Was Stalin really that evil?

[Ned]

Ah, come on. Stalin was a lot more evil than Hitler. He killed tens of millions of his own people, while Hitler managed to kill only 6-9 million Jews, Gypsies and communists. Stalin was hated and feared by his own people and by everyone else for that matter. Hitler was adored by his people and hated by everyone else.

Had Hitler not existed, Stalin would have gone down in history as its worst killer-tyrant ever.

[Alexander's Horse]

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/denisovich/

[Sikander]

Propoganda reminds me of the good old days, just the sort of sick commie apologist we were trained to kill without remorse. I miss the Cold War!

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
A great tragedy of World War 1 was that Russia was rapidly industrialising and modernising in 1914. It probably would have achieved super power status anyway without all the terrible bloodshed of the communist years. Its tottering feudal social and political structure simply could not withstand the shock of war. There was no October revolution, the Bolsheviks simply walked in and filled the power vacuum. It was more like a palace coup.

Its sobering to look at Russian society in 1914. Whole classes of people were wiped out over the next 70 years, particularly the first 30 years of communist rule. People were killed just for being from the wrong class, an aristocrat, bourgeois, kulak. Ethnic groups were mercilessly persecuted, the Ukrainians suffered terribly for example. Whole communities were liquidated. So much tragedy and destruction, so much human potential lost forever. Stalin was right at the centre of all this carnage. Lenin wasn't much better.

Look at Russia today - it really makes anyone who loves the country want to weep.

The great tragedy here is this post.

Russia in 1914 was poor, backward and not anywhere close to European standard. Russia's industry(whatever there actually was) was heavily reliant on foreign capital and investments. Conditions in the factories were horrid, the supposed reforms that would bring in quality in the workplaces were not even working, with inspections only happening a few times a year. The same could be said for the agarian sector, largely relaint on feudal tools. Conditions were equally bad there, with the only possitive being good ammounts of bread and meat. The workforce, both industrial and agarian, was illeterate, as well, not able to afford education at higher levels, mostly reserved for the gentry.

The fact is, had Russia continued it's reliance on foreign capital and not done something "magic" anytime soon, it would have let to a crisis(which it did). Had any of European contries had so much as coughed, Russia's "industrial growth" would have been swept back away, with Russia itself being brought back to the stone age.

As for the rest of your post -

[Alexander's Horse]

You really need to read more widely.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
But you should be more understanding of people like serb and vagabond who have to live in russia today.

Or how about my father, who can barely afford a roof over his head and clothes to wear?

Russia is so wonderful under "democracy", isn't it?

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
You really need to read more widely.

The point still stands, whether war or no war, Kerensky or the Tsar, the whole structure would have crumbled.

[Alexander's Horse]

Yes - and communism was one of the very worst options. It will take Russia many years to recover from the communist period. Some precious things that were lost will never be recovered, so many lives.

Going back to communism is not the answer.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Anybody read Solzhenitsyn?

He'd agree with you, AH.

Since when is Solzhenitsyn a ****ing reliable source?

It's funny, but when I see people complain about the length of my posts, I think and ask, "How is it that you allow yourselves to read long books by Solzhenitsyn and Conquest, but can't be bothered to read a few posts that disporve them?"

Does it clash with your accepted paradigm? That must be it.

I guess I'll have to agree with Serb here. It's impossible to change one's mind when it's already been made up.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Propaganda


Or how about my father, who can barely afford a roof over his head and clothes to wear?

Your point is an interesting one. In addition to many victims there were also many beneficiaries of Stalinism. It is often these people who want a return to the "good old days".

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Yes - and communism was one of the very worst options. It will take Russia many years to recover from the communist period. Some precious things that were lost will never be recovered, so many lives.

Going back to communism is not the answer.

Yes, lives were lost, No one here is denying that. The only problem I have is seeing the blame being put on Stalin alone and fully on his collectivization and industrialization policies.

People mysteriously forget that epidemics, poor harvest conditions at that time, and class war of had a major effect on agriculture. Not to mention that organization was nearly non-existent, because of the struggle waged, both between the bureaucracy, and the peasants.

Theft and sabotage were commonplace, which also increased the problems.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Your point is an interesting one. In addition to many victims there were also many beneficiaries of Stalinism. It is often these people who want a return to the "good old days".

What are you implying when you say, "these people"?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander
Propoganda reminds me of the good old days, just the sort of sick commie apologist we were trained to kill without remorse. I miss the Cold War!

So funny, yet SO TRUE. He is like out of a movie.

I can just see a stone faced Ivan Drago saying, "If he dies, he dies."


But back on topic, Stalin wasn't really a bad guy, just misunderstood. Those 20 million people he killed had it coming.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Propaganda

What are you implying when you say, "these people"?

Nothing really - many ordinary people enjoyed a better standard of living, promotion, social mobility. For example, the many purges created promotion opportunities for many people. Of course millions died to create these opportunities for the lucky ones. Its these people who are mostly nostalgic about communism.

[Propaganda]

I find it hilarious that Americans and Euros find the audacity to wave numbers and talk about "bad guys," while they live in countries whose "righteous leaders" over the centuries have murdered hundreds of millions in the name of capital.

[Ted Striker]

Yeah but usually we descibe those tragic events with REMORSE, we don't celebrate our bad guys with crap like, "oh, Stalin wasn't really that bad."

Though, Andrew Jackson for instance was a real ****er that needs his statue torn down in front of the Capitol Building.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Propaganda
I find it hilarious that Americans and Euros find the audacity to wave numbers and talk about "bad guys," while they live in countries whose "righteous leaders" over the centuries have murdered hundreds of millions in the name of capital.

Some truth in this but the only comparable figures I can think of in terms of evil deeds and pure body count are Hitler and Napoleon.

Of the 3, I would rate Hitler by far the worst/most evil, Stalin second and Napoleon third.

[Ted Striker]

D1ckhead115 would have to be 4th though Horse.

[Propaganda]

EDIT: Post below.

[Propaganda]

"Hundreds of millions" maybe be exagerrated, but that's beside the point.

You see, we now live in a society where information such as this is available to us, where in previous ages, none of this was available. We now have the benefit of researching and finding truth on various subjects in the not-so-distant past(information I kindly provided here, BTW; information from unbiased sources, sources with no socialist outlook for the world, many of whom come from capitalist countries). Thus, we no longer have to rely on a few sources from the outside(some of whom have no real history in the subject; information they bill as "credible," but in reality fraudulent, used to make a profit), we can go straight to the source.

What I'm doing here is spreading this information. It could be wrong, but that's why I welcome other sources, provided that I can't challenge them in any way.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
But you should be more understanding of people like serb and vagabond who have to live in russia today.

Of course I am understanding!

I am filled with sorrow at the missed opportunities and despair that Russia has had for 100 years.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Propaganda
What I'm doing here is spreading this information. It could be wrong, but that's why I welcome other sources, provided that I can't challenge them in any way.

Har, har, har.

Is that why you fall back on labeling for anything you do not have a ready answer for? If someone points out that there are extensive eyewitness records of the famine, you call the witnesses fascists.

Case in point.

Originally posted by Propaganda
"Numerous?" I'd like to hear about this. The fact is, there are only a few at the forefront of this; their backgrounds completely suspect, who are profiting from this. "Ex-nationals?" Are you admitting they were fascists/nationalists at one point or another in their lives?

Now, whether you like it or not, a great many survivors of the famine made it to the West. A fair number of them told their stories. You can wail on about Conquest til you turn blue, you will not extinguish the knowledge that Stalin was one of the most brutal, murderous, and yes evil, humans to ever live.

[Alexander's Horse]

There will always be those in Russia who will defend Stalin in spite of all his evil crimes.

The reason is there is a strong belief in Russia that only a strong ruler can make Russia strong. This belief is very old and goes back at least to the days of Ivan the Terrible who defeated the Tartars and the German Teutons and united the country by ruling with iron fist. This is the myth anyway.

Stalin saw himself as someone who sometimes was harshly ruling but always for the good of the country. He identified directly with Ivan the Terrible and other tough rulers of the Russian history.

He had Sergei Eisenstadt (sp?) make a film about the life of Ivan the Terrible during the nineteen thirties. This film was shown throughout the Soviet Union and was really Stalin's way of saying what he was doing was for the good of Russia. Many Russians still believe that.

In many ways Stalin saw himself more as a modern Tsar, an absolute monarch, than a communist.

[TheStinger]

Would you want a homicidal sociopath running your country? if so, bring back Stalin

[chequita guevara]

I wonder if the people's of Africa, Asia, the Americas, New Zealand, and Australia who were cleared out to make room for capitalist enterprises would feel that our system is so much the superior. Maybe only in terms of actual numbers of people killed. Then toss in those who died from capitalist and imerialist wars, and those dying simply because they lack the ability to purhcase food and medicine. Every year capitalism kills 10 - 15 million "excess" people. In one decade, capitalism achieves a death toll equal to the most exagerated numbers of the Communists death toll.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In one decade, capitalism achieves a death toll equal to the most exagerated numbers of the Communists death toll.

But not as a matter of deliberate policy

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
But not as a matter of deliberate policy

When a director in a board room, knowing that a decision he makes will condemn millions to death and makes it anyway, it's a matter of deliberate policy. The kidnapping and slaughter of tens of millions of Africans was a matter of deliberate policy. The Belgian Congo genocide was a matter of deliberate policy. The establishing of market relations that lead to the destruction of existing markets in Asia condemned millions to poverty and death. That was a matter of deliberate policy.

[Alexander's Horse]

Now you're just being silly

[TheStinger]

I fail to see how supporting communism is the same as supporting Stalin. Why anyone on the left, right middle or martian should even remotley be apologetic for him is beyond me

[Ben Kenobi]

Since when is Solzhenitsyn a ****ing reliable source?

Propaganda:

Why is he wrong? We always approach a primary source assuming that they are telling the truth.

Solzhenitsyn counts as a primary source. What about you Propaganda? Have you lived through these times?

Are you saying your sources don't fit with my primary ideology? That cuts both ways, Propaganda.
Deal with my source, show me why he is wrong. Don't shout bias and expect people to listen.