[Siberian Fox]

Elijahcraig, I don't know how you act on the forums you are used to posting on, but on the Politics Forum you will be expected to behave like an adult.

Flaming, name calling, personal attacks and references to people's genetalia are not acceptable on this discussion board.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

You know I don't believe the Holocaust really happened either, all the information, photographs, testimonies from people who lived through it etc. etc. is all lies. Hitler himself was accused of murdering millions of jews but as far as I know he never killed one single jew himself!

I am being sarcastic of course because I believe to spend the time posting something of more substance would be a waste of my time. Those that will choose to ignore facts about Stalin would not accept them anyway, you reason for madness.

[jaakko]

Rickshaw,

There's one principal point where your "sarcastic" arguement falls. The nazis themselves kept data on the Jews and others they destroyed. It was in their interests to keep archives. And they never really bothered to cover up the genocidal nature of their war.

We have official statistics from both the capitalist Reich and the socialist USSR. From the former you can conclude the millions of dead Jews, while from the latter you can't find evidence to back up the claims of Cold Warrior 'historians'.

But of course, you can logic that "because I can't see 60 million killed by the Soviet state, the statistics must be false". You know what's the name for that kind of "logic"?

Speaking about real history and the 'sovietological' falsifications, people might find the below article interesting. Also, it has prison statistics included:

http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

[Al Khabir]

Why even bother arguing about him- Stalin is dead. Stalinists I have discovered, are stubborn though. Can any of you yet produce an argument that does not involve "all of his crimes were fabrications of capitalist historians"

[jaakko]

AK,

Look again what the arguement between me and Rickshaw was about.

Why even bother arguing about him- Stalin is dead. Stalinists I have discovered, are stubborn though.

Pot calling the kettle black. You yourself have involved in the debate.

Can any of you yet produce an argument that does not involve "all of his crimes were fabrications of capitalist historians"

"We" have already. If you claim that "Stalin killed this many tens of millions of people" (the largest estimation being 100 million), isn't the burden of proof on you? And don't say we don't study Soviet history, because we do.

I don't deny that certain people died during Lenin-Stalin era. Stalin wasn't a saint, but neither were his enemies. And he certainly wasn't the Ultimate Evil Mastermind in total personal control of USSR's foreign and domestic policies. There were folks like Yagoda in the NKVD. There were folks like Nikita K. who build the cult of the indivídual around Stalin.

And now for the arguments that you so very much wish to see:

"Another view of Stalin"

"Communist History and Ideology (On Stalin)"

And here you can find alot of historical articles:
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org

[Enigmatic]

Actually one of the few strong arguments of the holocaust deniers is the lack of historical record of the deaths due to the holocaust, in spite of German fondness for statistics.

Of course, Imperial Russia was a utopial idyll benevolently governed by Tsars blessed with the gift of divine wisdom and the occasional need to kill anyone they suspected of opposing them. Anyone disbelieving me is merely parroting years of Soviet propagandists' pernicious lies.

[Freedom]

The only way this question can be properly answered, is if a team of Pro-Communist and Anti-Communist historians, researchers and transalters read over the Soviet archives, memoirs etc and wrote a book in a purely factual manner. But no one seems to be willing to do this on either side. Its to easy for both Commies and Cappies to say either "Stalin is brill" or "Stalin is evil". Thats just my two cents...

enemies. And he certainly wasn't the Ultimate Evil Mastermind in total personal control of USSR's foreign and domestic policies

Its a bit silly for anyone to think that any leader "leads on his own". All heads of state delegate their power, as no single man could possibly expect to be sufficiently versed in all aspects of governing an entire country. This is true for even leaders i most admire and hate...Some leaders may delegate to more people than others, but not all policies implimented by the government will have been the idea of the recognised head of state...absured that people really thought this...even it is was about Stalin...

[jaakko]

Actually one of the few strong arguments of the holocaust deniers is the lack of historical record of the deaths due to the holocaust, in spite of German fondness for statistics.

Holocaust revisionism is build on arguments such as that the gass-chambers aren't airtight anymore and thus never were, and so on. You're wrong about the statistics. The nazis archived a lot of information during the war, it was needed to keep things in order not for the sake of giving proof for later holocaust investigators. Anyway the NAZI archives were readily available when the fascism fell in Germany. There's not some one piece of statistics that would state the total number of camped and destroyed Jews. Of course the statistics had to be compiled, and because of that the historians still argue about the exact number (ie. how close it is to six million).

The thing is that official statistics of Germany and USSR both exist. By studying them you can see six million dead jews in Germany but not "tens of millions of Stalin's victims". If you want, you can of course ignore the Soviet statistics. But then you would also have to ignore the German statistics, in which case you'd fall into holocaust revisionism.

[Nox]

Actually one of the few strong arguments of the holocaust deniers is the lack of historical record of the deaths due to the holocaust, in spite of German fondness for statistics.

Holocaust revisionism is build on arguments such as that the gass-chambers aren't airtight anymore and thus never were, and so on.

I'm with Enigmatic on this one ... and probably for similar reasons. I do believe that the holocaust took place. And yes, I have been to Dacau and seen all that with my own eyes. My problem comes with the numbers. Yes, you can run a bunch of folks through a gas chamber, but you have to get rid of the bodies. The ovens took time to burn a body, and remember, you had to search the remains for clumps of precious metal. There were many ovens, and they tried to operate 24 hours a day, but there is still down time for maintainance and cleaning. When you start totaling things up ... six million is way to high. I recognize that there were mass murders and mass graves ... but 6 million is really a lot of people. If you go back to the French Revolution and the guillotine, they tried to set a record for the number of people executed in one day. If memory serves, they were only able to get approximately 100 victims that day. But they still had to close down the next day to repair (sharpen) the blade and clean the platform which was slicker than owl snot because of the blood.

I know that many will disagree, but I have given this considerable thought.

Nox

[Al Khabir]

If the man we were talking about was anyone but Stalin, most people would be horrified if he had killed 50 people. Let me point out, for the sake of the few he certianly did personally kill (by signing their death warrants on his own wishes) the hundreds of photographs from the time where the faces of various individuals in each have been removed: they were made "non-people" by Stalin. Call it the terror if you like, if not, there is still plenty of evidence to show that many were killedor were made to disapear.

Now we suppose you are right- it was not Stalin who killed the 100 million ( a vastly inflated figure I expect). It was other members of the party and Beaurocracy- perhaps it was Beria and the secret police. But to make Stalin exampt of any guilt we must presume he was a man of either very limited intelligence or was completely ignorant about what was happening. This is something that History has shown to be almost certainly untrue- he was a strong and intelligent man who liked to know what his subordinates were doing because he perhaps feared a plot (or agents of Trotsky or something of the like). Therefore it would seem that Stalin assumes much of the guilt even if he did not order the deaths because he chose to ignore them. He was perhaps the only man who could have stopped this.


Thank you for the links by the way. I will get round to reading more than the little I have already but I already have so much to read!

The only way this question can be properly answered, is if a team of Pro-Communist and Anti-Communist historians, researchers and transalters read over the Soviet archives, memoirs etc and wrote a book in a purely factual manner. But no one seems to be willing to do this on either side. Its to easy for both Commies and Cappies to say either "Stalin is brill" or "Stalin is evil". Thats just my two cents...

Perhaps Stalin was either brilliant or evil, and one side is telling the truth...
But then of course as I said, Stalin is dead (although I seem to be caught up in the debate as you saw!). WHat I do say is that no communist organisation should support him publicly, because true or not most people believe that he murdered millions. This does not inspire popularity.

[Enigmatic]

The thing is that official statistics of Germany and USSR both exist. By studying them you can see six million dead jews in Germany but not "tens of millions of Stalin's victims".

I guess the German spontaneous mass executions of suspected partisans also didn't occur because they didn't compile lists of the dead. And the six million claim comes mainly from comparing statistics for Jews who were in German occupied territory with numbers of known survivors. The German records were in general very evasive when it came to mentioning the killing, preferring various euphenisms; they were even less keen to quantify the dead. Somehow I doubt the "kulak"-killers during collectivisation were more meticulous record-keepers than the Nazis.

Just because some deaths are recorded doesn't mean others didnt die

[jaakko]

Let's get some things straight here.

Both Lenin and Stalin were responsible in the deaths of many. I have no reason to deny that. What I do combat are the fantastic numbers that have been invented and spread by anti-communist historians of the West. The "estimations" on "Stalin's victims" range from tens of millions to even 100 million. Yet from the archives and official statistics one cannot conclude anything like that, though still many. Look at the article I posted earlier, to see what the history of anti-communist literature looks like:

"There is a direct historical link running from: Hitler to Hearst, to Conquest, to Solzhenitsyn."
Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union

Now the dispute over holocaust victims is mainly about whether it was five million dead jews or whether it was closer to six. That's because in this case the historians mainly rely on actual statistics. If they did the same concerning 'the victims of communism in USSR' the numbers wouldn't satisfy their masters.

Nox said he's sceptical about the massivity of the mass murder of Jews. Then go ahead, post a topic about it on the history forum. But let's deal with it on a separate thread, because these two topics aren't interconnected in any way.

[jaakko]

If the man we were talking about was anyone but Stalin, most people would be horrified if he had killed 50 people.

That logic is fallacious. There's no statesman who wouldn't be indirectly responsible for atleast that many people (for not being able to save them).

Now we suppose you are right- it was not Stalin who killed the 100 million (a vastly inflated figure I expect).

The number is not overestimated if you choose to believe what certain Russian scholars say. You can have whatever numbers you like. There's everything ranging from tens of millions to one hundred million. Just go ahead and choose. It's a contest: Who dares to make the biggest estimation.

It was other members of the party and Beaurocracy- perhaps it was Beria and the secret police. But to make Stalin exampt of any guilt we must presume he was a man of either very limited intelligence or was completely ignorant about what was happening.

Well, he often got the news late. You remember what happened to Yagoda?

Therefore it would seem that Stalin assumes much of the guilt even if he did not order the deaths because he chose to ignore them. He was perhaps the only man who could have stopped this.

I don't think I could have been any better, unless I did have the knowledge of today. The internal and external conditions demanded the the use of harsh methods. Also, in addition to agents, spies, saboteurs and terrorists, there also were provocateurs infiltrated in the state apparatus who chose their targets randomly.

Thank you for the links by the way. I will get round to reading more than the little I have already but I already have so much to read!

We all have. I can't read half of what I should.

WHat I do say is that no communist organisation should support him publicly, because true or not most people believe that he murdered millions. This does not inspire popularity.

Defending the socialist era of USSR is a mean of ideological class struggle. And of course I'm taking into account the psychological factors in what comes to communist propaganda and agitation. But when someone slanders Stalin, I will raise my voice in opposition. And this is the 'history' section of PoFo, where I'm don't see a reason to 'modify' the presentation of my views to any degree. This is purely for intellectual debate, and I won't put any restrictions to my self-expression here. Here I expect people to be mature enough for not to go berserk because of someone else not following the mainstream of anti-communist presentation of history.

[Enigmatic]

Both Lenin and Stalin were responsible in the deaths of many. I have no reason to deny that. What I do combat are the fantastic numbers that have been invented and spread by anti-communist historians of the West. The "estimations" on "Stalin's victims" range from tens of millions to even 100 million. Yet from the archives and official statistics one cannot conclude anything like that, though still many.

I agree that many of the numbers put forth are based on pure speculation and likely to be "fantastic" overestimates. I figure even a country as large of Russia could not hide the deliberately caused deaths of 60 million, in addition to the millions killed in WWII. I also believe that even the numbers documented by the KGB are sufficient to classify Stalin and his cohorts as amongst the worst type of paranoid authoritarian regime. I also believe these are underestimates, based on those whose deaths were legally sanctioned as opposed to those who were killed by ruthless forces using terror to restore order.

I suspect more died as a result of Mao Tse-Tung's policies than under Stalin, and that if Chinese records were opened, they would nevertheless count fewer executions during Mao's regime than under Stalin.

"There is a direct historical link running from: Hitler to Hearst, to Conquest, to Solzhenitsyn."
Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union

I find this articles attempt to explode the "bourgeois myths" by suggesting ulterior motives for a handful of prominent critics of Stalinism even less credible than Solzhenitsyn's 60 million estimate. It is reminiscent of the Holocaust revisionist claim that the six million estimate is based on the (later revised downwards) Soviet four million Auschwitz deaths estimate. In reality, Western estimates were based on other sources than the Soviet overestimate of Auschwitz deaths. [I'm making the comparison for its relevance not as a form of slander or a desire for debating Holocaust revisionism] . Similarly, I have trouble believing that all Western scholars base their conjectures on Hearst, Conquest, or Solzhenitsyn, nor that everything these three said was invalid just because of their propensity to exaggerate.

Defending the socialist era of USSR is a mean of ideological class struggle

Why does rationalising the killing of hundreds of thousands, as a bare minimum, assist your cause?

[jaakko]

Why does rationalising the killing of hundreds of thousands, as a bare minimum, assist your cause?

You're missing the point. By defending Stalin, I defend the socialist era of USSR. The bourgeois historians don't even care how many were killed. It doesn't matter for them if it was hundred thousand or hundred million. I don't defend the socialist USSR because people got killed, but because of the socialism. For the bourgeois historians it wouldn't be any better if there hadn't been any killings, the problem for them is the socialism. They invented ever increasing numbers, and they would have done the same even if none were killed.

The socialist goal in itself is the biggest crime the bourgeoisie can ever imagine.

[Al Khabir]

That logic is fallacious. There's no statesman who wouldn't be indirectly responsible for atleast that many people (for not being able to save them).

I mean by this directly responsible, as in he ordered their deaths.

But when someone slanders Stalin, I will raise my voice in opposition. And this is the 'history' section of PoFo, where I'm don't see a reason to 'modify' the presentation of my views to any degree. This is purely for intellectual debate, and I won't put any restrictions to my self-expression here. Here I expect people to be mature enough for not to go berserk because of someone else not following the mainstream of anti-communist presentation of history.

Sorry if I appeared berserk! I am not asking anyone to restrict their personal beliefs, just pointing out that any organisation that openly claimed to support Stalin would find little public support due to the public perception of his state.

[jaakko]

Sorry if I appeared berserk!

Sorry, I didn't mean that. I meant that I'm fully aware it's usually worth nothing trying to debate thiskind of issues on streets.

I am not asking anyone to restrict their personal beliefs, just pointing out that any organisation that openly claimed to support Stalin would find little public support due to the public perception of his state.

I don't think so, because it wouldn't be a main public issue for any party. In some countries there are 'Stalin societies' but their purpose is wholly different to begin with. World's strongest communist parties are usually more or less favourable towards Stalin and the socialist experience of USSR. Where the communist parties are small and insignificant, it has nothing to do with their stance on Stalin (on the contrary, it seems the worst case is with the stagnated Brezhnevite anti-Stalin parties). Being pro-Stalin doesn't mean keeping it as the main everyday issue. Marxist-Leninist analysis on the development of USSR is important more to the party itself, but of course conclusions from such aren't kept secret from those interested.

[mim3]

Why even bother arguing about him- Stalin is dead. Stalinists I have discovered, are stubborn though. Can any of you yet produce an argument that does not involve "all of his crimes were fabrications of capitalist historians"

mim3 replies for the Maoist Internationalist Movement:
Yes, it's quite simple. Capitalist repression drives the species backwards. Most repression in the world is of that kind. The repression Stalin was in charge of moved the species forward.

That's why the life expectancy under Stalin doubled according to
bourgeois historians. See for example,
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/l ... ussr2.html

After Stalin, life expectancy actually declined thanks to critics like yourself. This is admitted even by the likes of Richard Pipes who rumor has it was kicked out of the Reagan administration for being too anti-Soviet if you can imagine such a fanatic.
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007.html

[Enigmatic]

Deaths per 1000 statistics are totally meaningless without other demographic data (especially age profile). After all, the CIA world factbook indicates the US has a notably higher death rate than Iran, Iraq and North Korea, which is more to do with the higher birth rates and younger age profiles of these countries - which is partly a result of adverse living conditions.

The CIA also begs to differ with Richard Pipes' statement "average life expectancy of a Russian male today is a mere 56 years of age", putting life expectancy figure at roughly the same levels as in 1956, but then you're aware Richard Pipes isn't the most reliable of sources....

The infant mortality stats are impressive though.