Discussion of Stalinism

[Sarmatian]

Stalin is a rather complex historical figure and there's a lot of symbolism connected with him. To some he's the man who defeated Hitler and brought an end to Nazi reign of terror, who industrialized Russia and to others he is just a brutal, murdering dictator who enjoyed performing genocides, killing everyone who didn't agree with him and starving millions of people to death. Of course, many people think both is true.

I think Stalin's murders are exaggerated to unimaginable proportions. After dissolution of the USSR, many western historians rushed to now declassified Russian archives and other sources, happy to add to their knowledge of WW2 and other things and to correct stuff they got wrong. We've seen a lot of new papers, books, articles etc... with these new evidences. Yet, somehow, the part about Stalin was left untouched. Nothing was corrected, everything was as it was. If we want to read a book about Eastern Front in WW2, we can find a lot of them that use sources that became available after 1991. Yet, if try to read something about Stalin, it's still with sources from fifties, sixties, seventies or eighties. Like they didn't like what they found there. In the last thread were we touched Stalin, Evil Maniac from Mars provided an article which states that the number of people murdered by Stalin is 80 millions. 80 millions!?!. A third of the population of the Soviet Union! It's a perfect example how people refuse to put things into context. If a third of the population of a country perished with a couple of decades, that would have had a devastating effect on the demographics and on the economy. It actually would have been a catastrophe for a country. That country would have been shaken to the core. If we add to that number almost 30 millions that died in WW2, we come to mind boggling figure of 110 million people. That would make over 40% of the population of the Soviet Union. And by the nature of the cleanses in questions and the nature of war, vast majority of that number would have been men which would have had a catastrophic impact on gender balance. Impact of such proportions that Russia today would still be feeling it.

Today the most popular quotes about Stalin, those that you find on the internet and you hear from people who want to appear smart are classic "bad guy" comments. Like the one death of one man is murder, death of millions is a statistic or ideas are more dangerous than guns, if we don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas and other similar are either unsourced or made up, but the general opinion is such that no one bother to check, even if it would take only 5-10 minutes with internet. On the other hand, quotes from Stalin that are actually sourced no one uses. Incidentally, those quotes don't contain ideas about genocides and the likes.

I feel that there was a need to demonize Stalin for several reasons. First, after WW2, he became the prime opponent of the capitalist West. He simply needed to stop being perceived by people in the West as Uncle Joe who did the lion's share of fighting against Hitler. Also, he was the person who brought communism at the peak of its power and influence.

It's similar issue with Milosevic, although on thousand times smaller scale. We now know for sure that Racak Massacre was staged. We know that all three autopsy teams (one from Yugoslavia, one from Belarus and one from Finland) found no evidence to support the massacre theory. That was finally proven about six months ago, when Dr. Helena Ranta, head of the Finnish team finally publicly admitted that she was forced in 1999 to say that there are evidence to support that the massacre indeed happen. When I read about her statement in the Serbian newspapers, I've wanted to check it on the internet, sort of to double check, to see if the Serbian newspapers didn't exaggerate or had wrong information. It didn't, I managed to find several sites that give the exactly same story but after half an hour of googling. Virtually none of the remotely important news agencies had the article. Now, it would be easy, even for an amateur researcher to find out the truth. OEBS mentioned the decline in fighting in 1998 and the begging of 1999 and than the supposed Racak incident was staged. It's clear that the purpose was to bomb Serbia and take Kosovo. To see that, all it takes is an internet connection and a couple of hours. And yet, almost none serious researcher/historian or member of the social cultural elite in the West speaks about it. It goes without saying that none of the major media houses devote any attention to it. To all of them, the situation is exactly the same as it was in 1999, everything after that is conveniently ignored. Milosevic is still the Butcher of the Balkans and Serbian army still have killed hundreds of thousand of Albanian civilians. In the Obama-Mccain TV debate only a short time ago, Mccain rode that horse pretty strongly, emphasizing how he was in favour of the Kosovo intervention. Granted, Obama conveniently avoided the specific issue and talked more in general, but didn't contradict Mccain. It's almost ten years since Milosevic is out of power, he is a threat no longer, there have been an abundance of evidence and still nothing changed. And that was just regional power politics and minor political player in global terms.

In the case of Stalin, a man who could directly threaten the West, whose legacy could directly threaten the West I somehow feel there's a lot more bias and fear. That, coupled with outdated research and years of propaganda, influence opinion much more than many would care to admit.

So in short on Stalin:
A brutal dictator who industrialized Russia and other countries, brought USSR back at the world stage as a major player, did most to rid the world of Nazism, a man responsible for the deaths of many people and countless repressions - yes

Evil personified, arch-nemesis of everything humane, a man who enjoyed genocide, responsible for the deaths of 50, 60, 70 or 80 millions of people - no

[Fixiwee]

Evil personified, arch-nemesis of everything humane, a man who enjoyed genocide, responsible for the deaths of 50, 60, 70 or 80 millions of people - no
I hope he burns in hell for what he did in Katyn.

[Marshal Murat]

was sent to the playground that is Siberia by the Great Comrade, he would see Totalitarism sympathetically.

If one read...4,000 days in Siberia...by a Yugoslavian or Austrian author I believe, you'd read about different people who were shipped to Siberia that held, in their highest esteem, Stalin. They knew they did something wrong, or they repented their sins, and hoped that Stalin would see them and get them out of the Gulag.

In regards to Stalin demonization by the West, it's easy to see where we come from, and obviously many quotes See Wikiquotes with Sources are taken out of context, but they show Stalin trying to preserve the USSR and his own hold on power.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I think Stalin's murders are exaggerated to unimaginable proportions.

After dissolution of the USSR, many western historians rushed to now declassified Russian archives and other sources, happy to add to their knowledge of WW2 and other things and to correct stuff they got wrong. We've seen a lot of new papers, books, articles etc... with these new evidences. Yet, somehow, the part about Stalin was left untouched. Nothing was corrected, everything was as it was. If we want to read a book about Eastern Front in WW2, we can find a lot of them that use sources that became available after 1991. Yet, if try to read something about Stalin, it's still with sources from fifties, sixties, seventies or eighties.

Perhaps because various Russian archives were missing, destroyed, or not written at all in the first place? I provided all kinds of hard evidence and links to you about this - you are choosing to ignore it. It is remarkably similar to the tactics used by Holocaust deniers.

Like they didn't like what they found there. In the last thread were we touched Stalin, Evil Maniac from Mars provided an article which states that the number of people murdered by Stalin is 80 millions. 80 millions!?!.

Two things. Firstly, you're presuming that Stalin killed eighty million people all at once. Secondly, I don't recall personally quoting a figure higher than 67 million.

responsible for the deaths of 50, 60, 70 or 80 millions of people - no

Absolutely yes he was, and those who deny it should be held in the same regard has Holocaust deniers.

[Aemilius Paulus]

C'mon lads, there is no way Stalin could have killed that many. Mostly everyone in Russia agrees on the fact that no more than 20 million were killed. A lot do not even believe it was that much. I do not believe it was 20 million either. Almost everyone has someone in the family who died in WWII, but very few have family members who died at the hands of Stalin. And the WWII death toll is estimated at a maximum 15 million: 10 million civilians (don't forget the Jews) and 5 million soldiers. As for the gulags, they were not the same as Hitler's concentration camps. The gulags, first of all, varied enormously, and secondly, their main purpose was to get people working, and not to kill them.

Oh, and did I mention I am 1/2 Ukrainian?

[Sarmatian]

Perhaps because various Russian archives were missing, destroyed, or not written at all in the first place? I provided all kinds of hard evidence and links to you about this - you are choosing to ignore it. It is remarkably similar to the tactics used by Holocaust deniers.

No you didn't. You said you would but you never did.

Two things. Firstly, you're presuming that Stalin killed eighty million people all at once. Secondly, I don't recall personally quoting a figure higher than 67 million.

No I don't. I've said over a couple of decades. Stalin ruled from 1922-1953.

I remember it from a link you provided. Could be that I'm mistaken, it's been some time, but I'm pretty sure 80 millions was among the figures in that link. Link was to a paper from some US university, iirc.

Anyway even if it's 67 million it doesn't change anything. Add app. 27 million that died during ww2 and you get 94 million between 1922-1953. Impossible, it would have made chaos of unimaginable proportions in USSR.

Absolutely yes he was, and those who deny it should be held in the same regard has Holocaust deniers.

Well, I personally never liked to limit anyone's freedom of speech and thought. I do not consider a subject of Holocaust a taboo, something that couldn't or shouldn't be discussed. Just so happens that there is overwhelming evidence that it did happen and I have never heard any good arguments for the opposite...

[Vuk]

Aemilius Paulus, I am in Hungary studying right now and do not have access to any of my sources or books. This is a great shame, because if I did, I think I could change your mind on Stalin if it is at all possible. Stalin waged an ideological war against Christians denominations, Ukrainians, Magyar, Poles, Germans, Finns, Latvians, Lithuanians, Cossacks, etc. To meet his ends of efficiency he butchered and enslaved millions. You need only look at the documents housed in the House of Horror museum (they are copies, the originals are in archives throughout the world) and see the footage they have. You have only to talk to Polish or Magyar survivors of the Stalin regime. Russians have been brain washed by Stalins government, and then by a media driven by the same ideology. I hope that you do not find that offensive, but it is the truth. As I do not have my sources with me, I will only point you to a set of books you may want to read, both written by Simon Sebag Montefiore, a distinguished historian. One is called Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, and the other is called Young Stalin. While I do not agree with him on many of his ascertains, it is an invaluable list of sources at least...ones that you should check out.

As for comparing denying atrocities with Holocaust Deniers, I think that two things are important. First of all, to distinguish between liking Hitler/Stalin in spite of their atrocities, and not believing them. Someone could be the victim of brainwashing media, have read books that make them believe otherwise, or whatever. Just because they do not believe them does not mean that they should be held in contempt or be deserving of a powerful stigma like 'Holocaust Denier'. If you truely believe that you are right, you should listen to their argument, take them seriously, and be confident that your argument is correct when you present it.
Secondly, things are not always black and white. Many people branded with the stigma 'Holocaust Denier' do not actually deny the Holocaust, but simply think that it is somewhat exagerrated, or that the groups persecuted are misrepresented. (I for one know a lot of Poles who seem to think that there is good evidence that the six million jews killed in the death camps was over 3/4 Slavic, not Jewish. As I pointed out to them, many people who were not Jews were persecuted as Jews under Hitler's tyrrany, and many Slavs were Jewish Slavs. Most of them use pretty good evidence, but they usually end up agreeing with me) My point is that those Poles are branded 'Holocaust Denier', and people think that they are NeoNazis who want to do it all over again, when in fact they simply (right or wrong) believe that historical perseption is wrong. Not only is applying this stigma harmful, but it stifles all free thought and speech. I firmly believe (and know that I can prove) that Hitler and Stalin commited those attrocities, so when I am faced with someone who does not, I can always present a winning case, and they usually end up changing their mind. Doesn't mean that they were bad people who became good, simply that they did not agree, saw the evidence for it, and do now.

Sorry to go on so much about that, but I think that it is a pretty important point.