Discussion of Stalinism

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hello Backroom dwellers! I am AP, some of you may already know me. Anyway, following the suggestion of another Orgha, Kralizec, I am going to post the following for discussion.

As a brief introduction, I am largely political and fiscal conservative with mostly liberal social ideals (I am arguably still in transition, holding quite a bit of conservative ideals as of now). Religion is no longer my thing, being an atheist currently. However, I am a supporter of authoritarianism, despite being well aware that it holds many dangers. Throughout my life I have first been a strong liberal and Christian and then changed into a strong conservative and atheist (what an irony!) before becoming the more moderate that I am today.

Now, onto the main material. As some of you may know, the recent Frontroom "Manliest person" poll has been edited out. While it was mostly rightful edit, as the Frontroom is not for politics, the causes of the edit were rather unrighteous in my opinion. Certain person was "offended" by Stalin and his supporters.

Here are my two posts on this in the Watchtower thread, Stalinist and Nazi sympathizers:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is bull. Merely saying that you support Stalin should not get one in trouble.

I personally support authoritarianism, as I am a Russian, and authoritarianism is an excellent way to keep Putin as the dictator of Russia. I would not let other people attain such position, but Putin is an extraordinary person; he is a patriot comparable to Washington, Bolivar, Garibaldi, de Gaulle, Cincinnatus, and etc. He only does what he thinks is best for the country, and usually it is the best. In a democratic society this brilliant man would have been replaced by some average, corrupt drunk in 8 years, which would have annulled all that he has done for Russia. To sum it up, he might not be perfect, but he is best Russia has seen in a long, long time. There is no reason to believe that any other politician in the Duma is better than him.

Anyway, enough of the rant. Everyone has different views. I loathe Stalin because has done more to kill USSR than Hitler. During his purges, he slaughtered the best of my country and Soviet union as a whole. Not to mention he was a Georgian. Still, some people might like him. That is their choice. To censor racism and profanity is one thing; it is common decency; but to censor support for an unpopular party is totalitarianism.

All that "offensive" bemoaning puzzles me. How is it offensive? People are just whining. Offensive is when your feelings are hurt. You might be angry at Stalin/Hitler, but how are they offensive? Also, how can you exclude history from .Org? How do you regulate who can one support and who they cannot?

Final Note: despite hating Stalin, I still voted for him as the manliest person in that poll. Seriously, Hillary Clinton?? Manliness is usually synonymous with brutality, and paranoid butcher such as Stalin is a perfect candidate.

[SPOIL]%5

[Aemilius Paulus]

I wonder what is going to happen to this once that thread was moved here but locked....

Nada. This new thread is a fresh start, and shall be the primary BR thread for this discussion. SF

[rvg]

Stalin was a tyrant. Having said that, there's nothing morally wrong with supporting him. No more than supporting Mugabe, Mussolini, Kim Jong Il, Chairman Mao or any other in the countless list of dictators whose reign the humanity had a misfortune of enduring.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The second one of my quotes did not show up in the first post. This was my second post in that watchtower, now Backroom thread:

But all that aside, Stalin did industrialise USSR. He was the one who built up its military and produced close to 30,000 tanks before WWII, many of which were vastly superior to the German tanks used in the beginning of the war. Stalin did lead USSR to victory. It is hard to understand whether someone else in his place would have done better. If not for his militancy, Russia may not have held out against Hitler. The Nazis got to outskirts of Moscow in the winter of 1941. After capturing it, they would have won half the war.

We all owe our lives to Stalin, technically. If USSR was defeated, the world would have crumbled against the Nazi hammer. Sure, it is possible that a rebellion would have taken place and some of the world freed itself from the Nazi dominion, but still, what if the Nazis finished their A-bomb research? Then they would have a deathgrip on the world. Whatever one argues, by defeating Russia, the Nazis could have done so much more, and possibly even have exterminated as much as 95% of all Jews. Just look at what happened to Polish and German Jewry. What would have stopped Hitler from doing the same to other countries?


Sure, Stalin was evil, but to compare him to Hitler is ignorance. Thankless ignorance.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why don't you take a look at how many people Stalin killed? He was in absolutely every way as evil as Hitler. And you question why we are offended - a Jew would be offended if you tried to defend Hitler, and likewise people like me - just some of the millions who lost family - are offended when you try to defend Stalin.

Those who defend Stalin are precisely the same as those who defend Hitler. They are defending the two most evil regimes ever put on the face of the earth, and it disgusts me. I ask that anyone who tries to defend Stalin educates themselves before they continue defending such a monster.

In short, those who are unaware of Stalin's crimes when defending him can plead ignorance. Those who are aware of the millions he slaughtered and continue to defend him? Words cannot describe my contempt.

[rvg]

Why don't you take a look at how many people Stalin killed? He was in absolutely every way as evil as Hitler. And you question why we are offended - a Jew would be offended if you tried to defend Hitler, and likewise people like me - just some of the millions who lost family - are offended when you try to defend Stalin.

Those who defend Stalin are precisely the same as those who defend Hitler. They are defending the two most evil regimes ever put on the face of the earth, and it disgusts me. I ask that anyone who tries to defend Stalin educates themselves before they continue defending such a monster.

In short, those who are unaware of Stalin's crimes when defending him can plead ignorance. Those who are aware of the millions he slaughtered and continue to defend him? Words cannot describe my contempt.

In terms of the body count, yes, Joe was as bad as Hitler. However, we cannot discount *why* the people were killed. Stalin killed them because of his paranoia and lack of tolerance towards any dissent whatsoever. In other words, his motives were ideological. Hitler's motives were genocidal, which is why he is most definitely worse than Stalin.

[rory_20_uk]

In terms of the body count, yes, Joe was as bad as Hitler. However, we cannot discount *why* the people were killed. Stalin killed them because of his paranoia and lack of tolerance towards any dissent whatsoever. In other words, his motives were ideological. Hitler's motives were genocidal, which is why he is most definitely worse than Stalin.

I disagree.

Hitler's hatred of the Jews and creation of a Master Race was ideological. Stalin merely wanted power and was suspicious of everyone. Hitler also had the war which in no small part caused the Final Solution. Hitler killed mainly out of necessity in a country that was bureaucratically a tangled thicket. Was the Final Solution Hitler's plan or a deputy's? In all the chaos who knows for sure? Stalin's Russia was a monolithic machine with all deaths instigated by the man at the top.

I've had a recent chat with a Ukrainian who thought that Stalin was a great leader... I guess the starvation of 20 million of her countrymen was forgiven and forgotten.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In terms of the body count, yes, Joe was as bad as Hitler. However, we cannot discount *why* the people were killed. Stalin killed them because of his paranoia and lack of tolerance towards any dissent whatsoever. In other words, his motives were ideological. Hitler's motives were genocidal, which is why he is most definitely worse than Stalin.

You're saying that Stalin had no genocidal motives, which is inaccurate. It is underreported, so one can be forgiven, but it is inaccurate.

EDIT: List of victims targeted because of ethnicity...

Ukranians
Poles
Germans
Finns
Lativians
Lithuanians
Cossacks

[rvg]

You're saying that Stalin had no genocidal motives, which is inaccurate. It is underreported, so one can be forgiven, but it is inaccurate.

EDIT: List of victims targeted because of ethnicity...

Ukranians
Poles
Germans
Finns
Lativians
Lithuanians
Cossacks

Targetted for deportation to sunny Siberia. Not extermination. Big difference.

[rory_20_uk]

Cossacks - mainly exterminated
Ukrainians - starved in their millions

And those in Siberia, how many died? At least 50%. Again, far greater numbers than the "mere" 6 million Hitler killed. Leaving someone to die in a desert and gassing them is basically the same.

The gulags were every bit as terrible as the concentration camps.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Targetted for deportation to sunny Siberia. Not extermination. Big difference.

I'm just going to presume that was a joke.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Cossacks - mainly exterminated
Ukrainians - starved in their millions

And those in Siberia, how many died? At least 50%. Again, far greater numbers than the "mere" 6 million Hitler killed. Leaving someone to die in a desert and gassing them is basically the same.

The gulags were every bit as terrible as the concentration camps.

Estimates actually put the number murdered at somewhere between 10 and 14 millions; 5-6 million of whom were Jews. That's roughly 1M for each year the NSDP (Hitler) were in power.

Estimates do place the number killed outright under Stalin, or sentenced to death by proxy in Siberia, at a higher figure than that, though it can be argued that Hitler murdered at a quicker rate than did Dzughasvili.

On a moral level, neither scores particularly well. Hitler condoned/ordered murder on an assembly line scale to create his "new Germany." The motivation was overtly racist and utterly repugnant. Stalin may not have been much of a racist -- he did target groups but mostly as a means of inculcating fear or butchering anyone who posed a conceivable threat to his power -- but the preservation of one's power and the butchery of those people in your political charge is hardly the moral "high ground."

Had both been killed in 1925, it is hard to conceive how the world would have been worse off as a result. Both were human detritus.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think Hitler was more idelogically-inclined and deranged, whereas Stalin was more in it for himself, albeit with an element of paranoia.

Whether or not Hitler believed that he was creating a better world, I would not mean to suggest that he was still not evil. I don't care whether the ends can justify the means (from his point of view, Nazims is ), because any human should be unable to bring themselves to condemn people to their deaths on the scale that Hitler did. Often the greatest evils in this world aren't commited by the charismatic nutters we like to demonise. It's just the boring bureaucrats sitting behind their desks, following orders. Killing didn't even have to be personal back then, just swith the gas on and that's it done. Totalitarian regimes and modern technology can be a very dangerous combination in that sense. No one person kills people, the system does.

[Scurvy]

I'm not sure a body count really surfices for who is 'more evil' out of Hitler and Stalin - bad logic

I would claim both were ideologically driven - even if both spiralled into paranoia by the end of their rule

In terms of Stalin - whatever you think of his methods (and his alteration of marxism) he moved Russia forward hugely economically, and by the Cold War it was the 2nd largest power in the world, no small feat

similarly Hitler took over from a crumbling regime in Weimar and wasnt far in the 2nd world war from ruling much of Europe - again, that in no way justifies his methods


- to say discussion (or defence) of either is insulting is seriously wrong - some people deny the holocaust ever happened - so prove it did, as opposed to being insulted - far more constructive, and avoids censorship problems etc.

[Jolt]

I personally support authoritarianism, as I am a Russian, and authoritarianism is an excellent way to keep Putin as the dictator of Russia. I would not let other people attain such position, but Putin is an extraordinary person; he is a patriot comparable to Washington, Bolivar, Garibaldi, de Gaulle, Cincinnatus, and etc. He only does what he thinks is best for the country, and usually it is the best. In a democratic society this brilliant man would have been replaced by some average, corrupt drunk in 8 years, which would have annulled all that he has done for Russia. To sum it up, he might not be perfect, but he is best Russia has seen in a long, long time.

That is YOUR opinion, what makes you think the majority of Russia wants him as a dictator?

There is no reason to believe that any other politician in the Duma is better than him.

How the hell do you know? As far as I'm aware, Putin doesn't allow the Russian people to have be aware of what other politicians think of their country, or if they could do the job better than him. Thus everyone thinks he is the only man right for the job, as they don't know the opinion of other competent politicians since the Media is completely controlled. A man with the same ideals of Obama who could (Let's imagine) place Russia as the undisputed Superpower of the world in 6 years thanks to his Superhuman ability, would never ever be elected as President of Russia because Putin effectively controls the media, and counts with support from people like you to legitimatly cut off power to principled people attempting to do the best for their country. I call that kind of man a traitor.

I ask that anyone who tries to defend Stalin educates themselves

Making Portugal as one of the top powers in genocide was pretty laughable to me. 700 millions? That's an INSANELY Colossal, Gigantic, Gargantuan value. Unless you count every living soul in Portugal and its colonies who died during that period from every cause (Even natural death). Only that way could I believe Portugal got to 700 M. Portuguese Colonial War estimates place deaths at 2 million tops. Furthermore, the Portuguese Colonial Policies never conducted any significant democide throughout the Dictatorship Period. I'd do 5 Million people an already high estimate. 700 Million people is...bleh.
EDIT: Curiously enough, I can't find any sources from where he did draw that ridiculous number. Many many countries, but no Portugal.
EDIT2: Found it. 30 Million killed during the Colonial War? Whoever estimated this, is insane. Considering WW1 had a total of 16 Million deaths, fighting in a highly urbanized and densely populated area, thinking the Portuguese Colonial War even surpassed that number should be locked up in a sanitarium. In any case the total account to a massive 41 Million (Provided I'm reading this graphics correctly). It even adds deaths of Angolan refugees abroad, as if that accounted to direct Portuguese responsability. Bleh. Short and sweet, the Portuguese were far, far nicer than other colonial empires in their treatment of native people.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Making Portugal as one of the top powers in genocide was pretty laughable to me. 700 millions? That's an INSANELY Colossal, Gigantic, Gargantuan value.

You misread the number - it is 700,000, not 700,000,000, and that is for the entire regime from 1926-1982, in all wars and domestic repression.

[Yoyoma1910]

Personally I preferred Trotsky.



He was getting freaky with Frieda Kahlo.

[Aemilius Paulus]

That is YOUR opinion, what makes you think the majority of Russia wants him as a dictator?

Ummm, his approval ratings, which are basically the highest in the world. And he has already served two terms, which makes it all the more astounding. YOU have never been to Russia. I lived there until 11 and then go there every summer. There is a whole cult (not state-sponsored or mandatory) of Putin. Vast majority of the people love him. Even the ones that do not usually acknowledge that he at least tries to do what's best fro Russia, which is beset by dishonest and corrupt politicians. Corruption is the bane of Eastern Europe. Politics are jungle there. That is what Eastern Europeans say. I am one of them. I believe I have slightly more authority here.

How the hell do you know? As far as I'm aware, Putin doesn't allow the Russian people to have be aware of what other politicians think of their country, or if they could do the job better than him. Thus everyone thinks he is the only man right for the job, as they don't know the opinion of other competent politicians since the Media is completely controlled. A man with the same ideals of Obama who could (Let's imagine) place Russia as the undisputed Superpower of the world in 6 years thanks to his Superhuman ability, would never ever be elected as President of Russia because Putin effectively controls the media, and counts with support from people like you to legitimately cut off power to principled people attempting to do the best for their country. I call that kind of man a traitor.

Lets all get into conspiracy theories. Media in Russia is free. Journalists get killed by corrupt businessmen because those journalists expose their corruption. However, much of the media once went bankrupt and Russian government boght it. However, there is still foreign media. Honestly, how can you deny the fect that Putin is a good leader. look at his record. Look at him and compare him to other Russian politicians, today's or yesterday's. I am afraid of what is going to happen when he dies.

Making Portugal as one of the top powers in genocide was pretty laughable to me. 700 millions?

The website tells you to add three zeroes at the end of the number. That makes Portugal responsible for 700,000 murders. Still a lot Still a lot but better than 700 million. Read more carefully next time. Seriously, do you think China killed 76,702 million people ?

[Marshal Murat]

In a democratic society this brilliant man would have been replaced by some average, corrupt drunk in 8 years, which would have annulled all that he has done for Russia.

While it's noble to believe that authoritarianism ensures that the "brilliant man" isn't supplanted by the "average, corrupt drunk" in 8 years, it's ridiculous to assume that all authoritarian rulers that would follow would be of the same caliber. While it's sad to believe that democracy only shuttles in the "average, corrupt drunk" every 8 years, this system prevents those who would abuse authority from retaining that authority for too long. It's not my fault that Russians enjoy authoritarian rulers, but just because this one man may be working in the interests of all Russians doesn't mean that all other authoritarian rulers would do the same.

[Jolt]

Ummm, his approval ratings, which are basically the highest in the world. And he has already served two terms, which makes it all the more astounding. YOU have never been to Russia. I lived there until 11 and then go there every summer. There is a whole cult (not state-sponsored or mandatory) of Putin. Vast majority of the people love him. Even the ones that do not usually acknowledge that he at least tries to do what's best fro Russia, which is beset by dishonest and corrupt politicians. Corruption is the bane of Eastern Europe. Politics are jungle there. That is what Eastern Europeans say. I am one of them. I believe I have slightly more authority here.

True that I have never been to Russia. But I am taking an International Relations course in the best university in Portugal for that area, plus I have a handful of Russian (From Petersburg and Moscow) that aren't as sympathetic as you are to Putin as I'm led to believe by what you're saying. And they say that it isn't all dreams and roses by the Russian people for Putin. Putin's "approval ratings" fall down the easter you go to Russia (Again, I'm making my opinion based on what my colleagues think)

Lets all get into conspiracy theories. Media in Russia is free. Journalists get killed by corrupt businessmen because those journalists expose their corruption. However, much of the media once went bankrupt and Russian government boght it. However, there is still foreign media. Honestly, how can you deny the fect that Putin is a good leader. look at his record. Look at him and compare him to other Russian politicians, today's or yesterday's. I am afraid of what is going to happen when he dies.

I'll tell you what. The media here in Portugal in 1905 was freer than it is in Russia nowadays. I'm not talking about journalists (Heck, didn't even reminded myself of Polikovskaya), I'm talking about air time at the presidential candidates. I say that Putin is a good authoritarian leader, he is good for crushing corruption out of a country. He crushes other rights in the process however. I'd be pissed off at him for what he did to the media. You take our example here in Portugal about our Prime-Minister. He is mildly hated (Though polls show him having a upper hand but not as much as in his first mandate) because he has tried to do some reforms and in the meantime has tried to stricten up unions and media. That has caused a huge outcry. I bet if the Portuguese Legislatives were as biased as the Russian presidentials, in terms of media cover, I'd say there would be a political crisis, with people shouting slogans like "Authoritarian", "Fascist" to the man in power. Contrarily to Russian people, only 20 years out of a dictatorship, Portugal has been a democracy for 35, and it is VERY against authoritarianism. We have had authoritarism for far too long in the past. I'm glad I can choose who I want to be my leader, and hear each candidate's opinions equitatively so I can decide who I want to lead my country. I don't want someone to pick them for me.

The website tells you to add three zeroes at the end of the number. That makes Portugal responsible for 700,000 murders. Still a lot Still a lot but better than 700 million. Read more carefully next time. Seriously, do you think China killed 76,702 million people ?

Oops. >_> That makes more sense, providing we're talking about a 50 year time-frame with wars in between. Hehe, China would have wiped the Solar System (If Martians exist!) with that score. :P

[Mooks]

Considering Russia's horrific past with dictators, along with its neighbor China who also has very very bad experiences with dictators. How can a sensible person look at those examples and still think that totalitarianism is a reasonable option?

[Kralizec]

I'll add that I think the USSR would have turned out pretty much the same without Stalin as well. Political opposition was banned and actively persecuted before he became really important, and most of the executive power was concentrated in a handful of offices- practicly an invitation for corrupt sociopaths.
Stalin lead the USSR to victory, but only after almost losing. If he hadn't purged the army and had reacted immediately when hearing of axis troops gathering at the border the Nazis probably wouldn't have been able to push so deeply into Russia to begin with.

Wether he was just as evil as Hitler is a moot question, really. I personally think that Hitler was crazy, especially towards the end, and probably thought that he was actually doing Germany a great service with his reign. I think that Stalin was ruthless to the extreme and paranoid, but otherwise completely rational.

[Jolt]

Considering Russia's horrific past with dictators, along with its neighbor China who also has very very bad experiences with dictators. How can a sensible person look at those examples and still think that totalitarianism is a reasonable option?

They and their famillies weren't the ones suffering the cold harsh reality in their skin. I doubt if Paullus was sent to the playground that is Siberia by the Great Comrade, he would see Totalitarism sympathetically.

[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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

but just because this one man may be working in the interests of all Russians doesn't mean that all other authoritarian rulers would do the same.

Precisely true. Alas, that is the problem of authoritarianism. I am well aware of this. I hope Putin will pick his successor wisely. I am sure he has either already picked one, or still picking. I trust his wisdom and forethought. After all, Lenin warned people of Stalin, until Stalin silenced him. Lenin saw the evil in him.

As for the eighty million, that is bull. Anyone from USSR will tell you that he killed no more than 20 million. I have never heard even a Western source mention anything higher than 30 million. And yes, the population of USSR at his time was only about 140-160 million, so the 80 million figure is laughable, especially that 15 million died in WWII. Western Human "Rights" organisations love to exaggerate.

As for the remarks about me being unhappy with totalitarianism after being sent to Gulag, I have to say this: I loathe and despise Stalin myself. His Purges killed millions of great people. He himself declared that he did not like anyone smarter than himself. However, I argue for Stalin because people demonize him too much. Not to mention Gulag was just hard labour. If you were a common prisoner, you were worked there until you dropped, but not until you were dead. Even Stalin realised that killing workers is not efficient.

I had three of my great-grandparents sent to Siberia and they all came back. The sentences were rarely life. You were usually given a time limit. finally, Siberia is not as bad as you think. People were sent to taiga, not tundra or the Polar Circle.

And yes, quite a bit of people were merely exiled, so they had to live in Siberia, but not work as a part of a forced-labour programme.

I'll add that I think the USSR would have turned out pretty much the same without Stalin as well. Political opposition was banned and actively persecuted before he became really important, and most of the executive power was concentrated in a handful of offices- practicly an invitation for corrupt sociopaths.
Stalin lead the USSR to victory, but only after almost losing. If he hadn't purged the army and had reacted immediately when hearing of axis troops gathering at the border the Nazis probably wouldn't have been able to push so deeply into Russia to begin with.

Umm, did you read this:

Aemilius Paulus: But all that aside, Stalin did industrialise USSR. He was the one who built up its military and produced close to 30,000 tanks before WWII, many of which were vastly superior to the German tanks used in the beginning of the war. Stalin did lead USSR to victory. It is hard to understand whether someone else in his place would have done better. If not for his militancy, Russia may not have held out against Hitler. The Nazis got to outskirts of Moscow in the winter of 1941. After capturing it, they would have won half the war.

We all owe our lives to Stalin, technically. If USSR was defeated, the world would have crumbled against the Nazi hammer. Sure, it is possible that a rebellion would have taken place and some of the world freed itself from the Nazi dominion, but still, what if the Nazis finished their A-bomb research? Then they would have a deathgrip on the world. Whatever one argues, by defeating Russia, the Nazis could have done so much more, and possibly even have exterminated as much as 95% of all Jews. Just look at what happened to Polish and German Jewry. What would have stopped Hitler from doing the same to other countries?


Sure, Stalin was evil, but to compare him to Hitler is ignorance. Thankless ignorance.

The Russian Empire on the eve of WWI was larger than USSR on the eve of WWII and yet it lost WWI (withdrew, and mostly due to revolution, but the war has been going pretty bad for it, if you put Brusilov's offensives aside. The Russians beat the Austrians, but lost to Germans). I used to think the same as you, but Stalin did contribute quite a bit to the Soviet Red Army.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Stalin was a capable leader. Hands down, he was a Machiavellian tyrant capable of forcing his own people to a scale of mobilization never ever seen and probably not to be seen again. He was also very capable, through fear, of controlling the Communist bureaucracy in a way his successors never would. That said I would rather stay miles away from a piece of land ruled by him.

For good info I would recommend the book "The Court of the Red Tzar", by Sebag Montefiore.

[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?