Archives:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I know there is a source on this, but I doubt the source. Stalin was perfect in a lot of things, according to propaganda.
The subsection "Stalin and changes in Soviet society" -> "Culture and religion" currently includes this statement:
"It is widely believed that the video game icon Mario was made to look like Stalin, to promote communism".
Someone with editing rights might want to do something about this. (PROTIP: Try deleting it.)
Perhaps widely is an overstatement, but there are similarities. Whether they are intentional or not is not clear, but much like the mushroom and hallucenogens assertion they exist. I'm not an expert in citations so i dont know of a method of citing general opinion, but I've seen mentions of this idea for several years in the mass media and the internet. A google search will show plenty of "references".
Recently two Wikipedians censored an external link (Joseph Stalin: An emerging view) containing comments and views of Black scholars and intellectuals on the issues discussed here. One would expect such behavior from the Grand Wizards of the Ku Klax Klan and not from members of the Wikipedia community. LCF 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is Stalin changed to Joseph? It is common to use the last name when talking about persons. In his youth, before he took the name Stalin, would it not be better to use his last name then? Personally I think this is confusing and would prefer Stalin to be used in the whole article. Ultramarine 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Ive edited the sentence saying his height was only 5 foot 2 inches. It is clear from photographic evidence that he was at least 5'5". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.56.81 ( talk • contribs)
The 6 month bounty placed on this article has failed to deliver the conditions for improvement. :( Bad showing guys -- Steve Latinner 01:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a Stalin-apologetic, but this number is too large and should not be displayed at the beginning of the article (it gives the reader the false view that this was the correct number), at least a range should be specified Seektrue 07:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the BBC article consists of NPOV they have descriptions similar to one of the most blood-thirsty tryrants in history. Since the 4 million is the least known number, it will persuade the reader to know where the difficulties occur when estimating the number of victims.
Seektrue 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A range of 10 to 20 or 4 to 20 million sounds like a lot of guessing is going on.
-G
The figure 4 million is way too low to be accurate.
Historian Robert Conquest, who is, as you may know, one of the premier scholars on the subject of Stalin, (especially regarding the Great Purges), illustrates the point in his book, The Great Terror: A Reassessment. Therein, Conquest revisits the figures he estimated based on "thirty-odd sources" when he wrote the original The Great Terror some years before (I don't happen to have a copy of that, so I cant quote directly from there, though it really doesn't matter.) Conquest quotes thusly:
1. Arrests, 1937 - 1938 about 7 million 2. Executed about 1 million 3. Died in camps about 2 million 4. In prison, late 1938 about 1 million 5. In camps, late 1938 (assuming 5 million in camp at the end of 1936) about 8 million
I also included, from much Soviet and other testimony, that not more than 10 percent of those then in camps survived.
Those were his figures given before Glastonost and his "Reassessment". In his updated book, with citations from the new sources released between 1987 and 1989, Conquest goes on to say that
1. Arrests. [Figures] provided for the Kursk province imply a total of about 8 million for the USSR as a whole....
2. Executed: ...Figures from Irktusk imply over 1.5 million....
3. Died in camps, 1937 and 1938: ...[The 2 million figure] would include those executed in camps, who do not figure in the execution estimate above...
4. In prison, late 1938: 1 million... These last are now confirmed by Soviet accounts.
5. In camps, late 1938: ...I should be inclined to reduce the 8 million at the end of 1938 to 7 million, or even a little less.
The Great Terror was only peripherally concerned with the total casualties of the Stalin epoch. But it reckoned the dead as no fewer than 20 million. This figure is now given in the USSR.
The evidence, in short, provides that even an estimate of 10 million is quite short. Therefore, the 20 million dead number isn't an exaggeration; it's a highly viable figure based on dozens of sources, both official and unnofficial, including sources released under Glastnost. The figure was even used by the Soviets themselves before the USSR collapsed. Therefore, to say 20 million isn't to overestimate... and anything less than 10 (and perhaps anything less than 15) is certainly an understatement.
To better understand the death count, please go to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties and refer to the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.141.88 ( talk • contribs)
Ha-ha!!! The real death toll for 20th century dictators is as follows: Stalin-about 2 million, Mao-about 2 million, Hitler-40 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.202.239 ( talk • contribs)
The comment above has been written by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatGod ( talk • contribs)
From what I remember reading a while ago, the doctors plot was quite a prominent event of the final years of his life (some Jewish doctors were accused of collaborating for the "enemy" in trying to kill Stalin, which made him mad and lash out against Jews, or otherwise it was his excuse to do so). However the article itself has no mention of it in the article at all!-- Konstable 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, during his campaign against Trotsky (i.e., most of his life since 1924), Stalin made a wide use of antisemitism. Regards,
Max.
--Well, great! Monarchists writing articles about Stalin. Bias? Anyway, it wouldn't be too unlikely if people plotted against Stalin. There are theories that he was murdered. I don't think one should just dimiss the "Doctors Plot" as paranoia. Every year new information is "uncovered". Authors who want to make quick careers make some quick rumour-based research on some dictator, easy work as nobody defends supposed tyrants. It's hard to tell facts from disinformation nowadays. The whole Stalin thing should be re-investigated.
IlyaZ 23:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
From the Wikapedia entry on Molotov's wife, Polina Zhemchuzhina:
'In January, 1948, Zhemchuzhina was arrested for treason, sharing the fate of the Jewish wives of a number of other Soviet politicians: Mikhail Kalinin, A. Poskryobyshev, Semyon Budyonny, Grigoriy Kulik. On December 29, 1949, she was sentenced to 5 years of exile in Kustanai Oblast, Kazakhstan.'
Perhaps Stalin did not have a problem with them, but the Jewish wives of Soviet politicians definitely had problems with Stalin.
Well duh Jewish wives had problems with Stalin. Stalin campaigned against Trotsky, who was Jewish. Put two and two together people. I bet Stalin had problems with the Jewish people too.
I have seen sources that suggest there's a little more to Stalin's refusal to exchange his son Yakov than this article is suggesting. The Germans offered to swap him for Friedrich Paulus, the Field-Marshal who surrendered at Stalingrad. Stalin considered the request and refused, stating that a lieutenant wasn't worth a general. Later on, he was asked why he refused, and he said that as leader of the Soviet Union, he couldn't make an unequal exchange because if he did, everyone would come to him asking that their sons be exchanged. Having done it for his own son, he would not be in a position to refuse.
This paints Stalin's decision in a much different light, and given that he also denied his other son Vasily special treatment on numerous occasions, is consistent with what we know of Stalin. Jsc1973 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Vasily became a general at the age of 27, so he was infavor with his father. Stalin outsmarted himself with capture of his other son, since he signed into law that any soldier captured by the Germans is a traitor and should be shot. In this case, the only way for his son was to commit suicide or face a death squad, which he did a few years later in the german camp. This set a good example for the Russian people. Stalin sacrficed his son for the general good of the Party. Genius to the end he was.
-- It's clear you're biased when you're talking about "sacraficing his son for the general good of the Party". You've got a twisted view of reality. In what way is it the general good of the Party? It was no multi-party system. I thought most people said that Stalin was a one-man dictator. What does he care about the party then? Stalin did what was right for a man in his position. I wouldn't exchange field-marshal Paulus for anyone. That's just. IlyaZ 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
---Thou a dictator, he still had to follow certain rules. He ruled the country by fear and he was good at delivering pain, yet there were various camps within the government which opposed him ex. Bukharin and later Beria. Once decree was passed that all captured or deserters are to be shot and their families persecuted, he was in a position to either show weakness to save his son or set an example for the entire country, that even he, Stalin, will not trade his own son, who in his eyes was a traitor since he got himself captured. Clever marketing move. I suggest that you read this book: "Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives" by Edvard Radzinsky. A long read but truly fascinating depiction of Stalin.
--"By Stalin's paranoid law, any soldier captured by the Germans as a POW -- not simply collaborators, but any POW -- was a potential traitor. And the penalty for treason was death." http://www.capitalcentury.com/1945.html Hero27 04:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where to begin but this article is flawed to say the least, from absurd death tolls proved to be lies by official Russian archives to the ignoring of glaring facts that would erase the western view that Stalin was a mass murdering dictator.
Anyone interested in looking over a few examples of what I'm talking about can check these links here, I am not so good with wikipedia and editing so I'm not going to attempt any major editing on this site yet. :(
( Sissok Nagazi 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC))
"One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." A million deaths-or any lesser number-is, as anyone with any moral sense understands, a million tragedies. Stalin-like Ivan Grozny-may be admired by some in contemporary Russia as a 'strong leader.' The truth is he was a murdering gangster, the sponsor of such reptilian human beings as Yezhov and Beria, whose negligence allowed the Nazi onslaught on Russia. My dearest wish is that the Russian people-all Russian people-will one day understand that Bolshevism was a conspiracy that came close to destroying a great nation. Do not look for greatness where there is only depravity and decay.
White Guard 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It is good to remember that many of the Soviet archives are still secret. Also it's commonly known that the Soviet government was a master in propaganda, especially altering facts and hiding evidence. That's why one shoudn't take official Soviet archives as the only and real truth. Soviet union was on the winning side in the Second world war and had almost fifty years of time to cover up all Stalin's horrifying acts. The fact is that Josif Stalin murdered more people than Adolf Hilter. Please, make that fact clear on this page.
It's pretty funny that Sissok thinks that a website claiming a reduction in the number of deaths in the gulag somehow vindicates Stalin. Me, I'll stick with my grandmother's stories of escaping Lithuania after her husband was shot by GPU agents, those of my friend's grandparents, who were both imprisoned in Siberia, and of course A. Solzhenitsyn's masterful work (no doubt so easily dismissed as 'fabrication' by revisionists like him, because "Soviet archives" don't account for every worker left to die on the logging roads). 66.237.172.226
Content of this section looks as a good candidate for leaf article Stalin in the arts or Stalin in popular culture. This would keep the main article smaller and more focused. There's even category for such articles: Category:In popular culture. Pavel Vozenilek 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I read that Stalin could have met Hitler in October of 1939 or 1940. has any detail emerged over the years showing this to be true?
This Book: Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives by Edvard Radzinsky; implies that they met. Hence my question: are there any additional documents to prove this claim.
Can we please look at removing this horrible paragraph from the WWII section:
This paragraph contains three main elements:
The first element is dealt with more properly later in the article, and the second two elements do nothing but lower the quality of the article. The whole paragraph adds nothing to the article and only makes it longer and harder to read. I've removed it twice only to have it added back. What does everyone else think? Can those of you that want this paragraph back in at least explain what it adds to the article? -- C33 22:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There were a few days after the attack when Stalin was afraid of provoking Hitler any further. Really? This seems a little bit like saying that the hunter did not struggle in case he provoked the lion into eating him any further. Could you please tell me what form Stalin's inaction took? I would also be grateful for a reference. Thanks White Guard 01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
All of you should Read
John Erickson he spells it out, Stalin did not want a german attack to come under cover of an alleged Soviet attack and that the Germans were only protecting them selves. He did not want the Germans to have the ability to say we just responded to a Soviet attack, much like they had done with Poland.
AND the Red Army would have been a very skilled force by 1942 the Molotov line would have been completed lots of upgrades would have hapened and more imporantly more many more officers would have been trained. The Red army was still developing during 1941 but it was not ready and Stalin knew this. BUT this was only untill it was confirmed that war had started then Stalin demanded counter attacks.
Here is a big problem which all of you dont understand first it took Stalin about 6-9 houers to understand that this was real and not just one German General that had gone crazy.
Secondly Yes Stalin didnt allow any defences to be built except ofcurse the molotov line so the soldiers had no dug outs no anti tank ditches and so on.
And what is more important he did not allow anyone to fight back so the soldiers just stod where they were and died without fireing a shot. And airplans were blown up on the ground because they were not allowed to take off. And During a large part of 1941 german air planes had been flying over the Soviet Union takeing pictures of where everything was located and Stalin did not allow them to be shot down because he feard that this might give the germans an excuse to attack.
All of this changes when he ordered the counter attack some 6-9 houers later but then it was already to late there was no longer a front line to defend.
Bluechipser 03:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've now had a chance to look into this a little further, and Stalin's mental paralysis-if that is what it was-lasted no more than a couple of hours. It's complete nonsense to say that Russian soldiers were not allowed to fight back; Stalin simply wanted them to avoid entering German territory. White Guard 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you addressing these remarks to me? I have read The Court of the Red Tsar, and a lot more besides. My observations about 'mental paraylsis' were drawn from that particular book, and was simply a shorthand way of describing Stalin's initial inability to digest the intelligence he was receiving from the west. I urge you to be very careful about accusations of ignorance: your own spelling and grammer is atrocious, as is your second-hand understanding of Russian history and simple logic. White Guard 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Touché-too much of a hurry; too much bad temper. White Guard 00:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
So is there any chance we can come to a consensus on what should be done about the orginal paragraph? -- C33 01:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Your own amended wording seems fine to me. You might add a word or two about Stalin's initial reluctance to believe that the attack in the west had been sanctioned by Hitler. White Guard 01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. White Guard 05:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This sentence "The Soviet Red Army put up fierce resistance during the war's early stages, but they were plagued by an ineffective defense doctrine against the better-equipped, well-trained and experienced German forces." I think is not fully undisputed. There are several reasons why the "fierce resistance" can be questioned. Firstly, as I've read previously the fighting moral among non-russian soldiers, like Ukrainians, was not so high, since they sometimes saw the Germans as a sort of liberators. Only when the Soviet soldiers understood how badly the German side was treating their PoWs and the general population did the non-Russian Soviet soldiers' fighting moral improve. Secondly, other sources claim that Stalin's previous purges of their soldiers had weakened the whole army. In short this part should be rewritten, but I wanted to discuss it before making any changes. Smallchanges 12:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you spell L'viv like a kliati moskali, it is not Lvov, Kyiv is not spelled Kiev and Kharkiv is not Kharkov. And of course why would the Ukrainians fight hard for a country that tried to wipe them from the face of the earth. You moskali make me sick. The death of the soviet union was the will of the Ukrainian people! Слава Україна! Slava Ukrayina! Mykola Roscha 4:32 (CST) November 15, 2006
The text has been rewritten and everything is cited. This is the new version
Stalin had ignored numerous intelligence warnings of a German attack. [5]. He also sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke a German attack, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. A myth is that Stalin appeared unwilling to accept the fact and, according to some historians, was too stunned to react appropriately for a number of days. And this myth is dispelled by people who have looked into the Soviet Archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both Richard Overy [1] and Simon Sebag Montefiore [2] have showed that he held at least 8 major meetings the same day as the invasion.
Beenhj 12:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The only content difference is that the latter paragraph doesn't contain the UNCITED myth and explains why Stalin hesitated. If you want to include your version, you need to remove the existing paragraph, as well as provide a citation for the original "myth". Stylistically, I believe the existing paragraph is more concise, provides more information as it explains why Stalin appeared to hesitate, and fits within the flow of the article better in its current location, but I realize that is opinion. If you insist on adding content, PLEASE make sure that it isn't repeating content that already exists in the article. It's a blight on the article to have both in there. This article concerns one of the most prominent figures of the 20th century and deserves better treatment than to have information repeated every other paragraph. -- C33 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the duplicate paragraphs described above, I've waited a few days before editing, and I haven't seen any responses here, so I'll assume no one has a problem with me removing one of them. I'll leave the re-wording of the "defensive preparation" to Constanz.... --
C33 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does the first paragraph say that he was effective dictator from 1922 on? He was a leading Soviet figure from 1922 on, with arguably great behind-the-scenes influence, but he didn't really consolidate what could be called a meaningful personal dictatorship until the mid-1920s, and he wasn't unchallenged sole ruler until at least 1928. AnonMoos 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I just changed it to 1928, probably the best date, coinciding with the defeat of the Right Opposition and the beginning of the Five Year Plan. White Guard 23:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
So its clear that some think the dictator tag is POV and doesn't belong, while others think it does belong.
I don't have a problem with Stalin being called a dictator, but I think it would be more appropriate to do so later in the article. I think that the first, introductory paragraph should be constrained to a simple, concise biographical statement and refrain from opinions or value judgements. I'm not disputing the fact that he was, in fact, a dictator, but its a somewhat controversial term that requires a value judgement. I think it should be stated later in the article and not in the introduction. -- C33 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; as you wish. But where does this end? Should the same principle be extended to Hitler and Mussolini? If Stalin is not described as a dictator by what logic can we use such a description in relation to Hitler. This seems to me to be a loophole for historical revisionism, whether of a Communist or Facist variety. The opening paragraph is careful to date Stalin's dictatorship from 1928, a point at which he had overcome all opposition within the party. It is a simple statement of a factual position, not, at least in my estimation, POV. White Guard 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Along with some other users I have been fighting a rearguard action against attempts at Nazi-style revisionism on the Adolf Hitler page. If Stalin is lost what price Hitler? White Guard 01:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if he in fact was a dictator a if every article in wikipedia about leaders might state they are dictators. That doesn't mean that they are. Many people don't believe stalin to be a dictator, it is a POV statement that should be reverted. He wasn't the de facto leader, de facto means "in practice" and not by the law, Stalin was leader by law! Kiske 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Stalin was NOT leader by law; his only official position was General Secretary of the Communist Party. The official leader of the Soviet State was the President, latterly Kalinin. Stalin used his position in the Communist Party to build up unparalleled power, and by 1928 was dictator in every meaningful sense of the term. Your revisionist POV is in danger of rewriting history; for if this is allowed to prevail the same twisted logic would have to be applied to Hitler-who had far greater 'democratic' credentials than Stalin-and every other dictator. White Guard 04:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
No; he had extraordinary powers because of his position within the Communist Party. His appointment General Secretary enabled him to build up a power base far greater than any of his main contendors. Stalin's source of absolute power may have been the bureaucracy; but it was just as significant as any titular or state authority. White Guard 05:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it hardly made him invulnerable, did it? White Guard 05:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The point is Stalin used a relatively humble position to accumulate an enormous resevoir of power, which he used to ruthless effect. In considering any political question we have to look beyond appearances. We might say that the Soviet Union of Stalin's time was unique, in that party and state were effectively interchangeable. In 'becoming' the party, so to speak, Stalin also became the state. Otherwise his rise over far more talented and charismatic figures becomes inexplicable. White Guard 05:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
We have to judge all of these issues in terms of concrete political practice. I am not talking in the abstract, but of the actual conduct of affairs in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. Anyway, this deserves a whole separate section, which I now intend to write. White Guard 22:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Stalin's "Official Birthday" was December 21st. I think that should be listed in his article. (it is also my birthday ;)). Diggerjohn111 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)John LoGiudice 9/30/06 Diggerjohn111 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Stalin and Malignant Narcissitic Personality Disorder:
I am artificially creating a seperate section here entitled Psychopathology .
That's because I don't know how to create a seperate section (if anyone who knows how can help to create a new section for discussing Stalin's Psychopathology, including my post below, that would be hugley appreciated).
Nevertheless-- I would likt to kick off speculation on Stalin's psychopathology by saying that the circumstantial evidence that Joseph Stalin had NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is overwhelming. His comment that he had no feelings for other people is a classic symptom of NPD. People with this disorder can occasionally have limited feelings for others, but most of the time they feel no empathy or remorse whatsoever. They also tend to be grandiose, obsessed with power and control, and are often brilliant social manipulators.
NPD is a fairly common illness which is a rather disturbing fact-- it affects about 1 in 25 people. Most NPD's are law abiding, but tend to wreak havock, nevertheless in the lives of those around them. And they are very attracted to positions of power. The magnitude of damage that someone with NPD cause (Stalin and Hitler are two very likely candidates, for example) makes understanding and discussing this disorder of paramount importance for the well being of society, not to mention world security. NPDs tend to be expert deceivers (camelionlike in their pursuit of power and ruthless in very underhamded ways-- until enough power is ammassed that they need no longer hide their ruthlessness). Understanding them better and learning how to detect them and deal with them (legally of course) is of paramount importance to us all. They are, without exaggeration, the demons who live among us.
168.103.82.104 00:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've had a debate with one or two people recently about the correctness-and desirability- of labeling Stalin as a 'Dictator'. Perhaps it would be best if I try to clarify the position, in the hope that some people at least might be convinced.
If we go back to the very early days of Bolshevism we can see that Lenin was eager to establish a political model based on action, not on debate and dissent. After the second congress of the RSDP in 1903, and the split in the party, Trotsky was one of the first to recognize the implications of the new concept of 'democratic centralism', always much more centralist than democratic. It would set in train, he maintained, a process whereby the party was substituted for the people, the central committee for the party, a small politburo for the central committee and eventually a single man for the politburo. After the Revolution all of these tendencies were confirmed, freedom reducing in ever diminishing circles. Actions against counter-revolutionaries became actions against fellow socialists and then actions against dissent within the Bolshevik party itself. By 1924 Trotsky-once again-was showing remarkable prescience, predicting what he called 'the gravedigger of the Party of the Revolution.';
The dialectics of history have already hooked him and will raise him up. He is needed by all of them, by the tired radicals, by the bureaucrats, by the nepmen, by the kulaks, by the upstarts, by all the sneaks that are crawling out of the upturned soil of the revolution...He speaks their language, and knows how to lead them. Stalin will become the dictator of the USSR.
Why Stalin? Why not, in a country where the party was the state and the state the party; for in 1922 Stalin, it might be said, 'became' the party. As a political tactician, moreover, his skills were superb. In taking the post of General Secretary in 1922 he acquired huge poweres of bureaucratic patronage, which he used with ruthless effect. Control of the Secretariat and the Orgburu-when combined with notions of democratic centralism-meant by the late 1920s to criticise Stalin was, at one and the same time, to criticise the party line, a cardinal sin. Throughout the 1920s he used his position to outwit and outmaneuver all of his main political rivals. With the defeat of the Right Opposition and the beginning of the Five Year Plan in 1928 his position within the party-and the cult of personality that flowed from this position-gave him far greater authority than even Lenin had enjoyed in his lifetime. Elsewhere in Europe at the time only Mussolini might be said to rival his position; but there were distinct limits on Il Duce's powers-not least of which was the existence of rival centres of authority; there were very few on Stalin's. So, I can only echo Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, who in his A History of Russia says quite simply "...Stalin's rivals failed to heed Lenin's late forebodings, and, before too long, Stalin's Party machine rolled over all opponents. The complete personal dictatorship which began in 1928 was to last until the dictator's death in 1953." (New York, 1993, p. 493).
It seems a pity that I have to defend this position; but I cannot in all conscience exclude Stalin from the dictator category: for to do so would allow Hitler, Mussolini and all the others out of the bag as well. Stalin's power may have been bureaucratic rather than charismatic-party rather than state based; but it was no less real for all that. White Guard 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Your all arguments are inrelated with my statements. I do not argue whether Stalin was dictator. I only argue that this is a matter of POV. In fact in Wikipedia "dictators" labelled only those who labelled so by Western media, while when you try to label so another person (who also is definitely dictator by any definition) would be quickly reverted. You say "go to the other talk pages", but users of those talk pages would also say "go to Stalin' talk and dont argue here, we think labelling somebody dictator is POV". I already expressed that I also think we should not use this word until it is self-definition of the person. Please dont make me breakong WP:Point rule trying to illustrate my point of view by reducing to absurdum.-- Nixer 16:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Archives:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I know there is a source on this, but I doubt the source. Stalin was perfect in a lot of things, according to propaganda.
The subsection "Stalin and changes in Soviet society" -> "Culture and religion" currently includes this statement:
"It is widely believed that the video game icon Mario was made to look like Stalin, to promote communism".
Someone with editing rights might want to do something about this. (PROTIP: Try deleting it.)
Perhaps widely is an overstatement, but there are similarities. Whether they are intentional or not is not clear, but much like the mushroom and hallucenogens assertion they exist. I'm not an expert in citations so i dont know of a method of citing general opinion, but I've seen mentions of this idea for several years in the mass media and the internet. A google search will show plenty of "references".
Recently two Wikipedians censored an external link (Joseph Stalin: An emerging view) containing comments and views of Black scholars and intellectuals on the issues discussed here. One would expect such behavior from the Grand Wizards of the Ku Klax Klan and not from members of the Wikipedia community. LCF 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is Stalin changed to Joseph? It is common to use the last name when talking about persons. In his youth, before he took the name Stalin, would it not be better to use his last name then? Personally I think this is confusing and would prefer Stalin to be used in the whole article. Ultramarine 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Ive edited the sentence saying his height was only 5 foot 2 inches. It is clear from photographic evidence that he was at least 5'5". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.56.81 ( talk • contribs)
The 6 month bounty placed on this article has failed to deliver the conditions for improvement. :( Bad showing guys -- Steve Latinner 01:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a Stalin-apologetic, but this number is too large and should not be displayed at the beginning of the article (it gives the reader the false view that this was the correct number), at least a range should be specified Seektrue 07:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the BBC article consists of NPOV they have descriptions similar to one of the most blood-thirsty tryrants in history. Since the 4 million is the least known number, it will persuade the reader to know where the difficulties occur when estimating the number of victims.
Seektrue 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A range of 10 to 20 or 4 to 20 million sounds like a lot of guessing is going on.
-G
The figure 4 million is way too low to be accurate.
Historian Robert Conquest, who is, as you may know, one of the premier scholars on the subject of Stalin, (especially regarding the Great Purges), illustrates the point in his book, The Great Terror: A Reassessment. Therein, Conquest revisits the figures he estimated based on "thirty-odd sources" when he wrote the original The Great Terror some years before (I don't happen to have a copy of that, so I cant quote directly from there, though it really doesn't matter.) Conquest quotes thusly:
1. Arrests, 1937 - 1938 about 7 million 2. Executed about 1 million 3. Died in camps about 2 million 4. In prison, late 1938 about 1 million 5. In camps, late 1938 (assuming 5 million in camp at the end of 1936) about 8 million
I also included, from much Soviet and other testimony, that not more than 10 percent of those then in camps survived.
Those were his figures given before Glastonost and his "Reassessment". In his updated book, with citations from the new sources released between 1987 and 1989, Conquest goes on to say that
1. Arrests. [Figures] provided for the Kursk province imply a total of about 8 million for the USSR as a whole....
2. Executed: ...Figures from Irktusk imply over 1.5 million....
3. Died in camps, 1937 and 1938: ...[The 2 million figure] would include those executed in camps, who do not figure in the execution estimate above...
4. In prison, late 1938: 1 million... These last are now confirmed by Soviet accounts.
5. In camps, late 1938: ...I should be inclined to reduce the 8 million at the end of 1938 to 7 million, or even a little less.
The Great Terror was only peripherally concerned with the total casualties of the Stalin epoch. But it reckoned the dead as no fewer than 20 million. This figure is now given in the USSR.
The evidence, in short, provides that even an estimate of 10 million is quite short. Therefore, the 20 million dead number isn't an exaggeration; it's a highly viable figure based on dozens of sources, both official and unnofficial, including sources released under Glastnost. The figure was even used by the Soviets themselves before the USSR collapsed. Therefore, to say 20 million isn't to overestimate... and anything less than 10 (and perhaps anything less than 15) is certainly an understatement.
To better understand the death count, please go to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties and refer to the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.141.88 ( talk • contribs)
Ha-ha!!! The real death toll for 20th century dictators is as follows: Stalin-about 2 million, Mao-about 2 million, Hitler-40 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.202.239 ( talk • contribs)
The comment above has been written by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatGod ( talk • contribs)
From what I remember reading a while ago, the doctors plot was quite a prominent event of the final years of his life (some Jewish doctors were accused of collaborating for the "enemy" in trying to kill Stalin, which made him mad and lash out against Jews, or otherwise it was his excuse to do so). However the article itself has no mention of it in the article at all!-- Konstable 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, during his campaign against Trotsky (i.e., most of his life since 1924), Stalin made a wide use of antisemitism. Regards,
Max.
--Well, great! Monarchists writing articles about Stalin. Bias? Anyway, it wouldn't be too unlikely if people plotted against Stalin. There are theories that he was murdered. I don't think one should just dimiss the "Doctors Plot" as paranoia. Every year new information is "uncovered". Authors who want to make quick careers make some quick rumour-based research on some dictator, easy work as nobody defends supposed tyrants. It's hard to tell facts from disinformation nowadays. The whole Stalin thing should be re-investigated.
IlyaZ 23:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
From the Wikapedia entry on Molotov's wife, Polina Zhemchuzhina:
'In January, 1948, Zhemchuzhina was arrested for treason, sharing the fate of the Jewish wives of a number of other Soviet politicians: Mikhail Kalinin, A. Poskryobyshev, Semyon Budyonny, Grigoriy Kulik. On December 29, 1949, she was sentenced to 5 years of exile in Kustanai Oblast, Kazakhstan.'
Perhaps Stalin did not have a problem with them, but the Jewish wives of Soviet politicians definitely had problems with Stalin.
Well duh Jewish wives had problems with Stalin. Stalin campaigned against Trotsky, who was Jewish. Put two and two together people. I bet Stalin had problems with the Jewish people too.
I have seen sources that suggest there's a little more to Stalin's refusal to exchange his son Yakov than this article is suggesting. The Germans offered to swap him for Friedrich Paulus, the Field-Marshal who surrendered at Stalingrad. Stalin considered the request and refused, stating that a lieutenant wasn't worth a general. Later on, he was asked why he refused, and he said that as leader of the Soviet Union, he couldn't make an unequal exchange because if he did, everyone would come to him asking that their sons be exchanged. Having done it for his own son, he would not be in a position to refuse.
This paints Stalin's decision in a much different light, and given that he also denied his other son Vasily special treatment on numerous occasions, is consistent with what we know of Stalin. Jsc1973 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Vasily became a general at the age of 27, so he was infavor with his father. Stalin outsmarted himself with capture of his other son, since he signed into law that any soldier captured by the Germans is a traitor and should be shot. In this case, the only way for his son was to commit suicide or face a death squad, which he did a few years later in the german camp. This set a good example for the Russian people. Stalin sacrficed his son for the general good of the Party. Genius to the end he was.
-- It's clear you're biased when you're talking about "sacraficing his son for the general good of the Party". You've got a twisted view of reality. In what way is it the general good of the Party? It was no multi-party system. I thought most people said that Stalin was a one-man dictator. What does he care about the party then? Stalin did what was right for a man in his position. I wouldn't exchange field-marshal Paulus for anyone. That's just. IlyaZ 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
---Thou a dictator, he still had to follow certain rules. He ruled the country by fear and he was good at delivering pain, yet there were various camps within the government which opposed him ex. Bukharin and later Beria. Once decree was passed that all captured or deserters are to be shot and their families persecuted, he was in a position to either show weakness to save his son or set an example for the entire country, that even he, Stalin, will not trade his own son, who in his eyes was a traitor since he got himself captured. Clever marketing move. I suggest that you read this book: "Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives" by Edvard Radzinsky. A long read but truly fascinating depiction of Stalin.
--"By Stalin's paranoid law, any soldier captured by the Germans as a POW -- not simply collaborators, but any POW -- was a potential traitor. And the penalty for treason was death." http://www.capitalcentury.com/1945.html Hero27 04:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where to begin but this article is flawed to say the least, from absurd death tolls proved to be lies by official Russian archives to the ignoring of glaring facts that would erase the western view that Stalin was a mass murdering dictator.
Anyone interested in looking over a few examples of what I'm talking about can check these links here, I am not so good with wikipedia and editing so I'm not going to attempt any major editing on this site yet. :(
( Sissok Nagazi 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC))
"One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." A million deaths-or any lesser number-is, as anyone with any moral sense understands, a million tragedies. Stalin-like Ivan Grozny-may be admired by some in contemporary Russia as a 'strong leader.' The truth is he was a murdering gangster, the sponsor of such reptilian human beings as Yezhov and Beria, whose negligence allowed the Nazi onslaught on Russia. My dearest wish is that the Russian people-all Russian people-will one day understand that Bolshevism was a conspiracy that came close to destroying a great nation. Do not look for greatness where there is only depravity and decay.
White Guard 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It is good to remember that many of the Soviet archives are still secret. Also it's commonly known that the Soviet government was a master in propaganda, especially altering facts and hiding evidence. That's why one shoudn't take official Soviet archives as the only and real truth. Soviet union was on the winning side in the Second world war and had almost fifty years of time to cover up all Stalin's horrifying acts. The fact is that Josif Stalin murdered more people than Adolf Hilter. Please, make that fact clear on this page.
It's pretty funny that Sissok thinks that a website claiming a reduction in the number of deaths in the gulag somehow vindicates Stalin. Me, I'll stick with my grandmother's stories of escaping Lithuania after her husband was shot by GPU agents, those of my friend's grandparents, who were both imprisoned in Siberia, and of course A. Solzhenitsyn's masterful work (no doubt so easily dismissed as 'fabrication' by revisionists like him, because "Soviet archives" don't account for every worker left to die on the logging roads). 66.237.172.226
Content of this section looks as a good candidate for leaf article Stalin in the arts or Stalin in popular culture. This would keep the main article smaller and more focused. There's even category for such articles: Category:In popular culture. Pavel Vozenilek 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I read that Stalin could have met Hitler in October of 1939 or 1940. has any detail emerged over the years showing this to be true?
This Book: Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives by Edvard Radzinsky; implies that they met. Hence my question: are there any additional documents to prove this claim.
Can we please look at removing this horrible paragraph from the WWII section:
This paragraph contains three main elements:
The first element is dealt with more properly later in the article, and the second two elements do nothing but lower the quality of the article. The whole paragraph adds nothing to the article and only makes it longer and harder to read. I've removed it twice only to have it added back. What does everyone else think? Can those of you that want this paragraph back in at least explain what it adds to the article? -- C33 22:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There were a few days after the attack when Stalin was afraid of provoking Hitler any further. Really? This seems a little bit like saying that the hunter did not struggle in case he provoked the lion into eating him any further. Could you please tell me what form Stalin's inaction took? I would also be grateful for a reference. Thanks White Guard 01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
All of you should Read
John Erickson he spells it out, Stalin did not want a german attack to come under cover of an alleged Soviet attack and that the Germans were only protecting them selves. He did not want the Germans to have the ability to say we just responded to a Soviet attack, much like they had done with Poland.
AND the Red Army would have been a very skilled force by 1942 the Molotov line would have been completed lots of upgrades would have hapened and more imporantly more many more officers would have been trained. The Red army was still developing during 1941 but it was not ready and Stalin knew this. BUT this was only untill it was confirmed that war had started then Stalin demanded counter attacks.
Here is a big problem which all of you dont understand first it took Stalin about 6-9 houers to understand that this was real and not just one German General that had gone crazy.
Secondly Yes Stalin didnt allow any defences to be built except ofcurse the molotov line so the soldiers had no dug outs no anti tank ditches and so on.
And what is more important he did not allow anyone to fight back so the soldiers just stod where they were and died without fireing a shot. And airplans were blown up on the ground because they were not allowed to take off. And During a large part of 1941 german air planes had been flying over the Soviet Union takeing pictures of where everything was located and Stalin did not allow them to be shot down because he feard that this might give the germans an excuse to attack.
All of this changes when he ordered the counter attack some 6-9 houers later but then it was already to late there was no longer a front line to defend.
Bluechipser 03:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've now had a chance to look into this a little further, and Stalin's mental paralysis-if that is what it was-lasted no more than a couple of hours. It's complete nonsense to say that Russian soldiers were not allowed to fight back; Stalin simply wanted them to avoid entering German territory. White Guard 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you addressing these remarks to me? I have read The Court of the Red Tsar, and a lot more besides. My observations about 'mental paraylsis' were drawn from that particular book, and was simply a shorthand way of describing Stalin's initial inability to digest the intelligence he was receiving from the west. I urge you to be very careful about accusations of ignorance: your own spelling and grammer is atrocious, as is your second-hand understanding of Russian history and simple logic. White Guard 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Touché-too much of a hurry; too much bad temper. White Guard 00:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
So is there any chance we can come to a consensus on what should be done about the orginal paragraph? -- C33 01:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Your own amended wording seems fine to me. You might add a word or two about Stalin's initial reluctance to believe that the attack in the west had been sanctioned by Hitler. White Guard 01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. White Guard 05:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This sentence "The Soviet Red Army put up fierce resistance during the war's early stages, but they were plagued by an ineffective defense doctrine against the better-equipped, well-trained and experienced German forces." I think is not fully undisputed. There are several reasons why the "fierce resistance" can be questioned. Firstly, as I've read previously the fighting moral among non-russian soldiers, like Ukrainians, was not so high, since they sometimes saw the Germans as a sort of liberators. Only when the Soviet soldiers understood how badly the German side was treating their PoWs and the general population did the non-Russian Soviet soldiers' fighting moral improve. Secondly, other sources claim that Stalin's previous purges of their soldiers had weakened the whole army. In short this part should be rewritten, but I wanted to discuss it before making any changes. Smallchanges 12:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you spell L'viv like a kliati moskali, it is not Lvov, Kyiv is not spelled Kiev and Kharkiv is not Kharkov. And of course why would the Ukrainians fight hard for a country that tried to wipe them from the face of the earth. You moskali make me sick. The death of the soviet union was the will of the Ukrainian people! Слава Україна! Slava Ukrayina! Mykola Roscha 4:32 (CST) November 15, 2006
The text has been rewritten and everything is cited. This is the new version
Stalin had ignored numerous intelligence warnings of a German attack. [5]. He also sought to avoid any obvious defensive preparation which might provoke a German attack, in the hope of buying time to modernize and strengthen his military forces. A myth is that Stalin appeared unwilling to accept the fact and, according to some historians, was too stunned to react appropriately for a number of days. And this myth is dispelled by people who have looked into the Soviet Archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both Richard Overy [1] and Simon Sebag Montefiore [2] have showed that he held at least 8 major meetings the same day as the invasion.
Beenhj 12:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The only content difference is that the latter paragraph doesn't contain the UNCITED myth and explains why Stalin hesitated. If you want to include your version, you need to remove the existing paragraph, as well as provide a citation for the original "myth". Stylistically, I believe the existing paragraph is more concise, provides more information as it explains why Stalin appeared to hesitate, and fits within the flow of the article better in its current location, but I realize that is opinion. If you insist on adding content, PLEASE make sure that it isn't repeating content that already exists in the article. It's a blight on the article to have both in there. This article concerns one of the most prominent figures of the 20th century and deserves better treatment than to have information repeated every other paragraph. -- C33 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the duplicate paragraphs described above, I've waited a few days before editing, and I haven't seen any responses here, so I'll assume no one has a problem with me removing one of them. I'll leave the re-wording of the "defensive preparation" to Constanz.... --
C33 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does the first paragraph say that he was effective dictator from 1922 on? He was a leading Soviet figure from 1922 on, with arguably great behind-the-scenes influence, but he didn't really consolidate what could be called a meaningful personal dictatorship until the mid-1920s, and he wasn't unchallenged sole ruler until at least 1928. AnonMoos 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I just changed it to 1928, probably the best date, coinciding with the defeat of the Right Opposition and the beginning of the Five Year Plan. White Guard 23:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
So its clear that some think the dictator tag is POV and doesn't belong, while others think it does belong.
I don't have a problem with Stalin being called a dictator, but I think it would be more appropriate to do so later in the article. I think that the first, introductory paragraph should be constrained to a simple, concise biographical statement and refrain from opinions or value judgements. I'm not disputing the fact that he was, in fact, a dictator, but its a somewhat controversial term that requires a value judgement. I think it should be stated later in the article and not in the introduction. -- C33 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; as you wish. But where does this end? Should the same principle be extended to Hitler and Mussolini? If Stalin is not described as a dictator by what logic can we use such a description in relation to Hitler. This seems to me to be a loophole for historical revisionism, whether of a Communist or Facist variety. The opening paragraph is careful to date Stalin's dictatorship from 1928, a point at which he had overcome all opposition within the party. It is a simple statement of a factual position, not, at least in my estimation, POV. White Guard 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Along with some other users I have been fighting a rearguard action against attempts at Nazi-style revisionism on the Adolf Hitler page. If Stalin is lost what price Hitler? White Guard 01:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if he in fact was a dictator a if every article in wikipedia about leaders might state they are dictators. That doesn't mean that they are. Many people don't believe stalin to be a dictator, it is a POV statement that should be reverted. He wasn't the de facto leader, de facto means "in practice" and not by the law, Stalin was leader by law! Kiske 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Stalin was NOT leader by law; his only official position was General Secretary of the Communist Party. The official leader of the Soviet State was the President, latterly Kalinin. Stalin used his position in the Communist Party to build up unparalleled power, and by 1928 was dictator in every meaningful sense of the term. Your revisionist POV is in danger of rewriting history; for if this is allowed to prevail the same twisted logic would have to be applied to Hitler-who had far greater 'democratic' credentials than Stalin-and every other dictator. White Guard 04:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
No; he had extraordinary powers because of his position within the Communist Party. His appointment General Secretary enabled him to build up a power base far greater than any of his main contendors. Stalin's source of absolute power may have been the bureaucracy; but it was just as significant as any titular or state authority. White Guard 05:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it hardly made him invulnerable, did it? White Guard 05:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The point is Stalin used a relatively humble position to accumulate an enormous resevoir of power, which he used to ruthless effect. In considering any political question we have to look beyond appearances. We might say that the Soviet Union of Stalin's time was unique, in that party and state were effectively interchangeable. In 'becoming' the party, so to speak, Stalin also became the state. Otherwise his rise over far more talented and charismatic figures becomes inexplicable. White Guard 05:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
We have to judge all of these issues in terms of concrete political practice. I am not talking in the abstract, but of the actual conduct of affairs in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. Anyway, this deserves a whole separate section, which I now intend to write. White Guard 22:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Stalin's "Official Birthday" was December 21st. I think that should be listed in his article. (it is also my birthday ;)). Diggerjohn111 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)John LoGiudice 9/30/06 Diggerjohn111 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Stalin and Malignant Narcissitic Personality Disorder:
I am artificially creating a seperate section here entitled Psychopathology .
That's because I don't know how to create a seperate section (if anyone who knows how can help to create a new section for discussing Stalin's Psychopathology, including my post below, that would be hugley appreciated).
Nevertheless-- I would likt to kick off speculation on Stalin's psychopathology by saying that the circumstantial evidence that Joseph Stalin had NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is overwhelming. His comment that he had no feelings for other people is a classic symptom of NPD. People with this disorder can occasionally have limited feelings for others, but most of the time they feel no empathy or remorse whatsoever. They also tend to be grandiose, obsessed with power and control, and are often brilliant social manipulators.
NPD is a fairly common illness which is a rather disturbing fact-- it affects about 1 in 25 people. Most NPD's are law abiding, but tend to wreak havock, nevertheless in the lives of those around them. And they are very attracted to positions of power. The magnitude of damage that someone with NPD cause (Stalin and Hitler are two very likely candidates, for example) makes understanding and discussing this disorder of paramount importance for the well being of society, not to mention world security. NPDs tend to be expert deceivers (camelionlike in their pursuit of power and ruthless in very underhamded ways-- until enough power is ammassed that they need no longer hide their ruthlessness). Understanding them better and learning how to detect them and deal with them (legally of course) is of paramount importance to us all. They are, without exaggeration, the demons who live among us.
168.103.82.104 00:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've had a debate with one or two people recently about the correctness-and desirability- of labeling Stalin as a 'Dictator'. Perhaps it would be best if I try to clarify the position, in the hope that some people at least might be convinced.
If we go back to the very early days of Bolshevism we can see that Lenin was eager to establish a political model based on action, not on debate and dissent. After the second congress of the RSDP in 1903, and the split in the party, Trotsky was one of the first to recognize the implications of the new concept of 'democratic centralism', always much more centralist than democratic. It would set in train, he maintained, a process whereby the party was substituted for the people, the central committee for the party, a small politburo for the central committee and eventually a single man for the politburo. After the Revolution all of these tendencies were confirmed, freedom reducing in ever diminishing circles. Actions against counter-revolutionaries became actions against fellow socialists and then actions against dissent within the Bolshevik party itself. By 1924 Trotsky-once again-was showing remarkable prescience, predicting what he called 'the gravedigger of the Party of the Revolution.';
The dialectics of history have already hooked him and will raise him up. He is needed by all of them, by the tired radicals, by the bureaucrats, by the nepmen, by the kulaks, by the upstarts, by all the sneaks that are crawling out of the upturned soil of the revolution...He speaks their language, and knows how to lead them. Stalin will become the dictator of the USSR.
Why Stalin? Why not, in a country where the party was the state and the state the party; for in 1922 Stalin, it might be said, 'became' the party. As a political tactician, moreover, his skills were superb. In taking the post of General Secretary in 1922 he acquired huge poweres of bureaucratic patronage, which he used with ruthless effect. Control of the Secretariat and the Orgburu-when combined with notions of democratic centralism-meant by the late 1920s to criticise Stalin was, at one and the same time, to criticise the party line, a cardinal sin. Throughout the 1920s he used his position to outwit and outmaneuver all of his main political rivals. With the defeat of the Right Opposition and the beginning of the Five Year Plan in 1928 his position within the party-and the cult of personality that flowed from this position-gave him far greater authority than even Lenin had enjoyed in his lifetime. Elsewhere in Europe at the time only Mussolini might be said to rival his position; but there were distinct limits on Il Duce's powers-not least of which was the existence of rival centres of authority; there were very few on Stalin's. So, I can only echo Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, who in his A History of Russia says quite simply "...Stalin's rivals failed to heed Lenin's late forebodings, and, before too long, Stalin's Party machine rolled over all opponents. The complete personal dictatorship which began in 1928 was to last until the dictator's death in 1953." (New York, 1993, p. 493).
It seems a pity that I have to defend this position; but I cannot in all conscience exclude Stalin from the dictator category: for to do so would allow Hitler, Mussolini and all the others out of the bag as well. Stalin's power may have been bureaucratic rather than charismatic-party rather than state based; but it was no less real for all that. White Guard 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Your all arguments are inrelated with my statements. I do not argue whether Stalin was dictator. I only argue that this is a matter of POV. In fact in Wikipedia "dictators" labelled only those who labelled so by Western media, while when you try to label so another person (who also is definitely dictator by any definition) would be quickly reverted. You say "go to the other talk pages", but users of those talk pages would also say "go to Stalin' talk and dont argue here, we think labelling somebody dictator is POV". I already expressed that I also think we should not use this word until it is self-definition of the person. Please dont make me breakong WP:Point rule trying to illustrate my point of view by reducing to absurdum.-- Nixer 16:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |