NationStates Jolt Archive

I am currently studying Stalin, much against my will, at school, and am frankly shocked people refer to Hitler as in any manner more deplorable than him. Stalin contrived to kill upwards of 20 million of his own populace in essentially unjustifis purges and massacres, whilst then proceeding to butcher a further "10 million entirely unnecessary youths" (Keegan) in the "great patriotic war", cumlatively 90% of Russian male youths between the ages of 18 and 30. Given the utter intellectual incompetance of the fellow, his sole trait being, as Lenin relates, "industrial mediocrity", and his character that of, in the words of Sukhanov a "grey blur", he is quite evdiently the most deplorable and objectionable dictator of eternity, and evidence of quite the utter fallacy and inevitable result of communism.

I am currently studying Stalin, much against my will, at school, and am frankly shocked people refer to Hitler as in any manner more deplorable than him. Stalin contrived to kill upwards of 20 million of his own populace in essentially unjustifis purges and massacres, whilst then proceeding to butcher a further "10 million entirely unnecessary youths" (Keegan) in the "great patriotic war", cumlatively 90% of Russian male youths between the ages of 18 and 30. Given the utter intellectual incompetance of the fellow, his sole trait being, as Lenin relates, "industrial mediocrity", and his character that of, in the words of Sukhanov a "grey blur", he is quite evdiently the most deplorable and objectionable dictator of eternity, and evidence of quite the utter fallacy and inevitable result of communism.

Friend, try reading about Communism before you spout off about it.

In Communism there is no government so there can be no dictator. Russia was Leninist and then Stalinist, never Communist.

In Communism there is no government

ROFLMAO. Then who enforces the command economy?

I am currently studying Stalin, much against my will, at school, and am frankly shocked people refer to Hitler as in any manner more deplorable than him. Stalin contrived to kill upwards of 20 million of his own populace in essentially unjustifis purges and massacres, whilst then proceeding to butcher a further "10 million entirely unnecessary youths" (Keegan) in the "great patriotic war", cumlatively 90% of Russian male youths between the ages of 18 and 30. Given the utter intellectual incompetance of the fellow, his sole trait being, as Lenin relates, "industrial mediocrity", and his character that of, in the words of Sukhanov a "grey blur", he is quite evdiently the most deplorable and objectionable dictator of eternity, and evidence of quite the utter fallacy and inevitable result of communism.

*sigh*
Standard rookie historian mistake. Stalin not Communist. Stalin = Totalitarian.
If you read Marx you will see WHY he, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Castro and so forth, cannot be considered as Communist.

Friend, try reading about Communism before you spout off about it.

In Communism there is no government so there can be no dictator. Russia was Leninist and then Stalinist, never Communist.

My dear fellow, the signal flaw in communism, beyond its utetr immorality and untenability, is that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat period, wherein the Bourgeois are "justifiably" suppressed, facilitates the ascension of one self-aggrandizing individual to power, and accordingly the establishment of a totalitarian state.

Try reading Trotsky.

Friend, try reading about Communism before you spout off about it.

In Communism there is no government so there can be no dictator. Russia was Leninist and then Stalinist, never Communist.
Did you ever wonder why there never was a true communist nation? Doesn't that make you kinda believe that communism may be impossible?

*sigh*
Standard rookie historian mistake. Stalin not Communist. Stalin = Totalitarian.
If you read Marx you will see WHY he, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Castro and so forth, cannot be considered as Communist.

My point, to an extent. Dictators such as Stalin, Mao and Kim Jon Il (Lenin was arguably more authoritarian than totalitarian) are the inevitable resultant of the infusion of communism with humanity, its abuse for political advancement, and the according abuses it engenders.

Did you ever wonder why there never was a true communist nation? Doesn't that make you kinda believe that communism may be impossible?

On a large scale, yes.

However if you were to break it down to a smaller city or city-state level, then it could be possible. (See Paris Commune)

But, yes, I agree with you that due to Man's inalienable nature to screw up, its never really feasible.

Mao was worse.

Hitler and the Nazis get the bad rap because they did it in other people's countries. It's pretty much an unwritten law - moreso back then - that you can do what you want to your own population. Only when you start exporting it do you get into trouble. Something to do with the thirty years war I would imagine.

My point, to an extent. Dictators such as Stalin, Mao and Kim Jon Il (Lenin was arguably more authoritarian than totalitarian) are the inevitable resultant of the infusion of communism with humanity, its abuse for political advancement, and the according abuses it engenders.

Try reading up on the Paris Commune 1870-71 I think. That is more in line with Marxist thought- quite an interesting topic too.

Can I just say that in Communism, or Marxism atleast, there is a state, but it's really just supposed to exist until the people are able to work collectively for the good of the community, anarchism is a stateless society. Also Lenninism is a form of Marxism, which is a form of Communism. Stalinism is a (twisted) form of Leninism, I suppose, but whether you can call it 'Stalinism' is arguable as Stalin rarely (if ever) wrote any of his ideas down. And can I just add that Stalinism is not necessarily the 'inevitable result of communism'. You could make an argument for it being the result of Leninism, or even (at a stretch) Marxism, but not Communism. If we look historically, tribal societies, notably Celtic and African, could be described as communistic as people lived in collectively run communes, electing a 'wise man' figure head to represent the tribe, or having a chief born into his roll, but in each society the people always lived off the land, only taking what they needed and equally distributing it throughout their community.

Mao was worse.

Hitler and the Nazis get the bad rap because they did it in other people's countries. It's pretty much an unwritten law - moreso back then - that you can do what you want to your own population. Only when you start exporting it do you get into trouble. Something to do with the thirty years war I would imagine.

I must confess the cultural revolution was a travesty, however it is, to my mind irrefutable that a totalitarian state of any manner engenders a dislike for, and assualt upon, true intellectual and cultural pursuits.

Friend, try reading about Communism before you spout off about it.

In Communism there is no government so there can be no dictator. Russia was Leninist and then Stalinist, never Communist.


This borders on dishonesty.

The only relevant notion of "communism" is the historical one, idealizations and utopias are dismissed out of hand as pure fiction.

My only fault with the great Georgi Zhukov is that he didnt shoot Stalin in the face or strangle or knife or beat him to death.

Funny how during the Cold War, nary a peep of protest was heard from communists regarding these countries. All their genocides, atrocities, etc. were either played down, ignored, or denied. It was only after the "collapse" of the U.S.S.R. that they began to condemn it, and only then because they were interested in salvaging their own reputations, not because they genuinely showed cared about the victims in those countries.

My only fault with the great Georgi Zhukov is that he didnt shoot Stalin in the face or strangle or knife or beat him to death.

Mine is his defending a communist state, but thats me...

Mine is his defending a communist state, but thats me...


So you'd rather that he'd sabotaged the war effort and let Hitler take the USSR?

Stallin is my favorite oppressive dicator he was the best at what he did:sniper:

I am currently studying Stalin, much against my will, at school, and am frankly shocked people refer to Hitler as in any manner more deplorable than him. Stalin contrived to kill upwards of 20 million of his own populace in essentially unjustifis purges and massacres, whilst then proceeding to butcher a further "10 million entirely unnecessary youths" (Keegan) in the "great patriotic war", cumlatively 90% of Russian male youths between the ages of 18 and 30. Given the utter intellectual incompetance of the fellow, his sole trait being, as Lenin relates, "industrial mediocrity", and his character that of, in the words of Sukhanov a "grey blur", he is quite evdiently the most deplorable and objectionable dictator of eternity, and evidence of quite the utter fallacy and inevitable result of communism.
He couldn't hqve killed 20 million people, then the number of people in presant day russia, and other ex soviet states would be a lot smaller, what you have been toled are nothing but lies.




"10 million entirely unnecessary youths"

This i did not understand, but i can give you a fact..

Soviet losses in world war 2 were 5 million KIA 2 million POW that were killed in german camps, this was at the start of thew ar only, becouse the soviets were not preperad for the attack, and most of the man taken had not yet been given a gun, 13 million civilian losses.....

People killed or who were either killed by stalin, or taken to the gulags were about 5 million.. This from the time he came to power to his death

Hitler killed 6 million jews and another 5 million other etnich groups in his death camps..... and quite a number 13 million soviet civilians in waf crimes..


So here you go, belive what ever the fuck you want but here are the numbers...

Also The British killed more then 10 million in their coloneys during the war to keep the economy going, a lot of poeple died of hunger as they were forced to work for the british, this is ofcourse not told in western schools...

Funny how during the Cold War, nary a peep of protest was heard from communists regarding these countries. All their genocides, atrocities, etc. were either played down, ignored, or denied. It was only after the "collapse" of the U.S.S.R. that they began to condemn it, and only then because they were interested in salvaging their own reputations, not because they genuinely showed cared about the victims in those countries.

Well the purges in Stalins tinme weren't widely known outside of the USSR until Khrushchev.

Mao i think was many many years later. And even on top of that, for Communist sympathisers abroad there was still the case for sifting through the 'capitalist' propaganda.

Having said that, its people like Sartre that I have no time for.

So you'd rather that he'd sabotaged the war effort and let Hitler take the USSR?

I would have used Hitler to defeat Stalin, the dispensed with him, since Fascism is considrably easier to combat than communism, notably given the size of the nations in question.

Well the purges in Stalins tinme weren't widely known outside of the USSR until Khrushchev.

Because communist atrocities were often covered up by the media. Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize in the early 30's for his coverage of Russia (which included covering up the Ukrainian famine). In the 1940s, the media portrayed Mao as an "agrarian reformer," and "man of the people." In the 50's, Castro's acts of terrorism received no coverage, while every act of violence committed by the Batista dictatorship was front-page news. Everywhere, from Rhodesia to China to Indochina to Central America, anticommunists, whether good or bad, were painted as cruel and heartless tyrants, while the communists- no matter how much blood they had on their hands- were "freedom fighters," "agrarian reformers," etc. It's not that communists were unaware of the atrocities. They just never had the decency or the principle to condemn them. In that regard, they're no better than neo-Nazis or people like David Irving, who deny the Holocaust.

Well the purges in Stalins tinme weren't widely known outside of the USSR until Khrushchev.

Because communist atrocities were often covered up by the media. Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize in the early 30's for his coverage of Russia (which included covering up the Ukrainian famine). In the 1940s, the media portrayed Mao as an "agrarian reformer," and "man of the people." In the 50's, Castro's acts of terrorism received no coverage, while every act of violence committed by the Batista dictatorship was front-page news. Everywhere, from Rhodesia to China to Indochina to Central America, anticommunists, whether good or bad, were painted as cruel and heartless tyrants, while the communists- no matter how much blood they had on their hands- were "freedom fighters," "agrarian reformers," etc. It's not that communists were unaware of the atrocities. They just never had the decency or the principle to condemn them. In that regard, they're no better than neo-Nazis or people like David Irving, who deny the Holocaust.

I would have used Hitler to defeat Stalin, the dispensed with him, since Fascism is considrably easier to combat than communism, notably given the size of the nations in question.


With your magic?

What are you talking about?

ROFLMAO. Then who enforces the command economy?

In Communism the idea is that everyone contributes and takes from a central pool of resources, there is no government. I don't personally believe in it but I like people to get their facts right.

My dear fellow, the signal flaw in communism, beyond its utetr immorality and untenability, is that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat period, wherein the Bourgeois are "justifiably" suppressed, facilitates the ascension of one self-aggrandizing individual to power, and accordingly the establishment of a totalitarian state.

Try reading Trotsky.

My dear fellow if you're talking about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat them you're talking about the Marixist view of Socialism, not Communism.

With your magic?

What are you talking about?

Would I have had Zhukov fail was the original question no?

My reponse was: Yes

Why: It was not unfeasible for the allies (Britain and the USA) to have allied with Hitler and destroyed the Soviet Union, then to have turned upon Germany and eradicated it, thus destroying two enemies.

Did you ever wonder why there never was a true communist nation? Doesn't that make you kinda believe that communism may be impossible?

Yes it does, that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist rather than a Communist, it's more pragmatic.

Because communist atrocities were often covered up by the media.
yeah? And? So were a lot of atrocities- Communist or not.

I never remember govts coming out with definitive proof and showing to the world that these things were going on... and 'we've got to help those people... oh wait... they're only Commies... d'ah well...back to our own problems'.

It wasn't until Khrushchev began to open up the country that ordinary Russians knew the scale of the Purges.
It wasn't until the Hungarian Uprising and the Polish revolts that people in the West saw the ruthlessness of the Soviets in the East.

Who cares about Cambodia's Killing Fields? They had no resources worth the West troubling themselves for.

Mao? Mao was plainly insane. Did anyone stop him? No. Did anyone condemn the millions he ordered killed? Yes.

Did it change anything? No.

Don't blame the media for not publishing the 'truth'. There were enough signs out there for Westerners to know- many choose not to care.

People in Communist ststes were so well indoctrinated that they believed everything they were told- those that didn't simply ceased to be.

My dear fellow if you're talking about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat them you're talking about the Marixist view of Socialism, not Communism.

Have a chain of thought.... in the anticipation of communism the dictatorship of the proletariat simply has to exist, and in reference to the earlier post, communism is accordingly further flawed.

Why: It was not unfeasible for the allies (Britain and the USA) to have allied with Hitler and destroyed the Soviet Union, then to have turned upon Germany and eradicated it, thus destroying two enemies.


I am currently studying Stalin, much against my will, at school


Your lack of interest in history is crystal-clear.

Your lack of interest in history is crystal-clear.

That will be his downfall...MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

Your lack of interest in history is crystal-clear.

No, my lack of interest in communist history, or history post-1900 may well be evident, however I still read historians upon the subject, not merely criticise in defence of half-baked, self-justified theory.

No, my lack of interest in communist history, or history post-1900 may well be evident, however I still read historians upon the subject, not merely criticise in defence of half-baked, self-justified theory.


The notion that it was "feasible" for the US and UK to ally with Hitler against the USSR in ww2 is half-baked, to put it very kindly.

This borders on dishonesty.

The only relevant notion of "communism" is the historical one, idealizations and utopias are dismissed out of hand as pure fiction.

Dishonesty? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. If he wants to rant about the evils of authoritarian dictatorships then so be it, I agree entirely, but to label it Communism is either ignorant or dishonest.

Imagine the following situation:

A: A duck just bit my arm off!!!
B: A duck???
A: Yes, I saw a fin in the water and then it leapt up and bits my arm off!!!
B: This duck, it didn't have grey, coarse skin did it?
A: Yes.
B: And huge teeth and gills?
A: Yes.
B: Then it wasn't a duck, it was a shark!
A: No, it said it was a duck so it must be. This goes to prove that all ducks are evil! I shall interogate the ducks and demand that they justify the actions of the duck who bit my arm off!
B: But that wasn't a duck, it was a SHARK!!!!
A: Don't be so idealistic...

The notion that it was "feasible" for the US and UK to ally with Hitler against the USSR in ww2 is half-baked, to put it very kindly.

Hitler, and for that matter British ministers, contemplated the notion for a period, whilst German units, until 1946, were maintained by the allies in the face of a soviet invasion.

Your lack of interest in history is crystal-clear.


im a history student just about to begin uni history and i dont like studying Stalin and only did it against my will

so ergo i have no interest in history whatsoever right?

Have a chain of thought.... in the anticipation of communism the dictatorship of the proletariat simply has to exist, and in reference to the earlier post, communism is accordingly further flawed.

No it doesn't, it could be enacted democratically.

im a history student just about to begin uni history and i dont like studying Stalin and only did it against my will

so ergo i have no interest in history whatsoever right?

which UK uni?

Dishonesty? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. If he wants to rant about the evils of authoritarian dictatorships then so be it, I agree entirely, but to label it Communism is either ignorant or dishonest.

Imagine the following situation:

A: A duck just bit my arm off!!!
B: A duck???
A: Yes, I saw a fin in the water and then it leapt up and bits my arm off!!!
B: This duck, it didn't have grey, coarse skin did it?
A: Yes.
B: And huge teeth and gills?
A: Yes.
B: Then it wasn't a duck, it was a shark!
A: No, it said it was a duck so it must be. This goes to prove that all ducks are evil! I shall interogate the ducks and demand that they justify the actions of the duck who bit my arm off!
B: But that wasn't a duck, it was a SHARK!!!!
A: Don't be so idealistic...


You've missed the point completely.

"Communism" is what prevailed in the soviet union and elsewhere, by self-identification.

It isnt an abstract or an ideal or an imagined utopia, it had a real extension in the world, and it is on its real-world merits that it has to be judged.

Some idlers like to sit around and imagine an ideal that they call "communism," but that is a fantasy.

Communism had its chance, and proved to be a monumental horror.

im a history student just about to begin uni history and i dont like studying Stalin and only did it against my will

so ergo i have no interest in history whatsoever right?

Right.

which UK uni?


either dundee or edinburgh not decided yet

*sigh*
Standard rookie historian mistake. Stalin not Communist. Stalin = Totalitarian.
If you read Marx you will see WHY he, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Castro and so forth, cannot be considered as Communist.

I happen to think that communism works very effectively in small groups. On camps we have an 'everybody-equal' policy and guess what...no bullying! Although, in big societies where people are all brilliant at different things I'm afraid it doesn't work too well. Although, Stalin ruined it.

You've missed the point completely.

"Communism" is what prevailed in the soviet union and elsewhere, by self-identification.

It isnt an abstract or an ideal or an imagined utopia, it had a real extension in the world, and it is on its real-world merits that it has to be judged.

Some idlers like to sit around and imagine an ideal that they call "communism," but that is a fantasy.

Communism had its chance, and proved to be a monumental horror.

No, Stalinism and Leninism prevailed in the Soviet Union as has been mentioned on this thread a couple of times...

Hitler, and for that matter British ministers, contemplated the notion for a period, whilst German units, until 1946, were maintained by the allies in the face of a soviet invasion.

Assuming you meant 1936.
Considering Hitler attacked Poland and then France (both of whom were allied/endebted to the UK in some form or another) BEFORE RUSSIA, yes- your "theory" is just simply wrong.

No it doesn't, it could be enacted democratically.

Granted the parliament, or representative body inquestion, was comprised of proletarian fools.

What some people studying Stalin seem to forget is that they should read HIS works and not what others have to say ABOUT him. There are also pro-Stalin biography's for that matter.

A good pro-Stalin biography is:

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

Some pro-Stalin articles:

http://eserver.org/clogic/2005/furr.html

http://eserver.org/clogic/2005/furr2.html

And his own works of course :D:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/index.htm

http://ptb.sunhost.be/marx2mao/Stalin/Index.html

Granted the parliament, or representative body inquestion, was comprised of proletarian fools.

Explain?

Friend, try reading about Communism before you spout off about it.

In Communism there is no government so there can be no dictator. Russia was Leninist and then Stalinist, never Communist.

Therefore communism is impractical and unworkable - only dictatorship can keep it going- and thank God it has collapsed

Therefore communism is impractical and unworkable - only dictatorship can keep it going- and thank God it has collapsed
I think...
correction: i'm certain that you are confusing socialism and communism. Study Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and every other marxist for that matter before even TRYING to tell it wont work. Thats some indoctrination they give you from the first time you make contact with communism. There are very phew capitalists i've met that claim communism cant work and have actually tried to study it.

Therefore communism is impractical and unworkable - only dictatorship can keep it going- and thank God it has collapsed

Just what the thread needed! Another idiot!

Saying that dictatorship is the only way to keep Communism going is stupid because Communism has NO GOVERNMENT. It's like saying that dictatorship is the only way to keep democracy going, it is an oxymoron.

Hitler was vegetarian. Vegetarians are murderers. This is the proof that vegetarianism can't work.

As for Stalin, He ruled the USSR during war time and took Berlin. He also rebuilt the country pretty fast. The price was high because the USSR was one of the country the worst hit by the war.

I am currently studying Stalin, much against my will, at school, and am frankly shocked people refer to Hitler as in any manner more deplorable than him. Stalin contrived to kill upwards of 20 million of his own populace in essentially unjustifis purges and massacres, whilst then proceeding to butcher a further "10 million entirely unnecessary youths" (Keegan) in the "great patriotic war", cumlatively 90% of Russian male youths between the ages of 18 and 30. Given the utter intellectual incompetance of the fellow, his sole trait being, as Lenin relates, "industrial mediocrity", and his character that of, in the words of Sukhanov a "grey blur", he is quite evdiently the most deplorable and objectionable dictator of eternity, and evidence of quite the utter fallacy and inevitable result of communism.

You can believe that he was stupid all you like - yet both he and Hitler understood the nature of power and the nature of fear better than most people in the 20th century.

Just what the thread needed! Another idiot!

Saying that dictatorship is the only way to keep Communism going is stupid because Communism has NO GOVERNMENT. It's like saying that dictatorship is the only way to keep democracy going, it is an oxymoron.


Democracies dont historically have dictatorships, communist countries do.

I can show you ten democracies that arent dictatorships.

Can you show me any communist countries that arent?

Remember, communism isnt a fantasy in your head, it is a historical reality.

What some people studying Stalin seem to forget is that they should read HIS works and not what others have to say ABOUT him. There are also pro-Stalin biography's for that matter.

A good pro-Stalin biography is:

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

Some pro-Stalin articles:

http://eserver.org/clogic/2005/furr.html

http://eserver.org/clogic/2005/furr2.html

And his own works of course :D:


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/index.htm

http://ptb.sunhost.be/marx2mao/Stalin/Index.html

For what reason?

Do stalin's motives count for anything?

Its a stretch to claim his motives were anything but paranoia and sadism.