Discussion of Stalinism

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But when bad people do good things should we ignore thier good deeds. Should we accuse those who speak of thier good deeds of being a lover of this bad person ?

No, but I believe it went a little further than that. Saying that Stalin may have done some good things is fine, but outright praise of him and drastically playing down the numbers of those he killed certainly is not.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Bad people can do good things, if not even for a good reason, even for thier own selfish reasons bad people end up doing good things.

But when bad people do good things should we ignore thier good deeds. Should we accuse those who speak of thier good deeds of being a lover of this bad person ?

No we shouldn't. Someone who speaks of the construction of Autobahn is not professing thier love for Hitler anymore than someone who speaks of the Russians doing most of the work on the eastern front. To be honest im surprised some of the members are at the level of maturity where they can't seperate praise for individual actions from praise for the person in thier entirity...

To put the entire eastern front down to the Russian Winter (tm) is a little much... that saying so makes you a lover of Stalin is ludacris!

This basicly echos my take on the whole issue. I wrote an essay in Year 11 History entitled 'What Hitler did for Germany', specificly arguing that if he didn't go to war then he would be considered a good leader. I personally abhor any sort of dictatorship, and readily admit Hitler did many terrible things, but it is fact that elements of his rule, even if done for the wrong reasons had a good outcome.

I know little of Stalin so I wouldn't be able to give specific examples for him without drawing heavily on what has already been said (so I won't....).

[LittleGrizzly]

Saying that Stalin may have done some good things is fine, but outright praise of him

This is probably where we come down to our personal subjective opinions, but i haven't seen what i would call outright praise of him....

and drastically playing down the numbers of those he killed certainly is not.

I suppose this comes down to the validity of Sam's arguments, there is certainly nothing wrong with discussing the numbers, and valid points which partially discredit the numbers aren't Stalin praise. this again comes down to subjective opinions on the validity of Sam's points. Then lastly it is the intent you garner from the poster, which is why i think its wrong to accuse Sam of Stalin worship as he doesn't come across to me as a Stalin lover in his posts...

I wrote an essay in Year 11 History entitled 'What Hitler did for Germany', specificly arguing that if he didn't go to war then he would be considered a good leader.

I would probably agree. Hitler did alot of good for Germany in his early days... the main problem i had however was to what degree the good successes he had relied on the bad things he did...

[Sarmatian]

No, but I believe it went a little further than that. Saying that Stalin may have done some good things is fine, but outright praise of him and drastically playing down the numbers of those he killed certainly is not.

Bah, there's no reason for me to play down the numbers. I'm not Russian, actually I'm not from any of the former Soviet republics, I'm not a communist and I don't have any love for Stalin. It is actually you who are inflating the numbers, constantly refusing to look at the demographic situation, which speaks volumes in this case.

How many Ukrainians you said Stalin killed through Holodomor? 20 millions? Ok, let's see.

According to 1897 census in the Russian Empire there were 22,380,551 Ukrainians in Russian Empire. Now, it would be better if we had some later census to take a look at as it would allow us to estimate more accurately the number of Ukrainians in 1932-1933, but census scheduled for 1915 never happened because of the first world war. Never fear though, as we can compare how much population increased in other European countries during the same period and make a pretty accurate estimation. So, let's see.

(in millions)
France:
1900 - 38.9
1930 - 41.6

Spain:
1900 - 18.5
1930 - 23.3

Portugal:
1900 - 5.4
1930 - 6.8

Germany:
1900 - 56.4
1930 - 65.1

Italy:
1900 - 32.4
1930 - 40.9

We see that population increase was mostly between 10% and 20%, and we know that in 1900 there were app. 22 million Ukrainians. If we apply the trend we've seen in other European countries there couldn't have been more than 25-26 millions of Ukrainians in 1930. But just for the fun of it, let's assume than in the case of Ukraine population increase was 50%. That would place the total number of Ukrainians in 1930 at slightly above 30 millions. Now, 5.5 millions of these 30 lived in Poland in the interwar period, because they were in the territories Russian Empire lost and they were out of Stalin's reach and not affected by Holodomor. That leaves 25-27 millions Ukrainians in the USSR in 1930's. So if your number is correct, it means that during that one year of Holodomor, more than 80% of all Ukrainians in USSR died, leaving only 5 millions. And then again those 5 + 5.5 from Poland became 50-60 millions today, which means that in roughly 70 years, Ukrainian population increased 500% or 600%.

That's assuming there was a 50% increase in population between 1900 and 1930. If we assume that increase in population was like in all other European countries, we can only conclude that more Ukrainians died than ever lived in the Soviet Union and to get to the number of Ukrainians today, there would have to be an increase 1000% to 1200% (from those 5.5 millions left in Poland).

If you would be so kind to explain to me how is that possible, I'd be very grateful...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It is actually you who are inflating the numbers, constantly refusing to look at the demographic situation, which speaks volumes in this case.

On the contrary, I use historical works and the meticulous compilations of reliable historians and universities. You try to use demographics to show the whole story, despite repeated statements that they cannot.

How many Ukrainians you said Stalin killed through Holodomor? 20 millions? Ok, let's see.

I said no such figure. In fact, that is twice the number that is estimated by historians on the high end. No offence, but you're pulling figures out of thin air to try to prove someone wrong on a statement they haven't made because of an opinion they do not hold.

[Sarmatian]

On the contrary, I use historical works and the meticulous compilations of reliable historians and universities. You try to use demographics to show the whole story, despite repeated statements that they cannot.

I'm just showing that even a quick check of something as plain and as available as population numbers discredits those figures.

I said no such figure. In fact, that is twice the number that is estimated by historians on the high end. No offence, but you're pulling figures out of thin air to try to prove someone wrong on a statement they haven't made because of an opinion they do not hold.

You really didn't. I was 100% sure that you did, so much that I even didn't bother to check and quote that post. Bah, I was arguing a point no one made, and it took me 10 minutes to write that post

Sorry about that

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

This basicly echos my take on the whole issue. I wrote an essay in Year 11 History entitled 'What Hitler did for Germany', specificly arguing that if he didn't go to war then he would be considered a good leader. I personally abhor any sort of dictatorship, and readily admit Hitler did many terrible things, but it is fact that elements of his rule, even if done for the wrong reasons had a good outcome.

The repression and extermination of Jews and other ethnic minorities, communists, liberals, homosexuals et all was not part of the war - I assume that was an oversight on your part.

Furthermore, nearly all of the things done during his regime were part of systematic abuse of the politically, physically, or culturally "unfit", not to mention forcing independent commerce to cater to those repressions.

So yes, if Hitler hadn't killed or repressed people, he would've been a good leader. He wouldn't have done anything.

[Brenus]

"had a good outcome." Like what? Motorways?

[Caius]

"Moscow is of no importance". That's why he actually transferred many of the panzer groups from army group Center (which was the strongest of the three army groups) to army group South. The idea was to cripple the Red Army so much that USSR is forced to capitulate. Of course, it didn't happen, so in September army group Center was reinforced, got its panzer division back from the south and was supposed to take Moscow in October, in a last ditch effort to end the war swiftly.

Moscow had no importance but yet they tried to capture the city?

[Kralizec]

But when bad people do good things should we ignore thier good deeds. Should we accuse those who speak of thier good deeds of being a lover of this bad person ?

I don't think that there is, or has been, a single person who only has done bad things or only has had bad qualities. I bet there were quite a few serial killers who lovingly cared for their cats or dogs.

The autobahn netword was planned for by the chancellor before Hitler, by the way.

[Brenus]

“Moscow had no importance but yet they tried to capture the city?” Communication centre, industry, and prestige. What a propaganda coup it would have been…
Not sure it would have end the war, but…
"The autobahn netword was planned for by the chancellor before Hitler, by the way." Most of the economical achievements credited to Hitler were de facto the result of Weimar... Even the good chape of the Reichwher (sp?).

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

The repression and extermination of Jews and other ethnic minorities, communists, liberals, homosexuals et all was not part of the war - I assume that was an oversight on your part.

Furthermore, nearly all of the things done during his regime were part of systematic abuse of the politically, physically, or culturally "unfit", not to mention forcing independent commerce to cater to those repressions.

So yes, if Hitler hadn't killed or repressed people, he would've been a good leader. He wouldn't have done anything.

Hey I didn't say that I didn't mention that and this was from 4 years ago. I was just making the point that saying elements of a regime's results are a good thing isn't the same as admiring the means it was acheived or the regime itself.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I recall only arguing that side of it because my teacher said anyone who did would be insane... I got an A...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm just showing that even a quick check of something as plain and as available as population numbers discredits those figures.

As said, demographics do not tell the whole story - and obviously so, as many historians have looked at those killed by the Soviet Union, including demographics, and come out with the same story. In fact, I think there is a demographics section somewhere on the website I linked to.

[Sarmatian]

Moscow had no importance but yet they tried to capture the city?

It had no importance in June 22, when attack on USSR commenced. The goal was to destroy so much of the Red Army that Soviet Union has no choice but to surrender or at least accept the peace at extremely unfavourable terms. Quick victory was the main objective, like in the case of Poland, the Low Countries or France. When in September it became clear that quick victory by destruction of the Red Army is impossible, as Red Army deployed its numerous reserves, Germany changed the plan. They hoped they could achieve the same results (surrender of the USSR or at least getting them bloody and battered to the peace table) by taking Moscow. Even if Soviets continued to resist, taking Moscow would have been of great symbolic value, not to mention how important transportation hub it was.

Sound reasoning no doubt, problem is it didn't work and it is highly questionable would USSR surrender after losing Moscow. That's my point.

As said, demographics do not tell the whole story - and obviously so, as many historians have looked at those killed by the Soviet Union, including demographics, and come out with the same story. In fact, I think there is a demographics section somewhere on the website I linked to.

They don't but, they form the basis. Let's say I try to discern how many soldiers Country A lost in a battle against Country B. Eyewitness account says 12,000 for example. Then I take a look at official numbers, number of provisions taken on the campaign etc... and I see that the size of the army of the Country A could have been no more than 10,000. Obviously, even if I have an eyewitness estimate, I must take at as wrong.

Also, I'm not staking my claim only on demographic data.

The main reasons are:
1) Virtually all data that show such huge numbers are before the 1990's, when Russia was pretty much closed for any serious research by anyone outside.
2) A good chunk of that data comes from people who defected for one reason or the another, such people can not be a priori considered unbiased
3) In that period Cold Was was very real and both sides used propaganda extensively.
4) In the same period, exaggerating those numbers was very politically convenient and useful (getting published or getting research grants, getting attention in the press or TV, that sort of stuff)
5) Demographic data show that those kind of numbers are highly improbable if not impossible outright, depending on which figure we are talking about
6) Data available in the 1990's and afterward casts doubts on those figures.


We've seen this time and again. There are still misconceptions about Eastern Front in the WW2. Still most people in the West believe it was mass frontal attacks by the Red Army during the entire war what defeated Wehrmacht, that pretty much all Red Army commanders were rigid, unimaginative and poorly skilled (soldiers and lower rank commanders, too, btw), that it was allied landing in Normandy what defeated Germany, that it was actually land-lease what made it possible and so on... There are still misconceptions and bias about Russia in general and much more so about USSR. When intervention in Georgia was on the table, every possible media story was about strategical or geopolitical goals of Russia, how they were just waiting for the right provocation... It included little or no story from the Russian side and Russian sources were practically ignored. On the contrast, in 1999 no one in the media doubted or dared to doubt that NATO bombing campaign was anything but a humanitarian crusade against the wicked to protect the oppressed. God forbid that anyone thought there was any gain in it for US or NATO.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Demographics can and did register the impacts of the Holocaust, let alone of the Holodomor.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Demographics can and did register the impacts of the Holocaust, let alone of the Holodomor.

Once again, did you even read the whole thread? That is helpful sometimes, you know. There was this whole argument here, with hundreds of points and here you drop as if from the sky and quack once. What are you even saying? We are debating on the extent of Stalin's Purges. We all know it happned, just not how large it was. Sarmatian was right in the sense that nothing close to official statistics exist. The once the Western world uses were not much better than conjured by a couple of out-of touch eggheads, with one leg over the other, at comfortable chairs, enjoying cigars in a library. Alright, that was an obvious overstatement, but really, the death claims are ridiculous. It seems as if they are pulled out of the mist, so varied they are.

....

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Ah, yes. All hail the Great Leader, AP. Sorry but if you read a classic named "The Black Book of Communism" you will come across a dedicated and well sourced study with not the lowest or most flattering numbers.

It could be all Zionist, Illuminati or Capitalist propaganda, of course, but I'm not so eager to fall into con theories as some nationalists do.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

You know, I was preparing a lenghty response but I just realized you're trying to bait me. Good luck with your brawling .

And let the discussion continue. It's a good read for now.

[Brenus]

“Demographics can and did register the impacts of the Holocaust, let alone of the Holodomor.”
No. We can’t be sure of victims of holocaust.
If you think so, give me the number of Serbs killed by the Utase regime in extermination camp and mass execution… Or the number of Tziganes (Gypsies) killed in German’s extermination camps…

Holodomor: A Stalin’s famine specifically created for Ukraine? The fact is all Russia suffered of this one.
Still, you can’t know because no reliable statistics are available. All of them would have come either from the Tsar, or the Red Commies you don’t trust ant way…

“The Black Book of Communism”: Well, the intention is in the title and is clear: bad commies…
And from where their figures are coming from?

[Fragony]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU67r0-QgZs

Too good not to post. Courtesy of Hussy.

[HopAlongBunny]

Stalin admirable? I don't think so.

He did achieve the rapid industrialization/militarization of the USSR; so successful was he that we lived in a bi-polar world for almost half a century; but, anyone who was in the position at that time would have had to achieve the same thing or perish. I don't think its too far-fetched to suppose that someone else could have done what Uncle Joe achieved, without the terror he used.

He was massively assisted in what he achieved by the Allies...because he was an ally.
After WWII Uncle Joe became the demonized Stalin. That was necessary because now that the fight for survival had been won, the fight for ideology needed tending to. Fortunately, Stalin was a murderous paranoid prick, making the media campaign much easier.

The good that was achieved was born of necessity, but it's in the "other stuff" that he established his personality. I don't think he established himself as one to be admired.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Basileos, Aemilius:

Having observed you sniping at one another in two thread so far, I would encourage you both to deal with it via private messages. A little decorum here please.

Sarmatian, EMFM:

You'd be better off citing and linking to your sources rather than questioning same -- at least it would take you less time.

Brenus:

My comments on Hitler having lost his nerve and Stalin benefiting from that mistake were part of a rather well researched theory in the book Panzers East. While no such theory can be presumed correct beyond any doubt, the author did make a good case for -- unaltered -- a successful Barbarossa with the removal of Moscow from the Soviet industrial resource base and transportation network -- and that it would have hampered them badly.

[rory_20_uk]

Ah yes, all rail hubs or at least the vast majority were via Moscow. Fronts would be divided resources would have difficulty getting to the armies.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sarmatian, EMFM:

You'd be better off citing and linking to your sources rather than questioning same -- at least it would take you less time.

Understood, but I'm done. I've linked to sources, I've explained why the Soviet archives are flawed, I've linked to sources explaining why the archives and demographics arguments are flawed, and now the same points are being rehashed regardless.

[Sarmatian]

Understood, but I'm done. I've linked to sources, I've explained why the Soviet archives are flawed, I've linked to sources explaining why the archives and demographics arguments are flawed, and now the same points are being rehashed regardless.

You've linked to exactly one website, in the 5th post of this thread...

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.

... and that is exactly the same website you linked to when we touched the topic of Stalin the last time. Now, I couldn't find anything there about the data in Russian Archives being flawed. Granted, it's a rather big and poorly organized site and I may have missed it. If that's the case, please provide a link directly to the part that deals with that, because I didn't find it.

On the other hand, I've found the part that deals with references and sources for the USSR(click). There's more than 100 sources and references to various books, papers and other research material the guy used and not a single one is after 1990, and majority being from 1930's - 1970's.

The first 10 for example are...
"Afghanistan: Six Years of Soviet Occupation." United States Department of State Special Report No. 135, Washington, D.C., December 1985.

THE WORLD ALMANAC AND BOOK OF FACTS 1986. New York: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1985.

Ambartsumov, Yevgeny. "Remembering the Millions that Stalin Destroyed." MOSCOW NEWS, (July, 1988), p. 12.

Andics, Hellmut. RULE OF TERROR. Translated by Alexander Lieven. London: Constable & Co, 1969.

Antonov-Ovseyenko, Anton. THE TIME OF STALIN: PORTRAIT OF A TYRANNY. Translated by Stephen F. Cohen. New York: Harper & Row, 1981.

Ashton, D. L. W. "Communist Concentration Camps-Today." EAST-WEST DIGEST, Vol. 9 (September, 1973), pp. 664-676.

Backer, George. THE DEADLY PARALLEL: STALIN AND IVAN THE TERRIBLE. New York: Random House, 1950.

Bawden, C. R. THE MODERN HISTORY OF MONGOLIA. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968.

Beck, F. and W. Godin. RUSSIAN PURGE AND THE EXTRACTION OF CONFESSION. Translated by Eric Mosbacher and David Porter. New York: Hurst & Blackett Ltd., 1951.

Bennigsen, Alexandre. "Afghanistan & the Muslims of the USSR." in Rosanne Klass (Ed.), AFGHANISTAN: THE GREAT GAME REVISITED. New York: Freedom House, 1987, pp. 287-299.

... and those that come after are generally older. Except several (one a daily newspaper, in other says "translated" but doesn't say from which language or the name of the original work or where it comes from), all sources are western, predominantly American.

Sarmatian, EMFM:

You'd be better off citing and linking to your sources rather than questioning same -- at least it would take you less time.

That's the point really. That's precisely what I didn't want to do. There are thousands of sources, there are over 100 just on that one website and I can't possible address them all. That's why I addressed what they all have in common and why I think they mustn't be accepted without critical assessment. Hell, even wikipedia has many sources that state many different figures...

I'm not really arguing a case for Stalin here. I'm not saying he killed 1, 5, 25, 50 or 100 millions. I'm just saying I find the number of people he killed exaggerated because all the research on the issue is flawed for the reasons I already stated.

The website EMFM linked to says it all, of the 100+ sources used:

95%-100% are western
100% are before 1990's
app. 95% are from the Cold War, the rest even before

I'm not a historian but I know that's not how you conduct research. If I want to research American Civil War, I won't go to India but to the US. If I want to write a paper about Vasco de Gama, I won't go to Canada but to Portugal. If it's about Han dynasty, I won't go to Nigeria, I'll go to China. For Hitler, it would be Germany. I'm not saying 100% of the material must be from the country in question - no, but the bulk and the basis should.

It's perfectly understandable for scholars back then not to do that. They simply couldn't and they had to use every bit of information they could get their hands on (I'm talking about serious scholars, not those who created propaganda). Nowadays, scholars can do that but instead they're constantly rehashing stuff written 20-80 years ago, like that guy in the website that's in question.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You've linked to exactly one website, in the 5th post of this thread...

Not just in this thread. In previous debates I have linked to you websites in both English and Russian on this issue - those websites also addressed the ones of research on the Russian Archives being flawed (though last I checked, that was also on Wikipedia).

That being said, the following link kind of disproves that demographics were not taken into account and that Russian sources were not used.

THE WORLD ALMANAC AND BOOK OF FACTS 1986. New York: Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1985.

Don't Almanacs generally take into account demographics?

Ambartsumov, Yevgeny. "Remembering the Millions that Stalin Destroyed." MOSCOW NEWS, (July, 1988), p. 12.

Antonov-Ovseyenko, Anton. THE TIME OF STALIN: PORTRAIT OF A TYRANNY. Translated by Stephen F. Cohen. New York: Harper & Row, 1981.

Doesn't sound very Western to me.

I'm not really arguing a case for Stalin here. I'm not saying he killed 1, 5, 25, 50 or 100 millions. I'm just saying I find the number of people he killed exaggerated because all the research on the issue is flawed for the reasons I already stated.

The demographics argument is the one that is flawed. I have already pointed out why. From an earlier post:

I think you and Sarmatian may be making two fatal errors. Firstly, Stalin did not just kill people who were in the USSR. He killed a massive number of Poles, for example. Secondly, nobody is suggesting that everybody was killed all at once - Stalin ruled for thirty years, and even before that he had power to murder - executing Tsarists, burning villages and killing peasants, etc. Also, not all of the dead were during the purges. Nonetheless, the quoted figure for Stalin usually hovers around forty million, not sixty to seventy - the latter number generally applies to the whole Soviet Union.

So yes, if you took the whole Soviet Union (but only the Soviet Union) in any one year during Stalin's reign, and subtracted the people killed, you would have a completely unreasonable number. But how about including surrounding countries and then averaging out the numbers over the years Stalin ruled? The totals you will come up with are perfectly fine, and I am 99% sure that professors/historians doing research will have taken this into account.

[Sarmatian]

Well, there is no way I'm going through every possible source to find out what he took from which source. In general, although it contains a lot of information that website looks more like a blog than a serious scholarly work, especially when on the home page there are phrases like "Deka Megamurder" and "Centi Kilomurder".

You haven't shown me where it says Russian Archives are flawed/incomplete, in this or any other website. This is the third or fourth time we mentioned the archives and I'm still waiting for a single link from you about it.

I don't know, it could be that just me being born in what used to be Yugoslavia, I learned rather young that looking only at one side isn't a good idea. Unless you get information from all sides, unless you look at it in conjunction, unless you critically assess it you'll end up with a pretty distorted and flawed view of what happened.

It doesn't matter. It seems we're going around in circles and we haven't moved from the start and it looks like no one else is really interested in this but you and me, so if you have something to add, maybe a PM would be a better way. Anyway, you've pretty much the only one who tried to discuss this instead of simply writing "OMG, Stalin is Teh Evil", and I appreciate it...

[Yoyoma1910]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to distract the issue, but I found this image of Stalin and the magical Obamacorn (with House).

[LittleGrizzly]

It doesn't matter. It seems we're going around in circles and we haven't moved from the start and it looks like no one else is really interested in this but you and me, so if you have something to add, maybe a PM would be a better way. Anyway, you've pretty much the only one who tried to discuss this instead of simply writing "OMG, Stalin is Teh Evil", and I appreciate it...

Im highly intrested, i had always assumed the stalin figures that EMFM is providing were correct... infact i had them overjudged (60 million) as i confused them with the Soviet Union figures...

Now i am unsure so your giving me food for thought at least...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The "conservative" numbers I've seen seem to be about 1M, though the people that come up with those numbers seem as emotionally invested as the most vigorous denouncer of Stalin. It doesn't really justify the man, of course.