history who didn't do some good. A good leader is someone who does allot of good and very little bad. Stalin in truth did a great deal of both, but still far to much bad to be outweighed.
 Stalin is not alone. Vlad the Impaler defeated the Turkish empire and opened the door for Romania to become an independent country, Ganges Kahn in many ways was arguably a good guy in essence, who brought his people to peace with eachother and sought to overthrow China, not out of greed but out of personal dispute between Mongolia and China and if it weren't for the total destruction of Kwarazm, he would probably be considered a hero by the common view today.
 He also let his people be as long as they didn't cause trouble and was very protective of women.
 Saddam Hussein helped the US in the conflict against Iran, made a large contribution to archeological research and revived Iraq's industry to what is starting to look like a very good future for the Iraqis, which probably never would have happened had he gone in to power.
 Even Osama Bin Laden made some positive contributions to society at one time.
 Like the above, Stalin did accomplish some good during his reign,but it didn't outweigh his evils.

----------


## bad manners

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

 Does that mean I should trust the numbers _that are invented_? Hello?   

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

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

> But Russian government is now open and honest? No.

 You're pathetic. I am not even asking you to prove that. 
I am only asking you to explain why that would bear any significance on the accuracy of the archived NKVD/KGB data.   

> You cannot be naive enough to argue that point.

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

> I am from Russia and you live there.

 Why is it so customary for you to invent things?   

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

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

> You write, "PROVE IT! PROVE IT!"

 Yeah, exactly. Please do.   

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

 Show me one example of that. Please pretty please.

----------


## bad manners

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## smithnweson

Stalin was a back stabbing paranoid thug, who murdered over 20 million soviets, which was only second in history to what Hitler did to the same poor Soviets 28 million dead, in other words he was almost as bad to his people as the most violent invasion and war in history was to them, i.e. The eatern Front 1941-45. 
All of his five year plans literally cost millions and millions of lives, being 20 minutes late to work was at least a 1 year in the gulag in some places, he made life a living hell, who was that famous boy who turned his family in for stealing grain, and Stalin had a statue made for him after he was killed by the townspeople. imagine being scared of your own children, talk about police state.  Stalinism is just a cult of mindlessness.

----------


## bad manners

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

----------


## smithnweson

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

----------


## bad manners

> I am a moron

 Precisely.

----------


## joysof

Ah, isn't consensus wonderful?

----------


## smithnweson

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

----------


## bad manners

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

----------


## joysof

> I feel bad for alot of Ruskies

 I think I am beginning to understand. 
You're some sort of hilarious _agent provocateur_, aren't you? A Butlerian construct. A flash-mad composite of hickish atavism and blind folly. No single human person could be quite so intellectually subnormal in quite so many ways. Could they? Do share.

----------


## N

> I feel bad for alot of Ruskies because there was some poll done recently and huge number of people thought Stalin would be a great leader even today, and that they would elect him.

 Isn't it amazing after 50 years of an Anti-Stalin brainwashing campaign started by Nikita Khrushev? Don't you think that people that lived through that era or those who have relatives had this experience _know_ something you don't know since you are foreigner.   

> The Soviet state of mind is realy an amazing bit of psychology/scoiology, talk about pulling the wool over the sheeps eyes.

 Our state of mind is fine, thank you. Why are you so sure that your information about subject is something inarguable? Russian historians themselves have different opinions on this one. Soviet archives are just started to be explored and the truth is comming.   

> Stalin was horrible and yet even here people defend him, tell that to all your dead comrades and familys that no longer exist because of him, he must have killed most of the intelligent people off.

 Sadly I have a relative dissapered in the horrible 1937. And believe me I want to know the full truth of that time. Being a kid the simple explanations like Stalin was evil, paranoiac etc suited me but not for a long time because I'm rather investigative. And the more I read serious history researchers and eyewitness' memories the more I understand the time and what really happened.    

> Russian rational=out of sight, out of mind!

   ::

----------


## Janice McNay

First, let me say how unexpectedly and happily surprised I was when I stumbled across this site a few days ago.  I thought I would find some Russian Language exercises that might be of some help to me. I found those, yes, but also message boards addressed to several subjects of intense personal curiosity. One of these is Stalin. As a student of Russian History, I find him to be one of the most interesting Russian leaders. I also believe that he was an evil man, indeed I do.
   I've read all the posts on this 'Stalin' board and was greatly interested in all of them. Especially yours, Bad Manners.  You surprise me with your seeming defense of Stalin. Correct me if I am wrong, please. I noted in your posts that you are so shyly hesitant when it comes to defending yourself.
    Of the many books I've read about him and his time, one fact has always stood out very strongly for me: the Nazi invasion begun in Summer of 1941 was undoubtedly helped along by Stalin's apparent nervous collapse for some days after the initial invasion. 
   Agreement among historians who have written about this is nearly unanimous. Only Radzinsky, whom I have read more for the entertainment factor, rather than for any qualities that might qualify his writings as anything resembling 'serious history', has surmised that Stalin might have feigned 'nervous trouble' in some sort of attempt to gain stronger support among the lesser leaders of the Soviet Government.         
   Radzinsky's minor fictions aside, Stalin really was shocked into near catatonia by the invasion. In fact, you may remember reading that Stalin expected to be arrested himself when several Soviet leaders visited him at his dacha to ask if he please, pretty please with cherries on top, could find it in his heart of hearts to come back to the office so that Russia could defend herself? Stalin surely expected a German attack, he was no fool after all, he just didn't think Hitler would attack when he did. Historians who repeat the laughable story about Stalin trusting no one except Hitler miss a lot of Stalin's reasoning concerning Hitler's motives. 
   Anyway, Stalin reacted to the attack by becoming paralyzed with fear which helped the German Army considerably in the war's inchoate stages. As to Stalin's rather inordinate incompetence as Generalissimo of all Soviet Military Forces, he may as well have given command to his daughter, Svetlana. Or perhaps you will offer some defense of Stalin's military aptitude?
  In your posts, which I read-perhaps proving some ignorance on my part- as being a kind of apologetic for Stalin's rule, you show an advanced talent for invective and admirable ability for ad hominem argument. Here are some examples: 
    "I see now. Stalin was so bad for your soviet state of mind that he should be accounted for your being a moron. Was it because he killed the "most of the intelligent people" in your family?"
--(Talk about intelligent argument. You must have thought for some minutes to come up with the tactic of calling your target a 'moron'. This retort must have devastated him.)-- 
   “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?” 
 --(My mind says you had at least a partial point here. My heart tells me no, you didn't.  For some years, I believed that Stalin had been, on balance, more good than bad.  I have read books defending Stalin. I came to see these books as absurdly concocted fairy tales: realistically, more a defense of the author than of Stalin himself.
   And, yes, it has always been the way of democracy to believe self-evident facts. Sorry, you are defending a mass murderer. Sorry again, he DID kill more people than Hitler. In my estimation, that makes him worse. That sounds strange as I write it. Stalin famously said, “The death of one is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” It does sound strange to compare Hitler and Stalin (title of an excellent book, by the by) and to finally conclude that Stalin was probably worse because his body count was higher.  No, it isn’t strange, it’s absurd. Who was worse, Jeffrey Dahmer or J.W. Gacy?  My thoughts are becoming messy from tiredness brought on by my desire to be as complete here as possible. Democracy is messy also, we are allowed to say almost anything and get away with it. Even us morons.)-- 
   "I'd very much like to see any evidence that supports that figure." 
   --(You have employed this tactic often. PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! Your written words scream, again and again. When facts or books have been offered to you, you generally use the 'That's not real history' or some variation of that time-honored technique. Some of them HAVE been bad history, but not ALL.  Solzhenitsyn, for example, is obviously guilty of statistical over-estimation. But, much of really, really 'REAL' history is based on eyewitness accounts. So, his numbers might be off. His experience was real. He WAS arrested for criticizing Stalin in letters he had written; He WAS (really, really, factual truth) a prisoner for years under the harshest conditions imaginable. When he wrote about things he had actually seen and experienced, he is an excellent historian. When it comes to statistics, which he himself freely admits are his best guesses, he is off. Sometimes he is far off. Tell me, do you  discount his believability as an eyewitness? Also, what proof WOULD
be acceptable to you?)--
  "I cannot judge Stalin by the claims of the historians now. So many lies have been piled on top of his deeds (which he predicted). But the majority of the Russian people value Stalin very highly. Those who dislike him are few and far between, but they happen to be the Russian интеллигенция, and their voice is louder than that of the rest of Russia. You should remember that the Russian интеллигенция has always disliked the Russian rulers and the Russian state. It is just its natureThat may be nice reading, but it is quite far from being an authoritative source." 
   -- (Now, Mr. Manners, did you really take your own words seriously when you write, “...the majority of Russian people value Stalin very highly.”?  I have spoken to hundreds of Russians about Stalin, few of whom could be described as being members of the intelligentsia, which you hold in such low regard (Perhaps you even misunderstand the meaning of the word in Russian. Or, maybe you trust that those who do not know Russian have a dislike for those whom English speakers call 'intellectuals') A few, a slight handful of these Russians spoke well of him. Many more used strong obscenities to describe him. I still have notebooks full of these conversations that I had with people in different parts of Russia.  Generally, I found the oldest people to be most likely to admire him. Understandably, they were also the most likely group to express genuine disgust at the mention of his name. I found older women to be most likely to show the strongest emotions.  Some old women, in the midst of our conversations, began to cry as if they were small girls again, returned by memory to the exact moment their father or mother or brother was taken away by unsmiling men at three in the morning. I promise you, Mr. Manners, I talked with many more who hate Stalin than admire him. If I had been eating while reading your words: “Those who dislike him are few and far between,”  I may have choked. Aside from my conversations with Russian people, contemporary opinion polls lend evidence to my opinion . In October of 2003, only 8% of Russians rated Stalin as their greatest leader.  http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7349-7.cfm  
       In another poll, 61% of respondents said that Stalin had committing genocide upon his own people.  No, my friend, Stalin is not a beloved uncle figure for the vast majority of Russian people.)--
     “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. 
--(How could you have thought he could have been offended? You are saying that a 16 year old’s speculations are not to be taken seriously.  You also seem to cast ‘teenager’ and ‘clown’ as being equivalent.  You must not have been thinking of Anne Frank or Mozart when you wrote these words.  These and countless others have moved history with their talents at younger ages than 16. {There are literally thousands of them in the history books of all nations} Persons of sixteen, along with Solzhenitsyn, and the entire Intelligentsia of Russia, in your opinion, are clowns.  They are incapable of having valid opinions, obviously incapable of understanding the ‘too difficult’ nature of highly intricate arguments regarding such  subjects as Joseph Stalin.)-- 
   In a later post, you stepped back from the ‘clown’ statement. But, you still questioned the ability of a 16-year old to have valid opinions:
    “That requires certain perspective that he simply cannot have.”   
   --(An unsupported statement worthy of Radzinsky himself.  How do you know he lacks a ‘certain perspective”? Ah, yes! It is because he is ONLY 16 and therefore cannot have the necessary perspective with which to stand toe-to-toe with one such as yourself who owns such obviously wide and deep perspective. 
  I am certain that I also lack the necessary perspective I would need to have the slightest hope of holding my own in any intellectual dust-up with you. 
   Here are more of your comments from these posts: 
    "Stop smoking that shit and start reading books. Practice your grammar, too."
--(Translation: If you smoke shit you do not read books. If you read, your grammar necessarily gets better. Anyone who has bad written grammar cannot also be a reader.)-- 
   “I wish you could be so generous as to allow yourself the freedom of thought”
--(Translation: You do not agree with me so you are both narrow AND small minded. You aren’t even worth the calories of discourse)-- 
       “You're pathetic. I am not even asking you to prove that”
--(The woman, Natasha, who posted what you were here replying to was asking you why you would believe the archives of the Russian Government. It seems, to a degree at least, that to believe their documents you would have to believe that the government that produced those documents was being honest about what was written on their forms.  This Natasha made the same point. You weren’t asking her to prove anything. She was asking you why you would believe that the government of Soviets ever gave anyone reason to believe they could be trusted about anything including their own statistics registries. That did not seem particularly pathetic to me. Or did you write ‘pathetic’ because you  know it is one of the best, worst words of insult without resorting to obscenity? Come to think of it, it IS more insulting than obscenity. 
   “Why would anyone want to refute your nonsense“?
--(You, yourself would like to refute it. You would like to refute it for all people in all history. But, you know that refuting the argument that Stalin was a bad guy is exceedingly difficult to the point of impossibility. What you asked that writer, Ronnoc, to prove is pretty commonly accepted historical fact. That nonsense, as you called it, is pretty hard to prove, however, if you are trying to prove it to one who refuses to accept any evidence whatsoever. I cannot ‘prove’ Stalin’ was bad anymore than I have the immediate capacity at hand to prove that Hitler was ever responsible for even the death of one person in the SS camps. The proof DOES exist however, just as the proof about Stalin exists, also.  
      I want to ask you, since you dismissed Solzhenitsyn so easily, and I guess (don’t forget to correct me now, if I happen to be wrong) you also dismiss the poets Ahkmatova and Tsvetaeva in regard to their opinions about Stalin. Have you read GULAG by Anne Applebaum? In an appendix titled, ‘How Many’, she very scholarly analyzes various statistics she used as a help in writing her book. These are from Soviet KGB records.  They are not the numbers of Solzhenitsyn, but it becomes much more difficult to see Stalin as a positive force after digesting them. 
    I do not know if Stalin was evil. God decided that question in early March of 1953. 
    But he surely did evil things. Millions were made prisoner for little real reason, often for no real reason at all excepting Stalin fervently believed in the necessity of slave labour. He believed in it even after many thousands died building worthless canals with no machinery, many having only their hands to use as tools. 
     I do not think Stalin did worse than any other man who might have taken control instead of him. Who knows, maybe if Lenin had lived for another healthy 20 years or so. Many believe Lenin would have been the same as Stalin. I believe that Lenin would have been far better for Russia had he managed to live another 20 or so years.
    Too, many, believe that Trotsky would have built a Great Russia, even greater than Stalin managed.  A writer named Czar Nicholas wrote a post concerning this belief that Trotsky would have been better. I thought his analysis was very perceptive. He ended it with: So given a choice between either Stalin or Trotsky, I'd choose Stalin. But as I said, overall I despise what Stalin did. 
   Mister Nicholas, your analysis of this 'what if' question was very good. It caused me to think the whole thing over again. I want to thank you for that.
         Back to Mr. Manners. Here, you are writing a post in response to a woman whom I took to be a Russian:
    “If you find any posts defending Stalin in this thread, then you should take a few lessons in English. Half the posts in this thread accuse Stalin in all kinds of nonsense (refer to your post for an example), and another half merely requests any evidence to support these accusation. None has been provided so far. Would you be willing to correct this unhappy discrepancy?” 
--(It seems to me that you and some others HAVE defended Stalin here. Your posts make up a large part of the half  that you say ask for evidence. Natasha's English skills seemed quite good to me but I'm sure I'm not the sharp eyed critic you are...)-- 
   Have you read any Gulag survivor books such as: NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH by Joseph Burger; JOURNEY INTO THE WHIRLWIND, by Yevgenia Ginzburg; KOLYMA TALES by Shalamov; or  GDE MOI VETER? by Leonid Sitko. If you have read any one of them, how can you now say Stalin was not a monster? What about the poetry of Anna Akhmatova, of MarinaTsvetaeva?  These two women were among the greatest of poets who ever wrote in any language. Can you deny that these two women suffered because of Stalin?  That Tsetaeva committed suicide was her own fault, I suppose. Stalin’s beastliness had nothing whatsoever to do with that. 
      Having no choice, history being is what it is,  I must agree that there is no doubt that Stalin did industrialize the Soviet Union.  I will argue that it could have been done in a better (meaning kinder and gentler)  way. I do not believe anyone else was around, at the time of Lenin’s death, who could have both taken power AND built Russia into the giant that destroyed Hitler.  I strongly believe someone could have done it and done it much better than Stalin. I anticipate the criticism that this is only conjecture on my part, meaningless fantasy. I agree. As to whether ends justify means, I would say that it depends on what means and whose ends. The destruction of Hitler could have been accomplished with better means. If he had confined his military expertise to the chessboard, and allowed Zhukov to run the whole war, many deaths would have been avoided. Another way could have been found to industrialize Russia rapidly without creating millions of slaves.  But, history is what she is-a bitch. She has only a theoretical, detached interest in means. Her passion is ends. 
     Finally, I believe Stalin was a weak and frightened man. Nothing else makes any sense in my effort to explain to myself ‘ol uncle Iosef. It is one of the darkest nightmares of history that he was the one who managed to hold the history of the great country of Russia in his hands. I have thought for some time that Stalin hated Russia and the Russian people.  He laughed at his own little jokes he often made about the suffering he caused.  I will never have an opinion that will satisfy me as an answer for why he hated Russia.

----------


## Lampada

Janice! You are amazing.  :: 
Welcome!

----------


## DDT

I agree! I hope you stay around.

----------


## Светлана Ежова

heh, I'm anti-Stalin but do recognize that he was instrumental in helping us defeat fascism in WWII and that there were some positive in the USSR and not only negatives.

----------


## Janice McNay

> heh, I'm anti-Stalin but do recognize that he was instrumental in helping us defeat fascism in WWII and that there were some positive in the USSR and not only negatives.

   Of course you are right about this. 
   But, many people, when this is said about Stalin, go no further. Do you know how some react when told this about Hitler? He rebuilt Germany's economy, gave it back its self-respect after a disastrous war and an even more disastrous peace treaty, and he also liked dogs. But, did he need to kill millions to do it?  The question is the same regarding Stalin. As I have already said, it is only a matter of fantasy and conjecture to imagine how some different (I have played with the idea that maybe Kirov could have done this) person could have accomplished the same miracles (and they were miracles-building Russia into a giant, militarily and economically; that country being the same one mainly responsible for destroying Nazism)as Stalin, with better and more humane methods.
   You are also correct in saying that there were many positives in the Soviet Union. Among the best of these were the many martyred people who challenged Stalin's savage regime by writing and speaking the truth; many suffered and died for that truth.

----------


## Pravit

Calm down, Jan. As we all know, Stalin was the father of the American neoclassicist movment.

----------


## Janice McNay

I forgot about that. I also forgot that Stalin is still alive and lives on an uncharted island. His islemates are Hitler, FDR, Truman, JFK and Richard Nixon.  There is a rumor that Khrushchev also lives there, but I am almost sure that is not true.

----------


## Pravit

Your lack of knowledge in this subject is appaling. Stalin is still alive and lives in a remote fishing village in Greenland. He shared a cabin with FDR for several years; however, FDR got fed up with the arrangements and set off on his own for Kerguelen island.   http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:aV ... elen&hl=en

----------


## Janice McNay

I have also heard that, but I doubt the validity. Most evidence for your side was presented in Ivan Tokallot's book: TRUTH REVEALED: THE THREE-WAY LOVE AFFAIR BETWEEN STALIN, FDR AND TROTSKY. Certainly, a person of your obvious intelligence cannot believe such tripe. Everyone knows it wasn't a love affair at all, but merely a best forgotten episode of history when the three got together (of course, this was BEFORE FDR became President of the USA) in a Motel 6 in Cypress, drank a bit too much and had a one-night-stand. That's all it amounted to, just one night of drunken, crazed passion. 
  Somehow, as I'm sure you know, when not in a mood to defend one of your nutty pet theories, Hitler got word of this incident and, in a Herculean effort to satisfy his terrible anger over beimg betrayed by his one, true love, Uncle Iosef, plotted to gain power and eventually was able to invade Russia in retribution. 
  Next time, please get your facts straight (an action Hitler and Stalin were incapable of doing) before bothering to post here. This forum is only for the most SERIOUS postings. If you continue on in this manner, no one will take you seriously anymore!

----------


## Pravit

> Most evidence for your side was presented in Ivan Tokallot's book: TRUTH REVEALED: THE THREE-WAY LOVE AFFAIR BETWEEN STALIN, FDR AND TROTSKY.

 Ridiculous. My source is a world famous professor who is well-known for his works on the American neoclassicist movement and Stalin's secret love affairs with FDR. Also, he met with Stalin and Trotsky in person and was known to be an ever-present guest at Stalin's dinner table.   

> Everyone knows it wasn't a love affair at all, but merely a best forgotten episode of history when the three got together (of course, this was BEFORE FDR became President of the USA) in a Motel 6 in Cypress, drank a bit too much and had a one-night-stand. That's all it amounted to, just one night of drunken, crazed passion.

 Rewriting the past, are you? Certainly, a person of your obvious academic merit would know about the Boy George - Hitler connection.

----------


## Nixer

> Actually, it only applied to those citizens with passports (about 10%)

 You want to say 10% without passport?  ::  
City population in the USSR by 1930s was the same as country population, and all of city dwellers were with passports.

----------


## apparatchik

Lampada, I am completely overtaken by the songs and it raises my patriotic fervour. Given that I a lived in Alma Ata, Kazhakhistan for 8 years, I feel like saying, HAIL STALIN! STALIN! STALIN!!

----------


## apparatchik

Long live Joe 
 An army expert once argued that the Red Army officer corps, whose origins came with Lenin’s benediction and Lev Trotsky’s methodological manner of thinking and management, was, for the most part, unprofessional throughout its existence and that this deficit of professional ability left it unable to defend itself during Stalin’s terror purge, caused the failure to conquer Finland, had disastrous consequences in the first year of the German invasion of the USSR in 1941-42, and contributed to the large number of casualties throughout the war. Its unprofessional nature compounded the debacle of Afghanistan and was the most significant cause of the public’s loss of faith when the military came under scrutiny during Mikhail Gorbachev’s reform era in the mid-1980s. 
The question that concerns me is, would Lev Trotsky have made it a professional army if he had been in power? When the military situation deteriorated, Stalin effectively took control of the army. This was the sort of power of leadership the revolution required to survive, but it was a challenge to Trotsky, who had created the Red Army with the help of so-called ‘military experts’ - ex-tsarist officers. Stalin distrusted these ‘useful’ renegades and shot them whenever possible. 
Always take note that Lev Trotsky had all the chances to stand up for Stalin, but instead turned him into a foe. Given the foreboding of a counterrevolutionary coup d’etat approaching and carried out by former tsarist officers, one cannot blame Joseph Stalin for arranging a massive purge that overwrought the whole chain of command, from top to bottom. 
He opposed Stalin impertinently on all issues. The former tsarist officers were a real menace, but still Lev mollycoddled them under the expedient that an army is in need of military specialists in order to make it professional. Brushing off Stalin’s argument of political or ideological purity in the army, he insisted on contradicting him in all matters. 
It might also be surmised that Trotsky had not anticipated a power struggle once Lenin died, despite Stalin’s malicious moves to shuffle or remove his appointed generals and commissars. Lev did not take the necessary precautions. He was good in political posturing and manoeuvres. But he did not expect a bloodbath, with Stalin as the executor. 
Stalin, then, knew better. Trotsky was turned into a political mediocrity who should have known what to do, given his Machiavellian instincts in the realm of Soviet politics and totalitarianism. He was not in touch with reality. 
Despite heavy losses during the war against Finland and the German invasion, the Soviet army was indeed a professional army. It was able to defy all the odds and it came to equal the United States of America in the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles, etc. The Soviet army was the most feared among democratic-capitalist states. The invasion of Yemen, the arming of North Vietnam, etc, proved not only its military stamina, but also its capability to subvert any country it chose. 
Today we have Trotskyites and Stalinists in our midst. They come from all walks of life. The only difference between the two contending factions is that the latter always succeed in dominating the leadership of all recognised communist parties of the world and their central organs. The Trotskyites are justifiably condemned and persecuted because they denied Joseph Stalin the chance to explain himself or rebut their allegations. Without Koba, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would not have been a superpower. Long live Joseph Stalin!

----------


## Lampada

> Long live Joe ... Long live Joseph Stalin!

----------


## Hanna

...
Has anyone who actually IS Russian heard of Wallenberg? I would have thought nobody knew or cared about him other than Jews who were saved by him, and Swedes. 
I think all officials in the USSR and modern Russia have consistently stuck to the original story that he was shot in Moscow soon after the war, and everything else is just conspiracy theories.

----------


## LXNDR

> He was taken to a prison in Moscow, called Ljublanka.

 Lubyanka Лубянка      

> I still can't imagine why the USSR shot an innocent citizen of a neutral country two years after the war ended!

 that was the nature of Stalin's regime, he killed millions of soviet people or made them rot in labor camps, if you can kill your own people all the more you can kill suspicious foreigners
thousands of Polish officers were executed near Katyn by NKVD, the scene of the massacre was found by the Nazis, but it's them who soviet authorities then blamed this atrocity on.   

> And it doesn't make any logical sense that the USSR should lie to say someone is dead and keep them inprisoned instead. Particularly not since the relationship between the USSR and Sweden was quite good for the majority of the Cold War.

 true, therefore i think had he been alive after Stalin's death, he'd be released

----------


## BappaBa

> he killed millions of soviet people or made them rot in labor camps

 сто тыщь миллионов?

----------


## Ramil

> сто тыщь миллионов?

 He personally ate a billion of soviet children. A known fact!

----------


## diogen_

Одна смерть – трагедия, миллион смертей – статистика…
Иосиф Сталин 
Halcyon days of Communism in posters.  ::  "Товарищ Сталин...". — Видео@Mail.Ru

----------


## LXNDR

> 2. Численность осужденных по политическим мотивам. 
> Вскоре после смерти Сталина Президиум ЦК КПСС затребовал от правоохранительных органов данные о численности лиц, осужденных за "контрреволюционные преступления". В докладной записке, представленной в феврале 1954 года генеральным прокурором СССР Руденко, министром внутренних дел Кругловым и министром юстиции Горшениным, указывалось: с 1921 года по 1 февраля 1954 года по обвинениям в контрреволюционных преступлениях было осуждено 3 777 380 человек, в том числе к высшей мере наказания - 642 980, к содержанию в лагерях и тюрьмах - 2 369 220, к ссылке и высылке - 765 180 человек. Из этого числа примерно 2,9 млн. человек были осуждены внесудебными органами (коллегией ОГПУ, "тройками" и Особым совещанием), около 900 тыс. человек - судами, военными трибуналами, Спецколлегией и Военной коллегией Верховного Суда[10]. Близкие к этому цифры (*3 778 234 репрессированных, в том числе 786 098 расстрелянных*) *впервые были обнародованы в начале 90-х годов руководящими работниками КГБ*[11]. 
> Следует заметить, что в этих данных присутствует, хотя и в небольшой мере, повторный счет, поскольку многие политзаключенные, прежде всего из числа оппозиционеров, осуждались за этот период по 2-5 раз. 
> В 1992 году начальник отдела регистрации и архивных форм Министерства безопасности Российской Федерации сообщил данные, охватывающие все годы Советской власти. Согласно этим данным, за 1917-1990 годы по обвинению в государственных преступлениях и по некоторым другим аналогичным статьям Уголовного кодекса было осуждено 3 853 900 человек, из которых 827 995 чел. были приговорены к высшей мере наказания[12]. Эти данные также не ставят под сомнение близость к истине данных, содержавшихся в справке 1954 года. Расхождения в численности приговоренных к высшей мере наказания могут быть объяснены тем, что в последнем случае понятие "политзаключенные" толковалось более расширительно ("осужденные по некоторым другим аналогичным статьям Уголовного кодекса"), а также тем, что часть приговоров к высшей мере наказания не была приведена в исполнение и при пересмотре дел была заменена приговором к длительным срокам лишения свободы.

  Статистика жертв массовых репрессий

----------


## Ramil

За 33 года, 4 млн. осуждены, из них 0,6-0,8 млн. приговорённых к ИМН (и это включая 4 года войны!).
Для сравнения - глянь на количество заключённых, которые сидят сегодня.
К слову - в этой "справке" есть один тонкий нюанс. Здесь к репрессированным приписали вообще ВСЕХ заключённых того времени (в т. ч. уголовников). Кроме того: Осужденными по «политическим мотивам» здесь считаются полицаи, каратели, басмачи, агенты иностранных разведок, диверсанты и т.д. Причем осужденных к совершенно разным наказаниям, включая ссылку и высылку (765 180 чел). 
«В страшном 37-м» в ГУЛАГе находилось 1.196.369 чел, из которых 87% составляли уголовники. В 38 году в ГУЛАГе было уже 1.881.570 человек, то есть туда массово поступили «жертвы 37-го», уголовники составляли 81%. 
С 39-го года и до начала Войны количество заключенных стало уменьшаться. Самый маленький процент уголовников был в 1947 году –40% из 1.7 млн. заключенных –лагеря наполнились полицаями, бендеровцами, фашистскими приспешниками и прочими «безвинными жертвами».
«Максимальное число заключенных в ГУЛАГе, приходившееся на 1 января 1950 г., составляло 2 561 351 человек» Из них уголовников было 77%(там же). 
Источник: http://www.rusproject.org/pages/anal...ks_stalin.html 
И ещё к аргументу о тех "заморенных голодом, погибших и пропавших":
Давайте сравним числа. В настоящее время сейчас преступники убивают или тяжело калечат  примерно 100 тыс. человек в год. Это только то, что регистрирует наша «демократическая милиция». Однако «нет тела - нет дела» - каждый год в России без вести пропадает около 100 тысяч человек (только о которых заявили родственники) из которых свыше 10 тысяч пропадает навсегда, тем не менее в стране за время «демократических преобразований» официально насчитывается около 100 тысяч неопознанных трупов.
В год на дорогах России погибает более 30 тыс. человек, около 300 тысяч получает увечья, учтем, что увечья, приведшие к непоправимой потере здоровья составляют примерно 100 тыс.. 
Итого получаем, что в результате установившегося в России режима, приведшего к запредельной для нашей страны преступности и крайней опасности перемещения в стране ежегодно погибают минимум 60 000 человек, получает тяжелые ранения свыше 200 000 человек, пропадает без вести свыше 10 тысяч человек. 
Двести семьдясят тысяч человек в год! За 21 лет «в освобожденной от большевиков стране» в результате действия или преступного бездействия государственной власти погибло, пропало без вести или было тяжело ранено с нанесением непоправимого вреда здоровью примерно 5 миллиона 670 тысяч человек только согласно официальным данным! 
Страдали ли в те суровые годы невиновные? Конечно, страдали, как страдают и сейчас. Было и сведение счетов, и подлые подставы завистников, и ошибки следственных органов и в результате всего этого – судебные ошибки, которые есть везде. 
В благополучной Америке, например, «ошибка правосудия» составляет около 5% осуждённых. Это официальные данные, основанные на признании самих американских судьей. Это означает, что в тюрьмах США в настоящий момент безвинно сидит свыше ста тысяч человек, а сколько их будет за 30 лет? Кстати, правозащитники и ассоциации адвокатов называют число в 2-3 раза большее. 
И ещё:
По сообщению Аристова, направленному 17 октября 1956 года в ЦК КПСС, комиссиями по реабилитации были рассмотрены дела на 176 325 человек, из которых 100 139 были освобождены, а 42 016 были снижены сроки наказания. Из числа осуждённых за политические преступления на свободу вышли 50 944 человека. Это не реабилитация, потому что в это число включены люди как несправедливо (по мнению хрущевцев), наказанные, так и освобожденные в результате снижения сроков как уже отбывшие наказание. 42 000 так и не освободили, хотя сроки заключения снизили. 
Но интересно не это – самое главное в этих данных то, что количество реабилитированных (назовем их так) «политических» (50 944) практически равно количеству реабилитированных уголовников (100 139 — 50 944 = 49 195), то есть, нет никакого перекоса в несправедливом отношении в осуждении политических преступников. Интересный факт, не правда ли? Все это означает, что подавляющее большинство осуждённых было виновно совершенно явным образом. 
Литература: 
1. В.Н.Земсков. ГУЛАГ (историко-социологический аспект) Социологические исследования. 1991, N.6 С.10-27; 1991, N.7. С.3-16 http://www.hrono.ru/statii/2001/zemskov.html 
2. http://www.newsru.com/world/29feb2008/prisoners.html
3. http://www.regions.ru/news/2022208/print/ 
4.Игорь Пыхалов НЕВИННЫ ЛИ "ЖЕРТВЫ РЕПРЕССИЙ"  http://www.specnaz.ru/article/?817 
5. http://www.yandex.cc/russia/2001/10/29/yakovlev
6. http://www.prison.org/penal/human_prison/doc011.htm, http://www.mvd.ru/news/10076/
7. С.Миронин. Разоблачение очередного мифа. http://www.contr-tv.ru/common/2451 
8. Ушли и не вернулись. http://www.ng.ru/ideas/2004-06-30/10_zarembinskay.html 
9. http://www.utro.ru/news/2006/12/25/612983.shtml

----------


## BappaBa

> Одна смерть – трагедия, миллион смертей – статистика…
> Иосиф Сталин

 Ложь.

----------


## diogen_

> Ложь.

 Sure. 
Одним страхом нельзя удержать власть. Ложь оказалась не менее необходимой.
Иосиф Сталин 
 Stalin's "recreation" camp. ::

----------


## Crocodile

> И ещё к аргументу о тех "заморенных голодом, погибших и пропавших":
> Давайте сравним числа. В настоящее время сейчас преступники убивают или тяжело калечат  примерно 100 тыс. человек в год. Это только то, что регистрирует наша «демократическая милиция». Однако «нет тела - нет дела» - каждый год в России без вести пропадает около 100 тысяч человек (только о которых заявили родственники) из которых свыше 10 тысяч пропадает навсегда, тем не менее в стране за время «демократических преобразований» официально насчитывается около 100 тысяч неопознанных трупов.
> В год на дорогах России погибает более 30 тыс. человек, около 300 тысяч получает увечья, учтем, что увечья, приведшие к непоправимой потере здоровья составляют примерно 100 тыс.. 
> Итого получаем, что в результате установившегося в России режима, приведшего к запредельной для нашей страны преступности и крайней опасности перемещения в стране ежегодно погибают минимум 60 000 человек, получает тяжелые ранения свыше 200 000 человек, пропадает без вести свыше 10 тысяч человек. 
> Двести семьдясят тысяч человек в год! За 21 лет «в освобожденной от большевиков стране» в результате действия или преступного бездействия государственной власти погибло, пропало без вести или было тяжело ранено с нанесением непоправимого вреда здоровью примерно 5 миллиона 670 тысяч человек только согласно официальным данным!

 Чтобы мы могли адекватно сравнить, приведи пожалуста статистику о том, сколько убивали и калечили преступники за 21 год после официального окончания Гражданской, а также количество несчастных случаев другого рода (например, печальную статистику на дорогах). Кроме того, тогда существовали и другие опасности, например производство было намного более травмоопасным, что тоже нужно учитывать (раз уж ты включаешь статистику о ДТП, тогда было меньше машин). Или с жертвами болезней вроде тифа, холеры, туберкулёза или воспаления лёгких, которые успешно лечатся сегодня. И т.д. и т.п.  
Можно пойти в сравнении и дальше. Допустим, за последние 80 лет количество смертей, вызванных применением стрелкового оружием намного больше, чем смертей от ядерного оружия. Напрашивающийся вывод - ядерное оружие безопаснее, чем стрелковое? 
Смысл вышеуказанного в том, что нужно сравнивать подобное с подобным.  
Спорить о количестве заключённых Гулага считаю бессмысленным. Уверен, что правдивой статистики не существует. Как насчёт поговорить о миллионных жертвах коллективизации? Пусть эти миллионы не были расстреляны лично Сталиным, но ведь эти смерти были напрямую вызваны политикой Партии и правительства, генеральную линию которой определяло ЦК. Вот мне, честно говоря, до фени была ли идея насильственной коллективизации навязана Сталиным или нет. Вдруг он даже ей противился? Для меня, непосредственные виновники - всё ЦК, которые поставили преступную задачу. Даже если они руководствовались при этом благими целями.  ::

----------


## LXNDR

и голодомор на Украине тоже наглая ложь 
очень аккуратный способ уничтожения, никого не расстреляли, все умерли сами 
та ну, это даже не предмет для дискуссии, не будешь же доказывать человеку, что Земля круглая, если у него она плоская, тот, кто до сих пор не понял, что Земля круглая, безнадёжен

----------


## Anixx

> Одним страхом нельзя удержать власть. Ложь оказалась не менее необходимой.
> Иосиф Сталин

 Что за источник цитаты, если не секрет.

----------


## diogen_

> Что за источник цитаты, если не секрет.

  

> Сходите в библиотеку уже наконец. Трудно задницу поднять от стула?

  ::

----------


## diogen_

Уничтожение классов достигается не путём потухания классовой борьбы, а путём её усиления. 
Иосиф Сталин 
Stalin's public executions. 
NKVD archives (18+!)

----------


## gRomoZeka

> и голодомор на Украине тоже наглая ложь 
> очень аккуратный способ уничтожения, никого не расстреляли, все умерли сами 
> та ну, это даже не предмет для дискуссии, не будешь же доказывать человеку, что Земля круглая, если у него она плоская, тот, кто до сих пор не понял, что Земля круглая, безнадёжен

 Голодомор никто не отрицает. Ложь - называть его геноцидом.

----------


## Hanna

He DID do some very bad things and also achieved some good things. 
Because he was a leader of a very large country, his good and bad sides affected millions of people and cost many lives.  
Why not look at him according to the same principle that the Chinese look at Mao?
They say that Mao did 80% good things and 20% bad things.  
Perhaps in the case of Stalin the balance is not 80/20, but    How does it benefit Russia to drag his name in the mud? It's just sad with people who spit on their own country's history...And how can anybody be stupid enough to glorify a person who had such little respect for human life as Stalin?  Obviously he was nothing like his propaganda made out. 
Perhaps it is possible to celebrate Stalin's positive achievements, and distance yourselves and learn from his mistakes.  
He was a human being, neither God, nor the devil...

----------


## Anixx

> 

 Если вы назовете источник.

----------


## Anixx

> Stalin's public executions. 
> NKVD archives (18+!)

 What you find bad in these executions? These are war-time public executions of pro-Nazi traitors, Nazi "polizei" staff, possibly SS-men and so on. That's why they were hanged, a very unusual practice in the USSR where normally people were shot not in public.

----------


## Eric C.

> Голодомор никто не отрицает. Ложь - называть его геноцидом.

 So, the authorities take away people's food supplies and the people shortly die of starvation, and this is not genocide? Give me a break.

----------


## diogen_

> What you find bad in these executions? These are war-time public executions of pro-Nazi traitors, Nazi "polizei" staff, possibly SS-men and so on. That's why they were hanged, a very unusual practice in the USSR where normally people were shot not in public.

 You're imagining things, aren't you? How do you know that the video is about pro-Nazi traitors?  
 If it were so do you really approve these medieval executions? 
Anyway, I have a link with the same video and the opposite comment.    www.gulag.ipvnews.org/
(here in the top right corner everybody can also find  the English interpretation of what the woman yells)   

> Закрытая, замазанная, зарытая тема. Публичные казни широко проводились в период коллективизации, гражданской войны и в 40-е годы. Среди крупных городов, жители которых были свидетелями этих актов средневекового мракобесия, следует назвать Ленинград. Казни проводились на площади Калинина, у кинотеатра “Гигант”. Через прилегающие улицы натягивались тросы, на каждый из которых крепились по две петли. Приговоренных подвозили на грузовых автомобилях с откинутыми бортами; по одному в каждой машине. После зачитывания приговоров, набрасывали петли и автомашины отъезжали...

 
Could you give any evidence that the above is fabricated?

----------


## Anixx

> You're imagining things, aren't you? How do you know that the video is about pro-Nazi traitors?

 Because any other people were not publicly hanged. Hanging was used by the Czarist Russia and by the Whites. The Soviets generally abandoned this practice with only a small exception during WWII. 
The soldiers wear the WWII uniform and one soldier on the video holds a PPSh submachine gun that would not be used in the peacetime. PPSh was exploited starting from 1941.   

> If it were so do you really approve these medieval executions?

 Do you disapprove the "medieval execution" of Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg?   

> Закрытая, замазанная, зарытая тема. Публичные казни широко проводились в период коллективизации, гражданской войны и в 40-е годы. Среди крупных городов, жители которых были свидетелями этих актов средневекового мракобесия, следует назвать Ленинград. Казни проводились на площади Калинина, у кинотеатра “Гигант”. Через прилегающие улицы натягивались тросы, на каждый из которых крепились по две петли. Приговоренных подвозили на грузовых автомобилях с откинутыми бортами; по одному в каждой машине. После зачитывания приговоров, набрасывали петли и автомашины отъезжали... 
> Could you give any evidence that the above is fabricated?

 Public executions in Leningrad were only performed during WWII. Hanging was also used only during WWII. 
The above comment makes impression that public executions by hanging were performed in Leningrad during collectivization and the Civil War, which is not true. 
The video of hanging of pro-Nazi traitors is used to make impression that in the similar way the USSR was executing people in peace time. 
While the Reds possibly used mass executions during the Civil war, they did never use hanging and unlikely performed so in Leningrad, which was far from the front line. 
And of course, this topic was never "covered up", as the text claims. The public executions of pro-Nazi traitors during WWII were always well known.

----------


## Anixx

And here you can read more detailed description of the site you linked to: http://actualhistory.ru/melnikoff 
It seems that the chief editor behind this site is a known falsifier photographer Leonid Melnikoff. 
And here is the explanation of the video:   

> Для начала определим, что представляет собой запись. Смертная казнь через повешение была введена в СССР 19 апреля 1943 г. для изменников и военных преступников (т.о. относительно «коллективизации» — бред). В ролике имеет место монтаж из съемок двух разных экзекуций. В первом случае вешают полицаев, а там где на табличках видны фамилии осужденных — казнь убийц из зондеркоманды СС-10-А в Краснодаре в 1943 г.

 So the video is glued from two pieces, the first is the execution of the "polizei", and in the second part is the execution of the Sonderkommando SS-10-A in Krasnodar. Capital punishment was introduced for traitors and war criminals in the USSR in 1943. 
Sonderkommando SS-10-A is known for many atrocities including murdering 214 children in gas vans http://eysk.net/history/zonderkomanda.html 
The events showed in the video were never covered up and the descriptions were published in the books. Regarding the claim about cross-street ropes, it is completely made up by Melnikoff.
Regarding "medieval practice" it is said that in France for example, all executions werre mandatory public until 1939. In the USSR this was only a war-time exception.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> So, the authorities take away people's food supplies and the people shortly die of starvation, and this is not genocide? Give me a break.

 Oh, don't start again. 
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", and nothing of said above applies to "golodomor". Modern nationalistic Ukrainian politics prefer to label it genocide to strengthen the opinion, that "Russians" (or rather Stalin regime) deliberately tried to annihilate all Ukrainians.  
Still, peasants starved to death not because Ukrainians were specifically targeted, but because peasantry in general faced unbearable demands of the state. The same starvation scenario happened to *Russian peasants in Volga region in 1921-1922*. Was it Russian genocide against Russians, then? Well, no. It was cruel economical policy, which hurt agricultural regions indiscriminately regardless of ethnic (or any other) groups living there. You can call it genocide against peasants, figuratively speaking... but that's it. 
﻿There's also a well-known fact that photographs which are used routinely to demonstrate the terrible consequences of Ukrainian "golodomor" to Western public in books and media (starving children, skeletal-looking corpses, etc.) are in fact photos of _Russian_ peasants, starved to death near Volga. That does not make what happened to Ukrainians any better, but it gives a (deliberately?) wrong impression of what was going on during that period.

----------


## diogen_

> Public executions in Leningrad were *only* performed during WWII. Hanging was also used *only* during WWII.

 I enjoy your assertiveness. Did we continue WWII in 1946?  
The woman on the previous  video yells, "*Разоблачить*! И *еще больше* можем разоблачить, которые *остались*! Никто не стесняйтесь, не бойтесь!" How can it be referred to the war criminals who had been  already  arrested  and trialed? Sounds a little bit inconsistent with your interpretation of the video.

----------


## Hanna

> ﻿There's also a well-known fact that photographs which are used  routinely to demonstrate the terrible consequences of Ukrainian  "golodomor" to Western public in books and media (starving children,  skeletal-looking corpses, etc.) are in fact photos of _Russian_ peasants, starved to death near Volga.

 I think the word is supposed to be spelled  "holodomor" (?) in English. 
But I have to admit, I never actually heard about it until quite recently. Don't know why really.  
When I think about Ukrainian peasants, all that would come to mind is "black earth" and a Soviet era miniseries from TV about some peasants in Ukraine, forgotten what it was called.  
I would not presume to have any opinion or view about holodomor, since it seems to be controversial and no substantial proof about the underlying reason for the starvation. It does seem like a bit of a conspiracy theory to think that a country that claims to look out for the working class and peasants would  set out to deliberately starve them to death... It is equally hard to imagine that a civilised person who was a convinced communist from an ideological perspective would support this. On the other hand, some people were indeed treated despiccably in the USSR, so to me this is hard to form a clear view about. And in light of what the Germans got up to at around the same time, perhaps it is not any harder to understand than the holocaust.  
On the executions from the videoclip - yes, gruesome! But were they enemy sympathisers? If so, any country would have pretty much done the same thing back in those days. Remember the incredibly high death tolls of Soviet civilians as well as troops. These particular executions do not surprise me much. The main thing that Stalin did, that I find very repulsive, is allowing regular people to be labelled "enemies of the state" and similar based on hearsay, gossip among neighbours and reading private correspondence, then sending them to labour camps that were so harsh that many died. As I understand, this only happened to a very small percentage of the population but it is still awful. Anyone can have a bad day and slag off the state a bit. Even say things they later regret! Either way people must be allowed to have a personal opinion about things and be able to discuss it with their friends without fear, regardless whether they live in a state that is trying to build communism etc, etc.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> I think the word is supposed to be spelled "holodomor" (?) in English.

 Thank you, I should have checked it out instead of simply transliterating it. You might be right. It's spelled "голодомор" both in Ukrainian and in Russian, but Ukrainian "г" is usually transliterated as "h" in English.

----------


## Anixx

> I enjoy your assertiveness. Did we continue WWII in 1946?

 This is a fragment of a film "Blokada" about Blockade of Leningrad. It shows the execution of 8 German war criminals on 05 Jan 1946, including former Pskov commandant Heinrich Remlinger. Of 11 accused 8 were sentenced to death. This was the only public execution in Leningrad.

----------


## Anixx

> Thank you, I should have checked it out instead of simply transliterating it. You might be right. It's spelled "голодомор" both in Ukrainian and in Russian, but Ukrainian "г" is usually transliterated as "h" in English.

 The spelling is quite similar to "holocaust"

----------


## Anixx

> The main thing that Stalin did, that I find very repulsive, is allowing regular people to be labelled "enemies of the state" and similar based on hearsay, gossip among neighbours and reading private correspondence, then sending them to labour camps that were so harsh that many died.

 I do not know your skills in Russian but I suggest you to read this document signed by Stalin and Molotov: Молотов В.М., Сталин И.В. Об арестах, прокурорском надзоре и ведении следствия: Постановление Совета Народных Комиссаров ССС

----------


## Eric C.

> I do not know your skills in Russian but I suggest you to read this document signed by Stalin and Molotov: Молотов В.М., Сталин И.В. Об арестах, прокурорском надзоре и ведении следствия: Постановление Совета Народных Комиссаров ССС

 That's why the year of 1938 is usually said to be the end of the great terror in Russia?

----------


## Eric C.

> Oh, don't start again. 
> Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", and nothing of said above applies to "golodomor". Modern nationalistic Ukrainian politics prefer to label it genocide to strengthen the opinion, that "Russians" (or rather Stalin regime) deliberately tried to annihilate all Ukrainians.  
> Still, peasants starved to death not because Ukrainians were specifically targeted, but because peasantry in general faced unbearable demands of the state. The same starvation scenario happened to *Russian peasants in Volga region in 1921-1922*. Was it Russian genocide against Russians, then? Well, no. It was cruel economical policy, which hurt agricultural regions indiscriminately regardless of ethnic (or any other) groups living there. You can call it genocide against peasants, figuratively speaking... but that's it. 
> ﻿There's also a well-known fact that photographs which are used routinely to demonstrate the terrible consequences of Ukrainian "golodomor" to Western public in books and media (starving children, skeletal-looking corpses, etc.) are in fact photos of _Russian_ peasants, starved to death near Volga. That does not make what happened to Ukrainians any better, but it gives a (deliberately?) wrong impression of what was going on during that period.

 Ok, if it makes you feel better, you can call it "deliberate mass killings". And I would still insist that it was genocide, maybe not ethnic genocide but "class genocide" - the bolsheviks just wanted the people that were more successful than them to die, and of course, to rob their houses and grab what they had managed to produce so that the bolsheviks wouldn't have to make it on their own.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Ok, if it makes you feel better, you can call it "deliberate mass killings". And I would still insist that it was genocide, maybe not ethnic genocide but "class genocide" - the bolsheviks just wanted the people that were more successful than them to die, and of course, to rob their houses and grab what they had managed to produce so that they wouldn't have to make it on their own.

 I can agree with you naming it "class genocide", even if massive death toll among peasants was not a goal, but mostly a byproduct of policy at that time. What I don't like is people calling it genocide, implying it was ethnic, i.e. turning it into Russians vs. Ukrainians affair (with current Ukrainian official policy actively supporting this point of view).

----------


## Anixx

> That's why the year of 1938 is usually said to be the end of the great terror in Russia?

 Yes. The term "Stalinist repressions" was invented later, by Khrushchev. The Khrushchev's aim was to indirectly attack Beria. Before that it was known as "Yezhovshchina". Stalin was the first to turn public attention towards it.

----------


## Anixx

> Ok, if it makes you feel better, you can call it "deliberate mass killings". And I would still insist that it was genocide, maybe not ethnic genocide but "class genocide" - the bolsheviks just wanted the people that were more successful than them to die, and of course, to rob their houses and grab what they had managed to produce so that the bolsheviks wouldn't have to make it on their own.

 Is there any evidence that the "mass killings" were deliberate? As you know around that time gained popularity a pseudoscientist Lysenko with his promises to increase the wheat production by multiple times. Although his theory turned out to be incorrect, his skyrocketing carrier can only be attributed to the government's desire to put an end to the famines. 
I also wonder whether would you call famines in Bengali in 1943 and in Bihar in 1966 "deliberate mass killings", as it is known that there was enough food in India at the time, just the established policy disallowed people to get food as they had no money. Note that British administration exported from Bengali 80000 tonnes of wheat that year, when 1.5 to 4 million people died. Possibly this was also a class genocide so that the British wanted people less successful than them to die.

----------


## Eric C.

> Yes. The term "Stalinist repressions" was invented later, by Khrushchev. The Khrushchev's aim was to indirectly attack Beria. Before that it was known as "Yezhovshchiva". Stalin was the first to turn public attention towards it.

 But the whole atmosphere of the document was just horrible, I think more horrible than that of "Silent Hill", etc. Why set up a special department to be searching for "enemies of the USSR", "public enemies" in the first place? There's something basically wrong with a system that assumes to be surrounded by enemies.

----------


## LXNDR

> (with current Ukrainian official policy actively supporting this point of view).

 are you sure Yanukovich's regime upholds this nonesense? i don't think so
this rhetoric has been considerably toned down
not sure what they teach in schools though   

> Ok, if it makes you feel better, you can call it "deliberate mass killings". And I would still insist that it was genocide, maybe not ethnic genocide but "class genocide" - the bolsheviks just wanted the people that were more successful than them to die, and of course, to rob their houses and grab what they had managed to produce so that the bolsheviks wouldn't have to make it on their own.

 i can't speak for the bolsheviks and can't know what was on their mind but i too disagree with the genocide statement
the peasantry in its mass wasn't wealthy by far especially with the collectivization going on so their assumed 'success' envied by the bolsheviks was non-existent 
by the beginning of the 30's i believe the majority of peasants had joined collective farms, forced upon them by the very bolsheviks, so it would be inaccurate to set them against each other, the peasantry had already been playing by the bolsheviks rules

----------


## Anixx

> But the whole atmosphere of the document was just horrible, I think more horrible than that of "Silent Hill", etc. Why set up a special department to be searching for "enemies of the USSR", "public enemies" in the first place? There's something basically wrong with a system that assumes to be surrounded by enemies.

 What special department do you mean? I did not find it in the text.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> But the whole atmosphere of the document was just horrible, I think more horrible than that of "Silent Hill", etc. Why set up a special department to be searching for "enemies of the USSR", "public enemies" in the first place? There's something basically wrong with a system that assumes to be surrounded by enemies.

 But is there any state that does not assume that? Practice of searching for "enemies of the state" is widespread even nowadays, otherwise why set up FBI, or CIA, or Mossad, or any agency for that matter?

----------


## LXNDR

the problem is not the security entities by themselves but the policy and ideology of the central government or the Party for that matter
the former only serve the agenda the latter dictates and the agenda was 'witch hunt'

----------


## LXNDR

the movie (1992) is about the period of Red Terror (1918-23)

----------


## BappaBa

> *Why is it  us who celebrates the Victory, but it's the Germans who are better off?*

 Хорошая у тебя подпись, сразу объясняет многое.

----------

