What is there to love about stalin? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Note: nostalgia *is* allowed.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#200896
Comrades, Comies ( :D ), Cappies, Socilalists, etc... Can anyone answer this one question:

How can some people like Stalin? I understand that he helped us win a war, but other than that, what? Not to mention that the war could have been won in many better ways.
By Kov
#201029
Thank you for the insight comrades... you missed your chance to convert me. I suppose I will have to find an other place to ask this.
By Proctor
#201037
Judging by the silence, there must be nothing to Stalin's merit! :p
By CasX
#201041
The Stalinists must have missed seeing this so far. I don't really know what the hell I'm doing here, I sure don't like him.
User avatar
By Adrien
#201048
Maybe they also thought that they had already answered the question on other topics, as it is something that often comes up.

I suppose you already took a look at it, but if not, this topic may help you:
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174
By Tovarish Spetsnaz
#201127
Uhhh...yes I missed this one.

The problem is...that you people are coming up with opinions on Stalin...when you know absolutely nothing about him or what he did.

Here is an example...the war could have been won in better ways. No shit!! 60 years latter...with what you know now...of course you could have done better!!!

Back than...I don't think it could have been done any better...

What else did Stalin do you say?? Well...what was the USSR in 1924...and what was it in 1953??? Forget 53...what was it by 1941???

Lest see...the peasentry was still in virtual serfdom...oppressed by the church and by rich Kulaks who owned the land...99% of them illiterate and ignorant. Today Russia has 100% literacy...or 99%. The peasants were freed from the control of the Kulaks...the collective system introduced socialist realtions of labor and production...

And you tell me what he did for the peasantry??? Changed their lives...100% for the better. I was looking through a book today called My Lithuania...and the writer was talking about what her peasant grandmother had said. She said "Its a shame the communists came so late. I could have lived like a human being" She was refering to her life in czarist Russia and Kulak Russia...

Universities...education...much improved living standards...socialist relations of labor...free health care...free education...

And you say what did Stalin do for the USSR??? And you say all he did was WW2 and that could have been done better???

I say you don't know anything about Stalin...nor what he did.
User avatar
By Der Freiheitsucher
#201184
You think winning the war is not much? He asked his people to devastate their own land in order to rush the Germans to die when they reached soviet land. Ever been to Leningrad (AKA St.Petersburg)? Doubt it. As for soviets, owing? Yes, the nuclear and political power of the USSR in the mid 1900's he achieved. You first say that we owe him the victory of the second world war, then you proceed to ask what is it that we like about him? Isnt that enough for you? :eek:
User avatar
By Der Freiheitsucher
#201186
As I forgot to put in my previous post, Spetsnaz (Cant remember his name) puts it exactly how it is. Thanks for the enlightenment of what we, lazy bastards wont type.

By the way, isnt it Tovarisch? With a C?
By Kov
#201195
Thank you. Those are the exact answers that I wanted to hear. It is hard for people to see the TRUTH of the matter if they where not affected by it.

Comrades, answer this one little question-

My Great Grandfather worked as a railroad worker. He operated a rail junction during the great starvation era of the USSR a time that stalin was in power. Shure he improved it by killing many including my grandfathers but lets get to that first. Trains packed with food passed the junction and every now and then some grain or some other resource fell from the top of the train, they sat on the ground and rotted away.

Now, since stalin was a great man he would not have minded that he let starving pesants and children pick up the small scraps of food on the ground to not die. But, what did he do? By the DIRECT order of Comrade stalin, my great grandfather was declared an enemy of the people and sent to a gulag to die.

A person alowing others to pick up rotting food of the ground, a Enemy of the People from the direct orders of Stalin? It makes you think does it not.
User avatar
By Der Freiheitsucher
#201211
Well thats exactly where the humanist roll kicks in. I bet you, any of the Polish, or Hungarians of the time would say communism is hell on earth because of Stalinist terror. Im sure that if my family had died to his will I wouldnt think so greatly of him. But I dont see him as a great contribution to mankind, I see him as a great contribution to the USSR and the communist powers. And comrade, to be honest, I try to think of it JUST that way,
By Kov
#201433
He TRIED... All my grandperents said this same thing:

"We did not think we where going to win the war with stalin."

I do not even think he deserves to be comended for what he did as a communist. Many of his actions OPRESSED the people in the long run. He killed of all his military advisors before he went into power, how good of him as a communist, no? He did not belive his men about the German invasion, or so most Russians say.

As I said before, to may, Stalin is "Cool", but the fact is, if you are a Russian native, and you have family there, you know he was nothing, he may have gotten Russia through, but I do not belive that. It was the will of the people that got us through the war, not Stalin. There are ample other men in his time that would have done a better job.
By ahab
#201435
I've got a problem with the "Stalin killing helped many, ends justifies the means"

I can understand imprisioning/punishing people who do not want to do things democratically as they want to bypass the majority rule and prefer violent methods.

But... people who disagree over an issue or show dissent but want to do things democratically should not be dealt with in the same manner. If Stalin and someone disagreed shouldn't have Stalin been able to prove his idea was better for the masses instead of removing the disagreer?

I might not be up to speed with things either... reguardless I'd like some explanation
By Kov
#201719
That is the whole irony of it. Stalinists have no standing defence against that, and that is by far the best way to stop their bragging.
By Tovarish Spetsnaz
#201749
By the DIRECT order of Comrade stalin, my great grandfather was declared an enemy of the people and sent to a gulag to die


My my...Comrade Stalin must have had nothing to do all that day...to bother himself on siging an order to arrest a simple railroad worker...I think your grandmothers have been telling you a lot of stories...

He killed of all his military advisors before he went into power,


Did he now?? Where did you read that??? Name ONE of these "military advisors" killed...before or after...he took power. Let alone all...but of course if you can name ALL...than please do.

Point is...thats not what happened at all. try reading a book that deals on the matter...might I suggest Koniev's memoirs...

He did not belive his men about the German invasion, or so most Russians say.


And most Russians know this form where???

I can understand imprisioning/punishing people who do not want to do things democratically as they want to bypass the majority rule and prefer violent methods......If Stalin and someone disagreed shouldn't have Stalin been able to prove his idea was better for the masses instead of removing the disagreer?


Point is ahab...that is EXACTLY what happened. Lets look at who these people were...

First...Trotsky...throughout the 20s he opposed the line of the Bolsheviks. He was still kept in the Central Committee. 1927...Party elections are held...Trotsky recieved about 7000 votes while Stalin about 680.000 votes...or something like that. Trotsky was kicked out of the party...not becasue Stalin wanted to...but becasue he LOST in a party election where the PARTY rejected Trotsky's ideas.

Second...Zinoviev...1927 Zinoviev opposes industrialization and comes up with an alternative plan. He brings it in front of the party...the party rejects his proposal and he is removed from the Party. He is let back however...and keeps his post in the Central Committe until 1936.

Bukharin...in 1929...opposes collectivization...proposes and alternate plan. Again his plan is rejected by the party...yet Bukharin keeps his position in the Central Committe until 1936.

The point is...there was opposition...and democratic opposition was allowed. The point is however...the party...democratically...REJECTED their ideas.

So what did Trotsky and Zinoviev and Bukharin do??? They created an underground organization to violently overhtrow the Soviet government. For this...and FOR THIS ONLY...they were arrested and put on trial. Not becasue of their stance or their opposition to the policies of Stalin...but becasue they took it upon themselves to overthrow the governmnt in a violent manner.


Were you aware of this history ahab??? I guess not....And why?? becasue you are told over and over by western history...no opposition was allowed...and anyone who opposed Stalin died. That was simply not true...the point is...all these people opposed Stalin...and still remained in high positions for 10 years after they opposed Stalin.

The point is...the opposition to Stalin had no popular support...neither in the Party...nor in the people. Since they had no popular support...they created underground groups to overthrow the government...and the whole idea of the purges was to eliminate these people who were members of these counter-revolutionary groups...

That is the whole irony of it. Stalinists have no standing defence against that, and that is by far the best way to stop their bragging.


Read above...[/quote]
By ahab
#201753
Tovarish Spetsnaz wrote:
I can understand imprisioning/punishing people who do not want to do things democratically as they want to bypass the majority rule and prefer violent methods......If Stalin and someone disagreed shouldn't have Stalin been able to prove his idea was better for the masses instead of removing the disagreer?


Point is ahab...that is EXACTLY what happened.
...
Were you aware of this history ahab??? I guess not....And why?? becasue you are told over and over by western history...no opposition was allowed...and anyone who opposed Stalin died. That was simply not true.
I've still got the history textbook that I was given in public school when I was 10 in 1992. There is no mention of Stalin killing peaceful opposers, but it does mention him violently ending violent opposition. I knew he did acceptable things like you mentioned, but I wasn't sure or not about the unaceptable things that he was rumored to have done, that is more folklore.

My dad (born 1936) still thinks that Russians didn't like Lennin, if I'd try and tell him this about Stalin... I think he'd disown me. Strangely he's not all that anti-communist.
By Tovarish Spetsnaz
#201848
I've still got the history textbook that I was given in public school when I was 10 in 1992.


In which country was this?? Just wondering...since there is no mention of Stalin killing peaceful opposition. Western history books would be filled only with such propaganda (though recently I have seen some positive changes)....

but I wasn't sure or not about the unaceptable things that he was rumored to have done, that is more folklore.


Well...as I said...looking at all these people...they had been vocal opponents of Stalin's policies (and before even Lenin's policies) for 10 years or more...and yet they still retained thier positions in the CC...with a vote equal to that of Stalin!!

Personally I do not agree with that...If I were Stalin I would not have allowed these people in such power. Lets face it...if my aim is to create a socialist society...having in power people whose aim is to distort that society or prevent it from happening...would not be a very good idea!!

All the notions of democracy and open opposition and all that...is frankly a load of BS!! In every society...opposition is allowed only if it is small in numbers...and comes from a source that has no power to affect change!!

Just looking at the recent anti-war demonstrations. That was all fine as long as it came from people on the streets...becasue those peoplec an easily be ignored...and when they get a bit too violent they can be beaten back through the police (I know quite a few who experienced that in the recent demonstrations).

But imagine...if a member of Bush's Cabinet said the war was imperialistic...said Bush was Hitler...and said the US was an imperialist warmonger!! What would happen to him??? He wouldn't last 2 minutes....


So these ILLUSIONS of democracy and opposition...are just illusions. They have different degrees of freedom allowing a small degree of opposition...but this opposition is imediately crushed if it starts to threaten the status quo!!

Furthermore...most of the opposition is opposition from other camps of capitalists...so most of the opposition you see is just the another side of the same coin...


So what Stalin did is perfectly justifable...and even if it is not...it was the right thing to do. I think Stalin was too soft on these people...allowing them in such positions for 10 years...positions from which they could expand their counter-revolutionary network into the party even more...and which eventually led to the creation of the revisionism which the USSR experienced post 1956...

The same can be said about Lenin. Following 1917...he allowed most of the Mensheviks...to simply join the Bolsheviks. He realized this mistake and latter said that 95% of those Mensheviks must now be removed...but by that time it was too late.

These were all mistakes made becasue this was the first time in history such a revolution was carried out...so of course mistakes of all sorts would have been made.


Most of the accusations against Stalin are false. Take for example the case of Bukharin. Bukharin was directly responsible for the murder of Kirov in 1934. Following the Leningrad elections of 1934...when Kirov won most of the votes...Bukharin and some others approached Kirov and asked him to join with them in an underground anti-Stalin group. Kirov refused...since Kirov was a true Marxist-Leninist. Kirov then went and told Stalin about this group. Shortly afterwards...Kirov was killed...and we can only guess that it was done in retaliation for him refusing to join them and telling Stalin. And yet for 2 more years...even though Stalin had information that Bukahrin had organzied this group...Bukharin remained in the CC...Stalin did nothing about it until proof came out about Bukahrin's involvment.

I would say Stalin made a mistake there...not expelling Bukahrin imediately...but nonetheless this disproes the accusations that Stalin eliminated his opposition SIMPLY becasue they opposed him.

Stalin was the one who allowed Trotsky to live...and only be exiled. Others wanted to have Trotsky executed then and there. Stalin also ws the one who said that Bukahrin and co should be exiled...and not execued...but the rest of the CC pushed for execution.


So essentialy...the nature of the Soviet government..had little to do with Stalin...but had everything to do with the fact that it was a revolutionary government...trying to survive capitalist encircelemnt and their internal agents...and doing so for the first time in history...and at the same time introducing far-reaching social change!!!

All the studies done in the west of the Soviet Union...completely ignore the real situation the USSR was in....just as they completely ignore the real situation their own societies are in now.


My dad (born 1936) still thinks that Russians didn't like Lennin, if I'd try and tell him this about Stalin... I think he'd disown me. Strangely he's not all that anti-communist.


If he is anti-communist...than why would he disown you if you told him the Russians don't like Stalin???

But in any case...for those who say that Russians don't like Stalin...maybe you should go to some Communist Party parades...or some veterans parades...and see the old people...those who lived in Stalin's time...carrying pictures of him!!

Strangely...the new CPSU has been formed on the grounds of defense of Stalin...and not even the revisionist CPRF does not dare criticize Stalin...
By ahab
#201853
Tovarish Spetsnaz wrote:
I've still got the history textbook that I was given in public school when I was 10 in 1992.


In which country was this?? Just wondering...since there is no mention of Stalin killing peaceful opposition. Western history books would be filled only with such propaganda (though recently I have seen some positive changes)
here I remember when I was younger people always bragged up my state's education system, I am begining to think that it is true. It mentions the people you posted about above, and "Stalin imprisoned others who did not want to peacefully bring about change in the government." It goes on to talk about his 5 year plans but that's about it for Stalin being a brutal dictator.
Tovarish Spetsnaz wrote:
My dad (born 1936) still thinks that Russians didn't like Lennin, if I'd try and tell him this about Stalin... I think he'd disown me. Strangely he's not all that anti-communist.
If he is anti-communist...than why would he disown you if you told him the Russians don't like Stalin???
err... If i told him that Stalin didn't do all the bad stuff as rumored he might disown me. I have a hard enough time discussing Lennin with him.

I still remember my teacher when I was 13 went a little overboard with the Stalin thing. I don't think the book he was teaching out of mentioned Stalin being perticularly brutal, but I remember this little excerpt of one of his lectures:

"When I just started teaching in this school I had mis-spoke once and said "the Russians loved Stalin but hated Lenin" and a Russian foreign exchange student interrupted me and said "NO! The people loved Lennin and hated Stalin""

This was also the guy that spent a day lecturing in the middle of the WWI unit about the Battle of the Buldge. Wrong world war there buddy.

Best history teachers I ever had were a former Marine that fought in Korea and an Army Ranger that fought in Vietnam. Both tried to dismiss the notions that Communism itself is evil. Parents got upset with them, but were not going to argue with them.
By Kov
#201986
"And most Russians know this form where???"

>:

You BRUTALY insult me. I would understand your view and stance on this issue had you lived during this time, or had been in Russia during the time. Unfortunantly neither of us have that ability. HOWEVER, one of us was raized under the USSR school system, and one was not.

We studied it all Comrade, Leni', Stalin, Marx, you name it. They had not name for it then, but I think it could be a daily and yearly equivalent of US history in the United States.

Now, where do the Russian people get this idea from?




From the fact that they where in the war!?


How many in your family died comrade? If you ever visit stalingrad, I will give you my last name, and I want you to help me count how many grandfathers, grandmothers and others in my bloodline died during that single battle. In fact because of that war most of my once huge family does not even know the other half! The War caused half the nation to marry on the spot. With all these things, you give no credit to the people that lived during the time?

Shure Stalin did some good things, but so did Bush, Hitler, Genghis Khan and many others... Most of the Russian population also agreed that there where no sides During the Great Patriotic war, for them lenin was as much a killer as the king, and in fact he was. He just won the war...





Here is a translation of one of my texts on stalin, after the Empire fell-

"When he took over the top political position he took away the land and the right to farm the land so that beyond susbsistence wages all the food could be exported to buy the machinery he wanted to turn Russia into an industrial nation. (The farmers would never have agreed to this because they did not want industrial factories, they wanted chairs, clothes, shoes and other decadent luxuries.)

Some argued that limited private farms would be better and that Stalin was turning the clock back to the days of feudal lords and serfs, but Stalin won and letter disposed of those who had argued against his plan.

To force the farmers into submission he took away their food and exported it while they died from starvation - for the greater good, of course. (About 5 million starved and another 5 million were sent off as slave labour.)

Food production fell. No one was rewarded for doing a good job so very few bothered. Somewhere between one third and one half of what was grown rotten before it could be eaten. The small plots that some farmers were allowed to operate privately were much more productive.

Russians had no freedom of choice and were ruthlessly exploited so that they would live on the least possible while producing industrial buildings, mines, canals and factories. This did produce a very large rise in the production of basic industrial goods such as coal, oil and steel. This was built on the backs of workers who were exploited, farmers who were starved and politicians who enjoyed every luxury that such a strange country could afford (except avoidance of the firing squad).

To keep in power Stalin killed anyone he thought was a threat. His suspicions were as majestic as his ambitions and so between 1934 and 1938 he is rumoured to have executed, tortured or imprisoned a member of every family in the country. He killed most of the competant military leaders and then killed the incompetant ones as well. Those who replaced them were loyal to Stalin for two obvious reasons.

By law anyone who intended to decrease the power of the state was due for 10 years imprisonment or preferably death. Of course the state decided who had such intentions"


A Russian Reporter on NTV America said something like this a month ago when there was a new report on Stalin. Lucky me I have Russian telivion and acess to the internet.

"Under the policy of "glasnost" or openness in the late '80s, scarcely a day went by without some new revelation about Stalin's monstrous crimes - revelations, that is, in the Soviet Union of things that were common knowledge in the West.

Mass graves were discovered, the so-called "Testament" of Vladimir Lenin (the Soviet Union's first leader) warning of the dangers of Stalin was published for the first time, the names of his victims - Bukharin, Trotsky and others - were spoken aloud for the first time since the dictator's death.

I remember attending a theatre performance in Moscow based on Yevgeniya Ginzburg's labour camp memoir, Into the Whirlwind, at a time when such daring productions were still rare. The audience wept openly. It was an emotional act of collective catharsis. People emerged stunned by what they had learned about their own lives and history.

Still, telling the full truth about Stalin has been a painful process, and remains difficult today. There have been remarkably few books written or films made about the period in Russia - in marked contrast to the deluge of material produced about Hitler and the Holocaust.

A dwindling Old Guard of Stalinists in Russia hark back to what they regard as a time of greatness, now lost. Stalin, they argue, defeated Hitler and created a mighty economy. They would like the city of Volgograd to be given back the name by which it is known for one of the great battles of the Second World War - Stalingrad.

An opinion poll published this week discovered that more than half of Russians think that overall Stalin played a positive role in Russian history."


I am sorry, I cannot find over 200,000 names of military leaders, please read this, it sums it up. I even have a link for you.

"All "enemies of the people" were killed. Stalin claiming he had evidence that a military coup was being planned, carried out a general purge of the army to remove the only group who had the power to overthrow him. He removed many high-ranking officers, about 70,000 men in the officer corps. Even though Stalin was removing many those that could be successful in opposing him, he was weakening the leadership of the Red Army. The Morale of the army was already low from reluctance of soldiers to follow Stalin's policies of Collectivization. The added blow of lost leaders further diminished its power, creating an army that was unprepared for World War 2."

http://www.pvhs.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva ... _purge.htm



[/b]
By Alhazen Al-Rashid
#201993
It's high time for `new' Russia to face up to Stalin's crimes. Germany fully confessed to Hitler's crimes. Japan grudgingly concedes `regret' for some wartime crimes. But the greatest crimes of all - Stalin's Red Terror - have never been adequately investigated or denounced by Russia.

We have been thoroughly conditioned by wartime propaganda and subsequent relentless rehashing on TV of Nazi themes (including, even, Space Nazis!) to believe Hitler and his Nazis were the century's worst criminals. This is one of the biggest lies of our time.

Hitler killed about 12 million people, half of them Jews. According to the lowest current estimates by reputable Russian historians, Stalin was directly responsible for murdering 20 million of his own people, including 8 million Ukrainians in the 1930's. Other Russian and foreign scholars, like the noted Robert Conquest, assert the true number of Stalin's victims was 30 million, or even 40! These figures do not include Russia's 18 million war dead.

Opening secret Soviet archives will, I believe, point to the 30 million figure. The full story of the Ukrainian Holocaust and NKVD's savagery in the Baltic states is murky, even today. Stalin's exile of entire Muslim peoples, such as Chechen, Ingush, Cherkass, Dhagestanis, and Tatars, remains almost unknown. Three million Muslims may have died in Stalin's Arctic camps where extreme cold proved an even cheaper and more efficient mass killer than poison gas.

While Hitler's worst crimes occurred from 1942 onward, and were masked by world war, Stalin's mass murder of 8 million Ukrainians happened in the 1930's, before the world's gaze. Hitler did not start World War II alone: he began it jointly with ally Stalin, when Germany and the USSR invaded and carved up Poland - after Russia invaded Finland.

***********************************************
**Link**

Crimes of the Stalin Era
By Nikita S. Khrushchev
First Secretary, Communist Party of the Soviet Union
http://www.trussel.com/hf/stalintr.htm
By Cassius Clay
#202007
Erm using Robert Conquest as a reference to prove how evil Stalin was is just stupid. 799,445 people died in Soviet Prisons from the early 30's to 1953, what is so hard to understand about that? The majority were normal criminalls, alot died from various causes NOT execution and the death penalty was actually abolished between 1945 and 49. These are the FACTS and this is what people have found in the archives.

Nobody is 'covering up' the 'crimes of Stalin' in Russia, especially nobody from the Russian goverment. Khruschev was bad enough, Yelstin and Putin massacre Communists and working people when a 'Democratic' election goes the wrong way. Yet these people are protecting Stalin's name? Come on this is basic logic.

Frankly comrade Spetsnaz has refuted these lies in this thread enough times and shouldn't have to do it again.


"Many accomplishments of our party and people will be turned upside down and smeared viciously, first of all beyond our borders, and also in our country. Zionism, desperately vying to rule the financial capital of all the world, together with all other enemies, will do all in their power to hamper our progress. They all look now at the USSR as a very backward country, but also as a valuable raw resource potential. I know that my name shall also be besmirched. They shall attach to my name all sorts of unimaginable crimes!

World reaction of all colours shall try with all their might to break up the Soviet Union, so that Russia itself should never again be able to bring itself up by its bootstraps. The might of the USSR is in the unity of its peoples. Tremendous pressures are going to be exerted in order to break up this unity of peoples... to break up all of the USSR into small insignificant pieces, to tear away all border republics from Russia.

Here we must admit that we still did not manage to do everything that is needed for saving the USSR.

With potential tremendous force the rising up of nationalist malady now is raising its ugly head. This cancerous nationalism will be successful for a while in pressuring down Internationalism and also patriotism. There shall appear many nationalistic groups, all of them supported by outside and internal reactionary forces and many such conflicts shall arise. There will appear many leaders -pygmies, all traitors inside their own nations.

Overall this shall be a very difficult time for the Soviet people and also the international working class. Conflicts shall arise between the East and the West.

In spite of all these forthcoming events and their temporary successes, the coming future generations shall look to our past and the successes that were achieved by our Socialist Motherland.

Year after year a new generation of people shall he coming up. They again shall pick up the red revolutionary banner of all their parents and grandparents. Their future they shall be building on our successes and our past."


Joseph Stalin 1939.

@Godstud , @Tainari88 , @Potemkin @Verv […]

Everyone knows the answer to this question. Ther[…]

@QatzelOk , the only reason you hate cars is beca[…]

But the ruling class... is up in arms about the f[…]