NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, to start off, here are a few FAQ type misconceptions I'll clear up first.

I would like a couple of questions answered on Stalin.

1) Did he indeed have a gross personality disorder, brought on by his upbringing, and did that lead to the Great Terror of the 1930's

2) Further more, are the accounts of the Great Terror exaggerated more than the usual "Telephone" effect would suggest?

3) Did he deliberately repress democratic processes in an effort to quash any real resistance to his own policies, or did he do it merely to stop counter revolution?

4) How do you explain the slaughter of his officer corps before WW2?

5) What were Stalin's reasons for Forced Collectivisation?

6) In your own words, can you explain why Stalinism is the direct continuation of Leninism, and why Trotskists are wrong in their assumption that Bolshevism gave birth to Stalinism and that Bolshevism is inherently corrupt?


1) Did he indeed have a gross personality disorder, brought on by his upbringing, and did that lead to the Great Terror of the 1930's

Not that I know of. Paul Robeson once knew Stalin and had commented on the kindness shown by him. http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9804/robeson.htm
Also the writings of his adopted son, Enver Hoxha's memories of him, and Mao suggested literally that he was a shy and softspoken person.

Here is an excerpt of his poetry
Red buds have opened
Changing to the violet
Stirred by the light breeze
Lilies of the valley bend over the grass...

and here is what W.E.B. DuBois wrote on him
Stalin was attacked and slandered as few men of power have been; yet he seldom lost his courtesy or balance; nor did he let attack neither drive him from his convictions nor induce him to surrender positions which he knew were correct. He was simple, calm and courageous. He seldom lost his poise; pondered problems slowly, made his decisions clearly and firmly. His judgment of men was profound. As one of the despised minorities of man, he first set Russia on the road to conquer race prejudice and make one nation out of its 140 groups without destroying their individuality.

2) Further more, are the accounts of the Great Terror exaggerated more than the usual "Telephone" effect would suggest?

They are exaggerated also keep in mind the Great Terror was initiated by Yagoda and Nikolai Ezhov. Ezhov as if you did not know was a butcher who was the one who initiated "quotas" during the Ukranian famine to find suspected kulaks, thus creating competitive killing, when Stalin found this out he had him shot and the Great Terror ended along with Ezhov.

Historian Michael Ellman 950,000 to 1.2 million, which includes deaths in detention and those who died shortly after being released from the Gulag as a result of their treatment in it. British Service Agent Robert Conquest claims double that number.


3) Did he deliberately repress democratic processes in an effort to quash any real resistance to his own policies, or did he do it merely to stop counter revolution?
This is one of the falsehoods that has spread about Stalin. In the USSR during the Civil War the Soviet Union was formed as a hiearchy of Soviet councils. After collectivization Stalin had wanted to introduce more democratic reforms since most peasants were now in collectives and he initiated the passing of the new Soviet Constitution of 1936 claiming they could change this because they were in a new era of socialism. In this new constitution it combated bureacracy and state control over the economy(until it was overturned by Khrushchev, allowing for the Moscow bureacracy to take control over the nation's ecoonomy.)
http://frontierweekly.googlepages.com/stalin-38-49.pdf

4) How do you explain the slaughter of his officer corps before WW2?

you have to realize 10% of the officer corp were Tsarists the Army was one of the most anti-communist elements in the Soviet Union and as a result the political commissars in charge of the Army were re-introduced(which was what Maoist China adopted from 1949-1976).
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node114.html#SECTION001034000000000000000

5) What were Stalin's reasons for Forced Collectivisation?

the peasants(not the kulaks) actually wanted the collectivization. Collectivization would have provided tractors and land to landless peasants. Let us not also forget the kulaks WERE landowners the term kulak means "fist".

This is a 19th century account of the kulak

`Every village commune has always three or four regular kulaks, as also some half dozen smaller fry of the same kidney .... They want neither skill nor industry; only promptitude to turn to their own profit the needs, the sorrows, the sufferings and the misfortunes of others.

`The distinctive characteristic of this class ... is the hard, unflinching cruelty of a thoroughly educated man who has made his way from poverty to wealth, and has come to consider money-making, by whatever means, as the only pursuit to which a rational being should devote himself.'

Let us also keep in mind the kulak had a deep control in the markets prior to collectivization. in 1926 they controlled 20% of the agricultural sales. According to another statistic, in the European part of the USSR, the kulaks and the upper part of the middle peasants, i.e. about 10 to 11 per cent of families, made 56 per cent of the sales in 1927-1928. collectivized agriculture brought 0.57 million tonnes of wheat to market, the kulaks 2.13 million.

The kulaks were a danger to the industrialization of the USSR since without it the cities would have starved and since the kulaks had control of the markets they could have seized the grain and sell it at enormous prices(like they did in the Ukranian famine). In the Ukranian famine the kulaks had held grain and sold it to starving people at ridiculous prices!

Either way this book does have a section on that as well.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node19.htm...000000000000000

6) In your own words, can you explain why Stalinism is the direct continuation of Leninism, and why Trotskists are wrong in their assumption that Bolshevism gave birth to Stalinism and that Bolshevism is inherently corrupt?

Well Stalin himself never used the term "Stalinist", Lazar Kaganovich did. "Stalinism" itself is Marxism-Leninism, no theoretical changes are added to it despite the Aggravated Class Struggle which has been proven to be true(and for some reasons Trots cannot accept that). Trotskyists on the other hand are not Marxist-Leninists they are almost left-wing communists imo. Lenin in his death had condemned Trotsky's invention of "Permanent Revolution" as revolutionary Adventurism and Trotsky dropped it. After he died however, he picked it up and continued to preach it. The things that Stalin had said was that the Communist Revolution in Russia was like an inspiration to workers everywhere, and he was right. albania, Yugoslavia, North Korea, and China were examples of socialism spread by this beacon, with little outside interference. Trotskyist spreading of this revolution leads to too many casualties and a squandering of resources.

However, Trotsky's theory on the "colonizers freeing the colony's", impossibility of Stalin "sovietizing" the Germans, and his own notion of imperialism just baffles my mind to tell you the truth.

In the first place, it would have been more correct to say that the entire history of mankind is governed by the law of uneven development. Capitalism finds various sections of mankind at different stages of development, each with its profound internal contradictions. The extreme diversity in the levels attained, and the extraordinary unevenness in the rate of development of the different sections of mankind during the various epochs, serve as the starting point of capitalism. Capitalism gains mastery only gradually over the inherited unevenness, breaking and altering it, employing therein its own means and methods. In contrast to the economic systems which preceded it, capitalism inherently and constantly aims at economic expansion, at the penetration of new territories, the surmounting of economic differences, the conversion of self- sufficient provincial and national economies into a system of financial interrelationships. Thereby it brings about their rapprochement and equalizes the economic and cultural levels of the most progressive and the most backward countries. Without this main process, it would be impossible to conceive of the relative leveling out, first, of Europe with Great Britain, and then, of America with Europe; the industrialization of the colonies, the diminishing gap between India and Great Britain, and all the consequences arising from the enumerated processes upon which is based not only the program of the Communist International but also its very existence.

This seems to me to be very, very foolish. Countries do not grow the same and imperialism does not make countries more "equal", the fact that he had proposed that Europeans(advanced nations) lead the COMINTERN and determine things that went on in THEIR nations is ridiculous and in this time period seems Eurocentrist.

Trotskyists(or at least ones who know their ideology) STILL cling to this notion. This is the real world some countries are experiencing economic boom while others are stagnating and still others are suffering a decline in their economic growth, imperialism is not "progressive" as it was in Marx's time, it had its limits, in which Lenin had exposed as imperialism in which it decays the host nation, which is precisely why ALL the revolutions in the world have happened in the Third World.

Also the writings of the two great AR leaders Mao and Stalin had their writings meant for the general populace and to be used in raising young cadres. Their style of writing is one of the easiest pieces of ideological writing to date.

Well first off I want to just address everyone, that, despite the huge size of this essay, I call everyone to read it. Even those who think they know everything about Stalin. Why? Because you will definitely find out something new. The following information is almost common knowledge to all Russian communists, and that is why there are no Trotskysts in Russia and only Leninists-Stalinists.

I wish to start by explaining the basics about Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky. Even before Stalin came to power, a great part of his life he spent in Russia, among the common folk. All of his close comrades spent a great share of their lives in Russia. He wasn't a theorist or obsessed with Ideologies. He was primarily concerned for the people, he always wanted what is best for them, he wanted to save them, the Russian people and all the nations of USSR. And he seen socialism as the correct way to do it, but he wasn't and ideologist, Stalin was a political Realist.
Lenin was born in a respected, wealthy family, he was interested in the Marxist idea of Communism, but sought ways to make it better, became a theorist, but all revolved around this ideology, all he did revolved around the ideology itself. He was dedicated to it and to its cause, but first of all he though about the Ideology.
What about Trotsky? Born in a rich family, theorist, but was he even dedicated to the ideology? Or did he use it for other purposes? In Russia, Trotsky is called a Zionist, who perverted Marxes ideas for the Zionist cause of world Imperialism, and the Zionists sponcered him and his work.

While Lenin was in Switzerland and Trotsky in USA they exchanged letters where they argued about ideological matters, trying to top each other and prove who is the greater theorist. But suddenly they saw that an actual revolution was already underway in Russia. Lenin realized that this was a chance to put his theories to actual use. Trotsky saw the Russian Revolution as the platzdarm for the Zionist Order.

However their way into Russia isn't discussed much by modern-day communists. Only sometimes the matter of Lenin and German spies is debated.

Painful truth, but yes, Lenin agreed to help the German intelligence in order to get into Russia, and was provided the famous "sealed train". German government hoped that Lenins return to Russia would cause even more unrest and make Russia weaker in the war. However they did have a back-up plan, just to be sure. They explained to Lenin the price of return to Russia: if he was to succeed and rule Russia, he would sign a peace treaty with them, which later was called the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Peace Treaty that would cause Russia to loose a great deal of its lands.

Trotsky on the other hand had a bigger problem to get into Russia all the way from USA and through Europe, which was at war. How he got into Russia is debated by two theories in Russia: his Zionist providers payed for everything (such provider will be revealed later in this essay), OR for this purpose Trotsky formed his own agreement, but with the British Intelligence. They would help him get to Russia, and in order to do that, and divert any suspicion from him, his ship was intercepted by British naval officials in Halifax, Nova Scotia and he spent a month detained at Amherst, Nova Scotia. All just an act. He finally made his way back to Russia on May 4 of that year. And what did the British Government expect from Trotsky in return? They wanted him to do everything in his power to stop or delay for as long as possible any peace talks between Germany and Russia, because it was best for Britain if Germany and Russia fought each other (actually Britain has a history of making the two hit each other head on for her own gain). This explains his uncertain position to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk where he argued that its not a good idea (as was his job for the British Intel) and on the other hand he agreed that Russia wouldn't be able to keep fighting much longer with the already weakened military (as was his real opinion), but in the end when he could no longer delay the negotiations with his uncertain babbling, he withdrew from the talks entirely, on February 10, 1918, refusing to sign on Germany's harsh terms. Either way after he got into Russia the Zionists did provide him with all the money to sponsor the revolution further.

In the end both of them payed their dues and went on with their debates on theories and how to imply them in Russia, while Lenin was dedicated to the Ideology, and Trotsky to the Zionist plans. Sure, local communists will start criticizing me for the part about German and British Intelligences helping Lenin and Trotsky, but what they did in no way betrayed the Revolution, now did it? They just used all means available to get back to Russia and take over. After all neither of them actually started any uprisings in Russia, the people rebelled on their own, when Lenin came he simply steered the already raging masses in the right direction.

People constantly believe how Lenin and Trotsky were best friends. Not really. They were colleagues and fellow theorists and they had heated arguments about their views, they were theoretical rivals. So when the question comes of whom did Lenin like more: Stalin or Trotsky, the answer would be Stalin, who was like a student and listened to Lenin as to a teacher. This infuriated Trotsky, who couldn't stand Stalin. Why?

Basically Trotsky was jealous. After all Trotsky was the son of a rich Jew land-owner and colonist, was a remarkable student of an educational center in Odessa, knew 7 languages, loved literature and was a remarked theorist. Also, however, he saw in him a dangerous element to Zionist plans, because he was not from the Zionist Bolsheviks (yes, Trotsky wasn't the only one, he had a team around him that assisted him), and was not attracted by goals of a World Revolution, which they wanted to later twist into a Zionist Order, but was attracted by a dream to make Russia great again. Even worse for Trotsky, Stalin formed around himself a team of Real Bolsheviks, dedicated to the Real communist cause, but in the name of the people (the Leninist-Stalinists, amongst these were Molotov, Kaganovich, Mikoyan),

And who was Stalin? He was the son of a cobbler, who opened his own shop, but quickly went bankrupt, forcing him to work in a shoe factory in Tiflis. Stalin didn't get a high education like Trotsky (Stalin studied in a Seminary) and didn't even officially graduate (he quit right before his final exams, though a popular lie is that he was expelled). Stalin spoke Russian with a strong Georgian accent and didn't know any other languages other then Russian, Georgian and Greek. And most importantly, compared to Trotsky, who wrote many articles, Stalins only contribution (as believed) to Marxism was a treatise "Marxism and the National Question" (he discusses the problem of nationalist anti-monarchy movements that have already settled in after the first Russia revolution, which could lead to disastrous side-effects of the new Russian revolution, which was being planned by the Bolsheviks, like dissolving of the Empire: loosing Poland, Finland, Middle Asia, Ukraine and other territories. As a solution he proposed the merging of Marxist idea of national self-determination with the goal of preserving the unity of the country), yet thanks to that he became People's Commissar for Nationalities Affairs after the revolution.

Trotsky to be upstaged by some seminarian, theorist wanna-be? Never! But this was just his personal front against Stalin, the other front would be for the Zionist Goals. At this moment it was clear to Trotsky that the main struggle for power would be between himself and Stalin and the only way to become the next leader after Lenin would be to discriminate Stalin and first of all in Lenins eyes.

This was the easiest way, especially since his constant arguments with Lenin already undermined his personality in Lenins eyes, who too was now already seeing Trotskys real intentions. And thats not even mentioning Trotskys huge blunder and Stalins achievements as Red Army commanders during the Poland-Soviet War. Stalin and Trotsky each commanded an army in this war and both were doing a successful job, the Polish government was already preparing to surrender and ask for peace terms, until the shameful defeat in the Battle of Warsaw, which was entrusted to Trotsky, while Stalin was given the task of capturing the city of Lvov, in which he succeeded, though it no longer mattered as the Polish army was now on a counter offensive and the Red Army had to retreat and in the end the war was lost.

And so Trotsky began trying to undermine not only Stalins abilities but also his personality in Lenins eyes, while also strengthening his own positions and attempted receive more praise from Lenin (which explains why he suddenly began to agree with almost every decision Lenin made closer to the end of 1922 and Lenins death).

If you remember I spoke of Stalins work "Marxism and the National Question". I would like to address this matter deeper, before going further about the Trotsky and Stalin power struggle.

So I explained Stalins idea. How did he propose to achieve it? He strongly believed that the only solution to this matter would be regional autonomy, autonomy of such self-determined units like Poland, Litva, Ukraine and etc. This type of administration structure would break any nationalist barriers and help unite the people. It was also at this point that Stalin tried to defy his own definition for the word 'nation'. He stated the impossibility to absolutize a nations right for self-determination. So Stalin tried to push his ideas through the Party, in October 1920 he wrote the article "Soviet Regime policy on the national question in Russia" where he backed-up his views with uncertainty about the fast victory of World Revolution, and spoken against the popular theory that governments were dieing. Stalin proposed to strengthen the Soviet government and its institutes. The core for this in a multinational RSFSR he saw in unitarianism and explained that this same policy is what allowed Bolshevik Victory in the Civil War. He explained that regions could not be allowed to separate from Russia. Without fearing negative comments he explained that the matter was not about national rights, which couldn't be questioned or undermined, but rather about the interest of the people as a whole, from both the center and the regions (and by regions he wasn't talking about regions of Russia like Bashkiria or Tataria but about Georgia, Armenia, Poland, Finland and others. In other words - Countries that were a part of the Empire, which didn't establish Soviet regimes yet in 1920). He even stated that demands of regions to separate on that stage of the revolution were counter-revolutionary.

It was based on these views that in 1922 Stalin proposed his plan of autonomy for the future USSR. However he was defeated in this debate, mainly because Lenin sided with the exact opposite idea for the USSR. Stalin acknowledged that he was hasty in his decisions and views, had to comply and even look after it, knowing about the strength of nationalism.

Stalin had to constantly make some set-backs if he wanted to gain power, same as what Trotsky did. But how much did Stalin and Trotsky debate directly with each other on party matters?

A good example is the democracy argument, when Trotsky pushed for democracy, while Stalin explained that without achieving 2 important factors it was just ridiculous to talk about democracy (Factor 1: industry must grow, and the working class had to grow in numbers and it had to be lifted in education and culture, so it would become more self-aware in political matters. Also the Party as the Vanguard of the working class had to grow and become more qualified. These internal goals were necessary in order to actually create democracy within the party, rather then plan it on paper. The second Factor: external matters, international situation that would ensure peaceful developments. In other words if the country was in danger of any wars, democracy was out of the question). Stalin spoke about Trotskys mistakes on the matter (which were simple provocations from Trotskys side, as one day Trotsky was arguing about Democracy within the party and the next day he completely disregarded the matter and set forth his own platform, where he set as opposites the young Party body and the Bolshevik old guard, proposed to replace the Party membership by accepting in it people from the intellectual class, and was dead-set about allowing fractional and group work within the Party. In his work he made a clear oppositional statement to the Central Committee, practically showing it that it can't order him around and that any decisions made by that government body should be completely disregarded). Stalin pointed out Trotskys mistake in attempting to put himself above and in opposition to the Central Committee. However Stalin did not reveal to anyone the real plot behind this 'mistake' which was to gain power. Trotsky was not even present on the conference to face Stalins criticism in a debate, simply saying that he was sick. In reality Trotsky just seen Stalin as not deserving to be engaged in a debate (as pointed out above, Trotsky seen Stalin as some uneducated wannabe). Instead of Trotsky his colleagues faced these debates. Stalin also began to understand Trotskys pattern: the whole democracy debate was a cover up for his true intentions of replacing Leninism with Trotskysm, divide the Party into national groups and attain power over the country from where he would begin achieving the Zionist Goals. It was at this time that Stalin set forth his own goals: keep the Party united, increase its numbers with self-aware workers and eliminate the Trotskyst opposition, and Stalin believed that without resolving these matters, the building of Socialism would be in danger as well as the future of the Russian people.

Three days after the end of the XIII conference of the RCP( b ), on January 21, 1924 - Lenin dies. It was a horrible loss both to the Party and the People. Lenin was considered the great leader who was taking the People on a new, unfamiliar path. He never chose a successor, but that matter did worry him in his last days. He knew the entire Party membership well and knew about relations between party members, aware of all strives and oppositions within the Party, and knew that those could lead to fracturing the Party. To prevent this, Lenin proposed to increase membership of the Central Committee. In his last letter to the Party he explained that this reform would increase strength of the Party, and will ease the struggle against hostile governments, which would increase in the following years. But mostly Lenin was concerned with the Stalin/Trotsky struggle. He also addressed that issue in his letter and said that their struggle is exactly what may fracture the Party. And in Lenins opinion increasing the Central Committee membership up to a hundred members would help avoid the disaster. Also in that letter Lenin addressed personal qualities of Stalin, Trotsky, Zinovi'ev, Kamenev, Piatakov and Buharin. He wrote both of their positive and negative qualities: he said that Stalin was too rude, and the matter of when Zinov'ev and Kamenev published secret Party plans of an armed uprising, in the "New Life" newspaper could be seen as treasonous and intended, just as Trotskys 'non-bolshevist' views (this shows that Lenin by then was fully aware that Trotsky in no matter was interested in communism). From the young members of the Party Lenin only describes Buharin and Piatakov. Weird was his description of Buharin where he both praised him as a beloved Party member and yet still criticized him for his theoretical views leaning closer to Marxism and for never actually learning anywhere.

In the "Addition to the Letter" it also stated that Stalin is too rude, and that downside is actually completely tolerable between communists, but is unacceptable for a General Secretary and Lenin proposed for Stalin to be replaced at that position with somebody exactly like Stalin with just one difference: the replacement had to be more tolerable and kind and more attentive to his comrades.

The said "Addition to the Letter" was rather surprising, since Lenin didn't have any negative comments on Stalins abilities as a Party member, but he was displeased with his rudeness? But where exactly did it show? Whenever Lenin got into interesting debates he didn't hold back much: he called Trotsky 'Judas' and even a Political Prostitute (along with some other people), and accused Kamenev and Zinovi'ev of being traitors and demanded for them to be expelled from the Central Committee. Stalin however never allowed himself such language or blunt accusations, yet here he was accused of being rude and even demanded to be removed from the position of General Secretary.

This however can be explained by the fact that Lenin wrote the said letter with 'help' from his wife - Krupskaya, with whom Stalin had an unfortunate run-in before. The matter of the conflict was their different views about sick Lenin. It was highly recommended by his doctors, that he is not to be informed of the events happening within the country, like about the opposition gatherings where they criticized the Soviet Regime. By order and demand of the Central Committee, Stalin was entrusted to enforce the doctors suggestion. However Stalin soon learns, that Krupskaya disregards the doctors suggestions and informs sick Lenin about the events in the Country, which did not help Lenins health. Stalin was appalled by this and he rather roughly told off Lenins wife. As a result Krupskaya wrote a letter to Kamenev and Zinovi'ev about the matter of 'Stalins rudeness'. Soon as they received it they immediately informed Trotsky and Buharin. This was Trotskys chance to undermine Stalin in Lenins eyes and he proposed that Krupskaya herself told about the matter to Lenin (firstly because Trotsky was forbidden to visit Lenin in his country house "Gorki" (Hills), also this way they were staying completely clear of the matter without getting involved, even though this was all to Trotskys advantage, and if Krupskaya told Lenin about the matter personally it would have more emotional effect). Soon after Stalin receives a letter from the infuriated Lenin, in which he told Stalin to either apologize to his wife or they would simply tear apart all relations and contacts between each other. Stalin apologized, but the negative effect of the incident, needed for Trotskys plans, already settled in. The whole 'addition to the letter' was a result of this incident, whether Krupskaya intended for it to be (which is unlikely, because for her it was a simple personal matter, used by Trotsky in a big political game) or not.

The involvement of Kamenev and Zinovi'ev is also an issue. Originally both were afraid of Trotskys coming to power, and Zinovi'ev decided to bring oh his side Stalin, a rather new political figure (theory-wise, as his first real work, mentioned previously, was done in 1913, while Trotsky had a much longer history as a renowned theorist) and increased his political position within the Party by proposing him in 1922 for the role of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP( b ). Zinovi'ev was sure that he would not only have control over Stalin, but over the section of the Party, involved under Stalin in the Comintern. Stalin accepted his proposal and joined "The Troika" (The Three). However Stalin did not only use his new position to top Trotsky, but also to turn the Party into the 'glue' for the just created USSR, which was beginning to look more like a confederacy. Unlike Trotsky and Zinovi'ev he realized the potential importance of the United State Political Administration (USPA, or OGPU in Russian) which was the third important Regime body after the Party and the Army, and Stalin used it with support from Dzerzhinsky. Thus they were able to forbid Trotsky free access to Lenin in his country house, rendering their communication between each other to only letters.

However Zinovi'ev and Kamenev didn't realize that Stalin was not a puppet. Stalin used "The Troika" to strengthen his political positions while undermining Trotskys. During this time Stalin had to make a few set backs and revoke previously stated ideas and even side with Zinovi'evs and Trotskys internationalism. However soon as Trotsky was removed from his position as Narcomvoenmor (The Peoples Commissar of Military and Navy) Stalin was free to leave "The Troika" and again state his actual political views, and steer USSR away from the pursuit of ghostly ideas of a World Revolution (which was simply absurd with USSRs current state even though Russia already reached its pre-Revolution strength, it was still far behind the majority of world countries, not to mention how Trotsky was actualy going to use the world revolution for zionist goals) and towards a more natural course, dedicated to strengthening USSR as a self-sufficient state. Zinovi'ev and Kamenev realized this too late and now preferred Trotsky to coming to power, rather then Stalin.

But lets return to Lenins death. From all across the Soviet Union, even from abroad people traveled to USSR to attend Lenins funeral, after all, he was the Leader of the World Proletariat. However were was Trotsky at the time? He was on a little vacation in Abkhaziya. However that did not surprise Trotsky, before he left for his vacation he spoke to Fedor Alexandrovich Goti'e - Lenins Doctor, who told him that Lenins days were numbered. At that point he was faced with a dilemma: should he go on his vacation or stay? He decided to go. Why was this done? Surely Trotsky would want to stay to seize power immediately, however his colleagues and supporters convinced him that they would easily take over on their own and once they do, they will have to constantly work to inflict their plans, so it was best if Trotsky had some time off. Trotsky was away from the cold freezing Moscow and the fuss of the funeral, having a good time off with his wife. Trotsky never actually wanted to attend the funeral, as he never did have much respect for Lenin, and very much hated him, as Lenin was always able to see through all Trotskys moves and ideas, which led to many of their political confrontations and why Lenin called Trotsky several names (as you may remember from earlier in the text), and not to mention that they had completely different end goals, with Lenin dedicated to the ideology, while Trotsky was a Zionist. But now he was gone and Trotsky was free to seize power, or so he thought at the moment, overconfident of his stature in the Party. However after he was exiled he wrote in his book "My Life", that he really did want to attend Lenins funeral but he was intentionally misled about the date of the of the funeral (supposedly he was told that it was on Saturday, when it was actually on Sunday). A pathetic excuse, considering that even people from other countries knew the date and traveled all the way to Moscow, Russia, to attend it, and not to mention that all of Trotskys loyal supporters were in Moscow at the time and all attended the funeral, and must have informed him of the correct date even if he really was misled.

Stalin however did not loose a rival, but rather a mentor and was in fact mournful. He also knew that with Lenins death the struggle for power would increase. He also saw another reason in Trotskys absence: while Trtosky was away his opposition would let their guard down, forgetting about his supporters who would immediately start pushing forth reforms for the Party and government structure.

However the overconfident trotskysts didn't expect the outcome. Stalin didn't sit around and wait for them to seize power and began making preemptive strikes. He already held the Majority within the Central Committee and began eliminating Trotskys supporters from their positions within the Military apparatus. For instance Sklianskiy, one of Trotskys favorite men, was replaced with one of Stalins supporters. Also Stalin called Frunze from Ukraine, and assigned him to be head of a delegation and travel to Suhumi, so as to confirm the newly set staff with Trotsky. Later Trotsky writes in his book "My life" that the whole thing was pure comedy, as the new pro-Stalin staff was already in place and all the matters were handled behind his back, and the whole delegation was to just uphold the protocol. However there was also a hidden message for Trotsky from Stalin in this action: this way Stalin made it clear for Trotsky, that he can forget about just ridding back into Moscow and proclaiming himself new leader. Trotsky always considered himself to be a great combinator, political strategist, able to foresee events in advance, like playing chess. So the sheer idea of Stalin (whom he viewed as some illiterate wannabe) beating him at his own game infuriated Trotsky.

Still the struggle for power continued. After Lenins death and Stalins growing control over the government, Trotsky, Zinovi'ev, Buharin and Kamenev banded together against Stalin, however they had an inner struggle as well, since each of them considered himself to be a great political figure. Still in their mutual hate for Stalin they worked together to undermine him, Trotsky didn't just despise Stalin now, he utterly hated him, openly stating that he is an intellectual and moral nonentity (very rough translation of a Russian insult - Nechtozhestvo) and spread lies. Even a ridiculous rumor was unleashed that Stalin was smoking his children (supposedly he sat his son next to him and began releasing pipe smoke right into his sons face, while making fun of the boy, saying that smoke strengthens a young boys immunity). Stalin had a suspicion from where these rumors could take root, but he didn't want to believe that his wife Nadezhda had anything to do with them. Still he spoke with her. Nadezhda was a constant guest at the Buharin household. She very much enjoyed his company. He was social, kind and wasn't so dug in his work like Stalin (basically Buharin put a mask before Stalins wife, of a simple man, absolutely not "obsessed with his political life like Stalin"). She was friends with Buharins wife, they had much in common and they shared much between each other (usual women talk). They often spoke about their husbands too. Buharins wife constantly praised her husband while Nadezhda, completely arrogant to political matters and more concerned with personal life (like most women are), only said that Stalin is always quiet, smokes a lot and thinks, "God knows what about". Even a simple sentence like that can be twisted and turned into a ridiculous lie, so imagine how much material Buharin attained from asking his wife what did she talk about with Nadezhda (or more likely his wife, being also arrogant in political matters, simply told Buharin every time, what a nice chat she had with Nadezhda and go on explaining the matter in details, which is somewhat common for women). Unlike Krupskaya, who understood politics, Nadezhda was a simple woman and she needed a simple husband, and she didn't understand the importance of political matters Stalin was handling, so naturally she disliked his political life, and this was the basis for a two-way plan to undermine Stalin: through her Buharin received some simple facts about Stalin, that don't actually matter, and were deformed by a womans perspective on the matter (as was just explained) and this information could be easily deformed into absurd lies about Stalin. And on the other hand Buharin could feed his own wife with lies about Stalin, that couldn't be confirmed by anyone other then the Party members, as the lies he fed her were all about matters that the Party handled, and in turn his wife would talk about these lies with Nadezhda (Buharins wife would probably first ask if she knows anything about it and after Nadezhda would answer negative, she would simply sell her these lies as fact, since she was told this by her beloved husband who is a member of the Party). Many would claim this to be a lie, and that the actual lies about Stalin were the truth. But if we pay attention to Trotskys book we discover that he writes that all the rumors about Stalins private life (including the horrid lies that Stalin smoked his kids) he learned from Buharin.

Stalin was labeled as Rude (mainly reminding everyone that this was Lenins opinion, to further undermine Stalin) and in addition to that as illiterate and uneducated (most probably a contribution from Trotsky). The Opposition constantly tries to provoke Stalin by any means necessary. However Stalin didn't just fall for these outrageous provocations, and in fact used their sheer existence against the opposition, further strengthening his own reputation in the Party. During the united plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Committee of the Unions Communist Party (of Bolsheviks), Stalin explains the oppositions actions as an expectable reaction. He explains that he, like no one else, knows the Oppositions dirty tricks and can't so easily fall for them, making him a threat for the Opposition, so they blame him and spread rumors about him, trying to provoke him. Stalin also explained that the opposition led a far worse campaign against Lenin, who was a greater person. Stalin even quoted one of Trotskys comments on Lenin, where Trotsky blames him for "being a master and professional exploiter of the backwater masses of the russian workers movement" (basically he blamed Lenin for leading illiterate and uneducated masses, which is either just a complex which Trotsky couldn't overcome, or it was a hidden message to insult Stalin again based on the same complex. But maybe it wasn't a complex, but Trotskys firm belief in his supremacy, as is common amongst Zionists). So to those who did see through the lies and believed Stalin to be the student of Lenin it was becoming even more clear how much Trotsky was opposed to Lenin which would also explain his even more savage opposition to Stalin who is a student of Lenins teachings.

Stalin made this even more evident during the same plenum when he continued his explanation and stated that it is a matter of honor for him, that the opposition directs all its hatred towards him, and that it would be strange if the opposition, that is constantly trying to destroy the Party, would praise him for defending the basic principles of Lenins Party System.

Stalin did not try to avoid any sharp edges during that plenum and also addressed the matter of Lenins "will" (the opposition accused Stalin of concealing Lenins "will", where Lenin proposes to remove Stalin from the position of General Secretary). Stalin reminds the Central Committee (and to the opposition, that conveniently forgot this issue) the matter of Lenins "will" being first addressed in 1924, concerning a former American communist by the name of Istman, who was expelled from the Party. The said person spent some time among trotskysts and gathered many lies and rumors about Lenins "will" and after leaving the country published a book "After Lenins Death", where he openly tries to blacken the Party, Central Committee and the Soviet Regime, basing his arguments on the lie of the Central Committee concealing Lenins "will". Stalin reminds, that since this Istman was in contact with Trotsky for some time prior, the membership of the Politbureau approached Trotsky on the matter, asking him to disprove having any relations with Istman, who in his book constantly backed up his lies by explaining his connections with Trotsky and the Opposition, making Trotsky partially responsible for the matter. Trotsky agreed and made a statement in the press about the issue, where he states that any talks about a "concealed will" are outrageous lies and are directed straight against Lenins will (not the paper written one) and the interests of a Party that he created. Stalin points out at the plenum that this was said and published in the press by Trotsky, who is now, as a member of the opposition, claims that Stalin concealed the "will" that he himself said several years prior was never concealed. This further undermined the Oppositions credibility.

Yet the opposition refused to back down and continued to point out Lenins proposal to remove Stalin from the position of General Secretary. Seeing no actual way out of this trap Stalin was forced to file a resignation letter. However the delegates of the XIII summit, refused to accept his resignation and made Stalin stay in his position of General Secretary. No matter what the Opposition tried, nothing seemed to be able to topple Stalin. Besides Lenins "will" did not so much hit Stalin, as it did the opposition members, to which Lenin referred as Traitors and Non-Bolshevists, while there were no professional reasonings against Stalin what-so-ever in the said "will". Compared to Trotsky, Zinovi'ev and Kamenev, Stalins political loyalty and abilities were un-scarred . As for Stalins rudeness, stated in the "will", Stalin did not only apologize to Lenins wife Krupskaya, but he also publicly agreed with Lenins remark on being rude and explained that he is indeed rude, and doesn't hide it, and that he will always be rude with anyone who attempts to destroy the Party.

The second half of the twenties was especially hard for Stalin, as the inner-Party-struggle was slowly invading his life at home. Despite Stalins warning to his wife Nadezhda about choosing friends, she continued to be a constant guest at the Buharins and was now even more easily fed lies and rumors in order to undermine Stalin. Each time she returned from the Buharins, she and Stalin would have an unpleasant argument. One time Nadezhda accused Stalin of cheating and in the end would accuse him of controlling the media to portray himself in a positive manner. She completely stopped processing lies she was being fed (if she ever did at all) and took them immediately as facts, mostly giving in to her emotions, rather then simple logic thinking. Her naivety and simple needs from life were used by the opposition to hit Stalin at home. She also accused him of the same matter of Lenins "will", though it was never revealed to public and was only for Party members to discuss, yet Buharin fed Nadezhda the primitive information on the matter leaving out how Stalin had already beaten the opposition in this matter during the united plenum. And what was more ridiculous is that now Nadezhda constantly began saying that "everybody knows that" whenever Stalin asked if Buharin told her those things, which explains how far her rational thinking was pushed back. Now Stalin was completely alone, as his last close person was taken away from him. People accuse Stalin of delusional paranoia. There was nothing delusional about it: the opposition had now surrounded him, eradicating support from his wife to whom he would have entrust his own life if need be and if only they were not distanced by the lies spread by the opposition to undermine Stalin.

The young Soviet Government began creating a new type of society and life in a hostile surrounding. Many world governments refused to acknowledge the Soviet Regime (the fist country to do so and acknowledge Lenins rule was Afghanistan, this will be also addressed later in the article), and boycotted it, attempting to strangle it economically. The situation within the country was also dangerously unstable. Either a step to the Left or to the Right would cause disaster.

Leading the "Right" path in the Party was Buharin and they demanded to make life easier for the capitalistic elements present both in cities and villages, and move the matter of industrialization to secondary goals. This path however, whether Buharin intended it or not, would undermine the position of the working class and give a chance to those, who wish to rebuild the old Rule.

Leading the "Left" path in the Party was Trotsky, who insisted that without victory of the proletariat revolution in the West, Russia would never be able to build socialism. However since no such revolution was seen in any near or far future, Trotsky was dooming Russia to the only other choice of either becoming a bourgeois government or rot in economical isolation. This theory directly contradicted Lenins theory of "Victory of Socialism in one country" which was followed by Stalin who also believed that "From a NEP (New Economic Plan proposed by Lenin) Russia would emerge a Socialist Russia".

So in the twenties, 3 main political courses emerged in Russia: Buharins, Trotskys, and (Lenins and)Stalins. There was no unity in the Central Committee and with such affairs going the Party could be divided and fractured, and a danger of regressing to capitalism has emerged. Everything seemed to be now depending on the XIV summit of the Party, where the opposition prepared to once again attempt at defeating Stalin. However the opposition still remained dis-unified. Buharin was afraid of Trotsky an his policies, while Trotsky believed Buharin to be an unworthy weak opponent and Stalin to be an uneducated seminarian. Stalin however considered both to be serious opponents, but their dis-unity was his key to breaking them one by one, rather then trying to take on two formed paths in the Party at the same time.

Durring the XIV Summit, Zinovi'ev spoke on behalf of the opposition. The matter came down to Stalins plan of heavy industrialization of Russia and Zinovi'ev spoke that they are not against industrialization, however they had their own plan for it, putting it forth against Stalins. Zinovi'ev reasoned that industrialization can't possibly be done with the minor economic resources available. He spoke that rather then beginning directly with heavy industrialization, they should first rise their light industry as it was done in all other countries. And with the resources gathered here they would move on to heavy industrialization. Stalin however knew that compared to capitalist countries, Russia didn't have the time to neither gather resources attained via light industry nor did they have colonies to exploit like such countries as Britain. The path that all capitalist countries took was done in a hundred years, while Russia and all of USSR were doomed (yes, doomed, it was no longer a matter of choice, as survival was at stake) to jump this path in just ten years. Zinovi'ev further explained, that in order to provide for the development of light industry, he and his economists formed a plan and stated that all needed equipment they would be imported from Germany in exchange for grain and raw material. Germany desperately needed the Soviet market and grain/raw material. So it was a fair exchange. After he finished, Stalin asked him to whom did the idea of working with Germany, of which he spoke, belong. Zinovi'ev answered that it was developed with much work of his economists. Then Stalin asked, why did his plan sound exactly the same as the one designed by Charles Gates Dawes. Zinovi'ev stood silent with no idea for an answer. Stalin continued and explained that Dawes was a member of the international committee created to solve the matter of Germany's reparations. Since Germany lost the First World War, the winners - Britain and France, presented it with a great reparations bill, which Germany couldn't possibly pay. Along the way the winners owed a great loan of a total of 26 milliards dollars to USA. So Britain and France were stuck in a hard position of trying to get reparations to pay for their debt from a completely ruined country. Then finally Dawes proposed an idea to exploit USSR in this matter. He proposed that Germany would have a market to sell equipment to USSR and receive material to begin rebuilding its economy, thereby rebuilding its industry and enabling it to pay reparations (at the expense of USSR). And the back-result of this plan: USSR remains agricultural. After finishing his explanation Stalin stated that instead they must grow from an agricultural country into an industrial one, from a country that imports equipment, to a country that produces this equipment. Instead of just producing cars, he explained, they had to also produce the equipment used to produce cars. And Stalin finished his statement saying that the Dawes Plan, so highly advised by Zinovi'ev was also deadly dangerous for the soviet people, because if USSR would slow down on light industry it would find itself later defenseless before an imperialist aggression, of which Lenin warned them all. If attacked by countries with developed heavy industry, a light-industry based USSR would be defeated, half of the people killed and half turned into slaves and everything gathered with light-industry would be taken away. It was clear at this point that the opposition was defeated in this battle, yet still, after Stalin, Kamenev stood up and attempted to attack Stalin with their old approach and reminded everyone of Lenins "Will" and proposed for Stalin to be removed from the position of General Secretary, and based his proposal on Stalin being "not the right figure which would be able to unite around himself the bolshevist guard of the Central Committee". But his speech was cut short by the delegates of the Summit who began shouting: "Absurd!" "Ridiculous!" "You have already revealed yourselves!" (referred to the Dawes Plan), "Get off the stage!". At this point the oppositions popularity fell down to a zero, while Stalin was applauded. Trotsky wrights in his book how the summit and the Party were not in agreement with Zinovi'ev, Kamenev and himself, and explained that Zinovi'ev and Kamenev couldn't stand against Stalin personally, and soon as they attempted to push their matter not in "The Troika" but in the Central Committee - it turned out that Stalin now held the majority. Now Zinovi'ev and Kamenev placed all their hopes with Trotsky.

While the opposition recuperates and prepares for another battle with Stalin, he directs USSR into heavy-industry and adjusting the countries national economy to a socialistic system. Stalin was preparing for a war, all matters were handled with that single goal in mind - a defensive war against capitalist and imperialist aggression. Also all goals set by Stalin in his plan presented at the XIV summit, were accomplished in the set time of 10 years (the capitalist path of a hundred years was jumped by the soviet people in just ten years) and USSR from an agricultural country became an industrial one. Stalin held a number of economic, military, politically social and idealogical programs that would increase the governments military-defensive capabilities. All main efforts were put into development of industrial wings that were providing for the countries military. Stalin held a strong and harsh policy, everything had to be done within the set deadlines and intentionally breaking them could be punished by a trial. Special attention was payed to the building of plane, tank and other military factories. Production of firearms, artillery and ammo was already in progress. Only thanks to these rapid decisions and actions already during the first month of the War, the industry was able to immediately start producing automatic machine guns and rocket artillery (the infamous "Katusha"). By the start of the War with Germany new planes such as Yak-1, MiG-3, Pe-2 Dive bombers, Il-2 and tanks like T-34 and KV were designed. However mass production of such machinery wasn't ready yet, as some productive machinery was still to be rebuild and new technologies developed, which was only done already during the war. Social politics were also aimed for the preparation before the war. Multiple factory and engineering schools were open (FZO in Russian) to prepare the population for war-time work. Working hours were prolonged from a 7hour work day to an 8hour one, and a 7day working week was established. This caused civil unrest. By the middle of the thirties the situation reached its boiling point. People began talking about loosening up and having a break. Western Media began screaming about Stalins "genocide of the Russian people". Stalin however refused to back down, aware that if they take a break from strengthening their military potential, they may be left with nothing to defend themselves. Imperialists would simply march across USSR all the way up to Ural. And the first to do so would be Nazi Germany. This was becoming more evident with western powers now giving room for German aggression. The culminating point of this provocation was the Munich agreement between Germany, England and France, which allowed Hitler to divide and latter occupy Czechoslovakia. Trouble was brewing on the Far East as well, where Japan has already captured most of Chinas territory and was approaching Soviet borders and preparing to test USSRs abilities. In summer 1938 a Japanese group crosses the Soviet border in the region of lake Hasan. In May 1939 Japan makes another attempt to test Red Armies abilities near the river of Halhin-Gol. In both cases they were met with worthy defenders who broke both attacks. A military recruitment law was passed, allowing to increase the now being reformed Army, up to 5 million people. Military academies began training commanding officers and technical engineers, early basic military training was started in elder classes in schools, activity of the Society for aiding the army, air force and navy (Osoaviahim in Russian, which stands for Obshestvo sodei'stveya armee, aviatziee, flotu). This, seemingly mad rush, the Imperialist powers saw as the reason and sign of the near end of the New Russia. No other country in the worlds recorded history ever experienced such an internal strain. Sure, Stalin could loosen things up, and increase production of candy and clothes and life would be most comfortable for the Soviet people. Of course, until Nazi Germany would come along and enslave the entire population taking away all those pleasures and submitting Russian people to degradation in order to use them as a mindless work force for the pleasures of the people of the Third Reich! The choice between submitting your population to a hard time now to ensure its future, or give them all pleasures in the world now and render them with no future at all, was obviously clear. There could be no set-backs, or loosening up and Stalin didn't allow such.

*snip

Stalin was decent ruler. He made a lot of changes for the good. He also killed millions for no reason.

Part 2 coming in a sec.

...did you just say part 2?

Mounting a defence of a mass-murdering, tyrannical dictator.

This should be interesting...

Stalin was decent ruler. He made a lot of changes for the good. He also killed millions for no reason.

Yes, and that kinda sucked (the killings of millions for no reason).

I'd say that the murder of millions of people (for no reason) outweighs what good he did. I mean, Hitler also did some good, he started the Autobahn, but he also killed millions for no reason.

So Stalin pretty much sucks, much like Hitler. And the OP phails.

I started reading until I realized it went on forever, so I stopped.

The Opposition was preparing for its final and desperate battle with Stalin which would take place on the XV Party Summit which was scheduled for the end of 1927. Trotskysts believed this to be the perfect time, because of the grown civil unrest with Stalins politics. Trotsky writes in his book how all around Moscow and Leningrad secretive gatherings of workers, students, from 20 to up to 200 people, to listen to representatives of the opposition. During a single day Trotsky would attend 2-3 or even 4 such gatherings. Kamenev, Zinovi'ev, Piatakov, Preobrazhensky, Serebriakov, Alsky and other opposition members also began mass anti-Stalin campaigns, telling the people how Stalins obsession over heavy industry was killing the country, tried to convince people that he concealed Lenins "Will" (which was one of their basic lies commonly used by now, even though Stalin already defeated it in front of the Central Committee once before). The opposition even reduced itself to primitive tactics, when attempting to convince the majority of the Central Committee of the Unions Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) of their own ideas being the only correct ones and not succeeding, they would simply begin shouting that there is no democracy within the Party. Also these fracturing actions taken by the opposition, attracted to itself a number of pro-bourgeois elements within the country and anti-soviet powers outside of it. The Opposition was now growing in its counter-revolutionary membership and tendencies, and was now posing a serious threat to the Party and the People. Lenin said that if they would show mercy or weakness before deserters and fracture-supporters, the Party would be easily destroyed. Remembering this lesson from Lenin, Stalin never backed down and finally addressed the matter and proposed that Trotsky and Zinovi'ev are to be expelled from the Party Central Committee. This proposition was supported almost unanimously by the members of the Central Committee. From that point onward the opposition began to crumble. Trotsky writes in his book how now Zinovi'evs and his friends only idea was to capitulate before Stalin would get to them as well. They believed that they would save themselves by publicly stepping out against Trotsky and revoking alignment with him during the XV Summit. However they didn't know that in politics a double-betrayal was dooming yourself. The XV Summits decision however was to eliminate the opposition from the Party as a whole. Kamenev and Zinovi'ev for their anti-soviet acts were trialled and Trotksy was sent away from Moscow to Kazakhstan. On the 20th of January, 1929 he received a notice, in which he was accused of counter-revolutionary activity of forming an illegal anti-soviet movement, the latest actions of which provoked anti-soviet gatherings and preparation of an armed rebellion against the Soviet Regime (Trotskys desperate attempt for gaining power to fulfill his true goals). In the end it was written, that Trotsky is to be exiled from USSR.

In the thirties Trotsky settled in Mexico. There he began his activities aimed against the Soviet Union. He knew the Party very well from within and knew its strong and week sides. His activity became increasingly dangerous before the start of the War. He attempted to fracture the international workers movement and weaken USSRs allies in the fight against Nazi Germany. Trotsky and his supporters, using support of people connected to Abwehr (short German for Auslandnachrichten- und Abwehramt - German military intelligence and counter-intelligence agency from 1919 until 1944), organized a rebellion against the republican government of Barcelona in 1937. About the connection between trotskyst leaders of the uprising to Abwehr, USSR learned from Schulze-Boysen, who later became one of the leaders of the Red Orchestra underground resistance movement on Nazi-occupied territory. After he was captured by German Nazis, the Hitler Court sentenced him to death, among the reasons of this sentence was listed the fact of him transferring information about the connection between the Trotskysts and the Nazis to USSR. Trotskysts further assisted Abwehr in finding and detaining multiple French communist party members on the run from the Nazi regime in France in 1941. This is when Trotsky showed his true face. In no way was he a Bolshevik, a Communist or a Marxist, but a Zionist or at least a tool of western Imperialsm. Also, this information requires further studies but seems plausible, in 1935 Goebbels, on behalf of the fuhrer presents with the title of "Honorary Arien" two Jews. First one - a big bankeer Mendelson. The second one... Lev Davidovich Trotsky, "For Achievment before the Reich". This was not done publicaly and was concealed. This information was gathered from the German Archives, which came into Soviet possesion after the end of the war.

The elimination of the "Left" Opposition path in the Party, strangely enough happened at almost the same time as a family crisis that Stalin faced with his wife Nadezhda. She still was a constant guest at the Buhanin household, and during this time Buharin was paranoid and was frightened by the Kamenev and Zinovi'ev Trial. His fear seemed to now dictate his life as he constantly spoke everywhere about the matter, including in the presence of Stalins wife. He panicked and rushed with his stories how Stalin fears for his power and how he doesn't need the old bolshevik-leninists and constantly shouted how Stalin would gut them all, since he already got rid of Trotsky. And Buharin wholeheartedly believed that he would be next (later in the text a copy of a recorded conversation revealed, showing Buharins paranoia among other things). What also could have influenced Nadezhda was how Buharin didn't have a problem talking about his political work, while Stalin wouldn't not share any information about his work with his wife (either because of Stalins obvious wisdom to keep his work separated from his family matters, or because of his Georgian origins, the culture of which had specific roles assigned for men and women and explains that its not a womans place to meddle in the mans work). At this time she studied in a Industrial Academy, where no one knew that she was Stalins wife and where the teachers would constantly quote Stalin and his statements about industrialization and reforms in agriculture. This situation, no doubt, seemed simply ridiculous to Nadezhda, as she was Stalins wife and didn't really know any of the things about her husband, that were referred to in her school, everywhere his portraits hang and in all the newspapers it was Stalin this and Stalin that and Stalin stated and etc. Now would be also a nice time add the fact, that as General Secretary, ruling the Party, Stalin had a minor paycheck, which sometimes wasn't enough to provide for his family. In 1926 Nadezhda even took the children to Leningrad to live with her father and get a job there to provide for herself, as she found it also ridiculous that she, as wife of the General Secretary could even afford new fancy clothes, unlike wives of Trotsky and other smaller party members. However this didn't work out, and she returned to Moscow, but prior to this she even wrote a letter to Stalin, asking to send her at least 50 roubles, since her next payment would be only on the 15th of September. But surprisingly Stalin couldn't. Contrary to popular belief Stalin lived same as the heavy majority of the soviet people (some sources say that up to 1935 Stalins payment as General Secretary was 225 roubles). Getting more and more upset about Stalin, Nadezhda finally pulled off a stunt, probably to tick him off: she attended the funeral of a well-known trotskyst Ioffe, which was also attended by members of the opposition with Trotsky, Zinovi'ev and Kamenev in charge. Everyone who spoke openly blackened Stalin, and Nadezhda simply stood there and listened. This later surely resulted in a big scandal with Stalin at home.

On the 11th of July, 1928, Buharin, in the presence of Kamenev, discussed with Sokolnikov methods of fighting Stalin. Kamenev made a short hand-written record of this talk which he passed on to Trotsky and in no time a copy of it reached Stalin. From this record it was clear the Buharin was afraid of the upcoming Plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Committee of the Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks), which was to discuss the "rightist tendencies within the UCP( b )." The rightist opportunists were naturally worried about this event and wanted to get Trotskys support. The copy of the hand-written record:

Sokolnikov: Buharin has completely severed all talks with Stalin and now is in a tragic situation.

Buharin: Stalin is a Genghis Khan and an intrigant (Russian. Someone who spreads rumors and creates intrigues), who subordinates everything to protection of his power. Stalin knows only one remedy - revenge, and backstabbing. Trust me, soon Stalin will start gutting us all.
As for Stalins political line - it is deadly to the revolution and leads to a civil war. Because of him we may fall.

Sokolnikov: Tomsky one time, while sitting with Stalin at the same table said to him: "Our workers will eventually start shooting at you."

Buharin: Under Stalin and idiot Molotov, who tries to teach me marxism and whom I call "stone ass", nothing can be done!

Kamenev: What is your strength?

Buharin: Our potential strength is enormous. R'ukov, Tomsky, Uglanov are our absolute supporters. I am trying to pull away from Stalin other members of the Politbureau but so far little success. Ordgonikidze isn't a night either. He used to come to me and blame and accuse Stalin and at the last moment - betrayed. Voroshilov and Kalinin also changed their minds at the last moment. I think Stalin holds them with some other form of chains. The Orgbureau of the Central Committee of the Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) is with us. Leaders of the OGPU (United State Political Administration) Yagoda and Trisiller as well. Andreev is with us too.
I see as my main political goal is explaining to the members of the Central Committee Stalins destructive role and gain us the majority to remove him.

Kamenev: So far he is the one removing us.

Buharin: What can we do? Removing Stalin won't pass in the Central Committe at this moment. However the preparations for this are underway. I plan to publish in "Pravda" (soviet newspaper "The Truth") articles with criticism of Stalin, and R'ukov will also publish his own report which should clear the situation.
If the country dies - we die! If the country finds a way to survive - Stalin turns around just in time and we still die! What can we do??
I would ask of you and Zinovi'ev not assist Stalin in strangling us by approving him. I ask you to tell your supporters not to attack us.

About such secretive operations of the opposition, Stalin found out from the same people whom Buharin tried to recruit on his side, but in vain. Others who agreed to support him, still reported him to Stalin, just in case. However even though Stalin knew now exactly how many people will be sided against him, but he didn't know what was his wifes role in the oppositions plans. The latest events, especially Nadezhdas presence on Ioffes funeral, were evidence of the opposition now manipulating her in their interest. This was most likely an attempt to hit Stalin from two sides: head on in the political arena, and in the back from his own home and family. The great difference between Stalin and his wife was their diffrent way of seeing the people around them: Stalin judged people according to their deeds, while Nadezhda judged people by their attitude towards her.

The Plenum which Buharin feared so much began its work in April 1929. The anti-Stalin banner, which was dropped by Trotsky, was now in Buharins hands. He and his supporters tried to steer the situation their way and accused Stalin of "military-feudalism exploitation of peasants", dissolving of the Comintern and creating bureaucracy within the Party. Negotiations with the opposition didn't lead to anything, and its membership even unanimously resigned, to make an impressive scene. Stalin also prepared to face off the opposition in the Plenum, confident that industrialization and collectivization were the right choices. Main enemy of this path was Buharin around whom all Stalins open and hidden enemies have now gathered. Lenin described Buharin as "devilishly unstable in politics". Almost the same said Trotsky: "this man always has to constantly rely on someone, follow someone, stick to someone. And without noticing himself he falls under the opposite sides influence and begin to blacken his idol with the same enthusiasm which he first used to praise him. I never took Buharin too seriously." Yet Buharin seemed to have a way with women and always won their support, both Krupskaya and Nadezhda liked him alot. In fact Buhrains entire attitude was a mask of niceness, and he could easily stab anyone in the back. Lenin saw right through that and practically warned the Party members in his final letter (if you remember previously in the text I referred to Lenins description of Buharin as weird, but now that we got more information about his personality I believe everyone will understand what Lenin ment): praised him as a "beloved Party member" (reference to Buharins niceness mask) and yet still criticized him for his theoretical views leaning "closer" to Marxism and for never actually learning anywhere (Lenin was criticizing Buranis poor understanding of political process, not understanding dialectics, and not being a true Marxist).

Lets take a quick view on Buharin. Born in 1888 in a teachers family. Russian. Studied in the Moscow University but didn't finish education (whether he left himself or was expelled is unknown). Was arrested several times by the Zarist Police, but was always quickly released. By the end of 1910 was sent away to Onega, from where he fled the country. In 1914 was arrested by Austrian Police under the pretext of being a Russian spy. However was quickly released because of insufficient evidence and was sent to Switzerland. In 1915 was sent away from Switzerland and for some time lived in Norway and Denmark. In October 1916 illegally arrives to USA. There he meets Trotsky. Comes back to Russia through Japan, where he got into an unfortunate incident. After getting drunk he was provoked into a fight and was accused of raping an underaged. By Japanese laws he was to be executed, however he was proposed an alternative: to work for the Japanese Intelligence. However the OGPU (United State Political Administration) didn't have any evidence of such. Until his trial in 1938, when to the judges question "were you recruited by the Japanese Intelligence" he answered: "got drunk, got into a fight, got recruited".

Now back in the April Plenum Buharin argued against collectivization and was shouting for agricultural development. He slightly judged industrialization and criticized Stalin, who "under pretext of capitalist aggression was creating an industrial monster which parasites off the peasants". However soon as Stalin began asking the opposition direct economic questions it became clear that the opposition became confused in its own statements. R'ukov said: "We have the same general line (as in everyone has the same goal, the opposition claimed to have the same end-goal as the Central Committee) in this matter and if there are some minor differences on the matter between us, then its only because there are many shades of understanding our general line" (basically he said that they have one view, but their diffrent views on this view existed because the one view can be understood differently. Makes sense? Of course not). Stalin asked: if theres one line, then why does Buharin constantly run to the Trotskysts with Kamenev in charge, trying to turn them to his side and tells them about the Central Committees general line being "doomed"? If there is one line then where did Buharins declaration, aimed completely against the Central Committee itself come from? And if there is only one line, then why does half of the Politbureau try to undermine the other half? Where did the declaration, signed by Buharin, R'ukov, Tomsky, where they accuse the Party of a "military-feudalism exploitation of the peasants, creating bureaucracy and dissolving of the Comintern " come from? Stalin finished by saying that there could be only two explanations for this: either the general line wasn't the same for everyone, or the opposition blames itself for "military-feudalism exploitation of the peasants, creating bureaucracy and dissolving of the Comintern". Afterwards he stated that the opposition didn't have anything in common with the Partys general line. The Party stood for the organization of the Kolhoz (short for Russia Collectivnoie Hozia'stvo - Collective Farming), while Buharin and co. stood for individual ownership. The Party stood for the liquidation of the Kulak (Russian for Fist, was used to defy richer peasants) as a class, which was capable of recreating capitalism, while Buharin said not to touch it, saying that eventually they would join socialism on their own. All of Buharins positions were the exact opposite of the Partys.

Collectivization of agricultural production was the key to begin usage of new equipment, new technologies, science developments, increasing development of agricultural methods, and lowering the initial cost of agricultural products. If the Party followed Buharins suggestion to cease collectivization and leave the Kulak alone, the results would be obvious. The Kulak, being the rural capitalist, he would use hired work force the same way capitalists do it in cities, he will mercilessly exploit labor of his hired workers and increase surplus value. Growth of such exploiting class would turn the Kulaks into "gray barons". This way the Kulak was becoming a supporter of Zarism, which is the enemy of socialism, and would attempt to grab the Soviet Regime by the throat. It was at this time that wheat and bread collecting began. If in 1927, 428 puds (an old Russian measurement, one pud is equal to 16,38 kilograms) of wheat were collected, then in 1928 it barely reached 300. This crisis, if it wasn't averted, could have undermined the whole Soviet Regime, as there wouldn't be enough to provide for the working regions, prices for the most basic and necessary products would rise which would in turn endanger general payment. The wheat crisis could have undermined the entire, still weak, economy and result in a disaster, especially if the government didn't possess a reserve of wheat in storage in case of poor harvest or war.

The majority was for collectivization of wheat from the Kulaks. Only three members of the Politbureau of the Central Committee of the Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) stepped out against this: Buharin, R'ukov and Tomsky. They either seemed to fail or supported the capitalist Kulak development: why would the Kulak give away his wheat for free if he can wait for the prices to boom, during its shortage and sell it for 10 or even 20 times of its original price? But it seemed that Buharin understood this full well when in 1925 he addressed the Kulaks "Enrich yourselves! Develop your agriculture and don't be afraid!" However the enrichment of this class would create their superiority over the rest of the peasants, which would lead to exploitation, so leaving the Kulaks alone was progressing capitalism, while the Partys proposed plan didn't allow any explotation of any peasant over the other. Still Buharin and co. stood their ground in this matter. But while before it was just Buharins big words with no real danger, now the small bourgeois were rallying under those words like a banner. While Buharin "believed" it would integrate into the socialist economy, it actually began taking arms, showing its defiance against it, showing its true face. In a short period of time in the countrysides where farms and peasants were, a rapid increase of up to 300 terrorist acts was noted, victims of which were local Party members and Kolhoz Activists. This was the reality behind Buharins theory.

Stalin continued criticizing Buharins theory in the Plenum, beating it a point at a time, showing its true face. He also pointed out that Buharin simply disliked the fact that the government became the provider of products for the peasantry, while it became the provider of wheat for the government with no middle-men involved. Who was the middle-man anyways? He stands between the producer and the consumer, doesn't work at all, buys from the producer for small prices and then sells that production to the government for triple the price. The middle-man was a speculator, which doesn't care for the producer or the consumer, and is only interested in personal gain. All of Stalins points were clear to the participants of the Plenum, while Buharins points everyone understood in their own way (he was now considered everything from a diluted idiot to an intentional destroyer). Yet Buharin was confident that he would turn the tide against Stalin and even grew bold enough to interrupt him during his speech (nobody every interrupted anyone else during summits and plenums, everyone waited until the orator would finish and only then state their opinion/criticism of what was said. The manner of rudely interrupting a fellow speaker during such meetings began with Khrushchev coming to power and exists in Russian politics till present day). Stalin continued his speach: "Russia is an agricultural country" and then Buharin interrupted him: "Everyone knows that..." and was met with a very calm comeback from Stalin: "See? Even Buhrain knows that." This caused some laughter and Buharin was put in his place. Stalin continued that in order to survive in a capitalist surrounding they were forced to divert some funding from agriculture to industry, or any plans they had to reform the national economy would be just dreams. Then Stalin reminds everyone of Lenins "Scissors Plan" which would fulfill this goal. The idea was to not only collect taxes from peasantry, but also it has to pay "over the top taxes" (used Russian term "Sverhnalog") by paying for industrial goods in the form of un-payed prices along the line of prices for agricultural products. This Sverhnalog would be something simular to a Dan' (in the old Russia a Dan' was a form of a debt) and was necessary in order to push forth industrialization and finally catch up with the rest of the world. Then Stalin said that if Buharin does have a better plan however, the floor was open for suggestions. Buharin stood and said: "To transfer funds is indeed important, but I dislike the term Dan' ". This caused more laughter from the audience. Stalin answered: "So then we both agree on the importance of funds-transfer from agriculture to industrialization. So why are we arguing? Just Because Buharin doesn't like the term? Lenin first used it to describe this form of tax in order to show its temporary need and complete liquidation soon as it became unnecessary. Of course maybe Buharin didn't like Lenin as a Marxist, but in this matter we can't help him." But in reality, as we have already discovered, Buharin and co. were just fiercely trying to protect the smaller capitalis in the form of the Kulaks. This is exactly why Stalin viewed Buharin and his whole company as counter-revolutionaries. Later in the Plenum Stalin adressed the matter of a submitted proposition to immediately expel Buharin and Tomsky from the Politbureau of the Central Committee. Stalin stated that personally he is against such a drastic measure at present time. However Buharins fate was already decided. The myth of him being the "beloved Party member and a serious Marxist theorist" was dissolved completely. In November of the same year the Central Committee of the Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) declared the "rightist opportunists program unacceptable existence within the Party" and expelled Buharin from the Politbureau of the CC UCP ( b ). R'ukov and Tomsky received their final warning notice. The Opposition was now defeated.

In the early thirties the number of individual farmers shrunk while the Kolhoz and Sovhoz numbers had grown 3 times in size. More territory for agricultural exploit was covered, and the harvest grew. In other words Socialism was winning in the countryside. Buharins predictions of the peasants refusing to join the Kolhoz, and that its increased development would anger the peasant class and distance it away from the working class have failed completely. The hopes of foreign capital that personal property would be restored in USSR were also crumbling. The peasants, whom the exploiters have always viewed as a tool to pave way for capitalism, were in masses joining the collective farming system - they were joining Socialism.

However the opposition did strike a blow to Stalin on a personal level, rather then political. Soon Stalins wife Nadezhda learned of the results of the Plenum after yet again visiting he Buharin Family. There, no doubt, Buharin now in depression of his defeat grew fatalist and still continued his talks about Stalin "gutting them all" (as was noted in the record previously shown in the article). This was further distancing Nadezhda away from her husband and the family and even away from their children. Stalins daughter Svetlana remembers how she once accidentally cut the tablecloth, and Nadezhda lashed her hands for that. Svetlana cried and when father came home, he took her in his hands and began calming her. In her book "20 letters to a friend" which Svetlana wrote while already in immigration in USA, that Stalin was a kind and caring father. She presents copies of letters she received from both parents individually which shown their attitude. Nadezhdas letter wasn't caring and didn't hold any words of praise or even basic kindness, it was cold and mostly disciplinary. She then compares it with a couple of letters from Stalin, which were always kind, and even playful. Before the Plenum Nadezhda also constantly spoke in admiration about Buharin, most likely to tick off Stalin, as she was still constantly throwing fits at home, but now not only Stalin felt it, but so did the kids, as was just shown. So anyone can imagine how the news of the results of the Plenum (also dramatized by Buharin) influenced Nadezhda.

The Tragedy started with the Banquet of the XV October Revolution Anniversary where all members of the Politbureau and the government were present. As told by a person present there (identity revealed later) the atmosphere was full of joy, everybody talked, made jokes, have a good time. Only Nadezhda didn't participate in the fun and bitterly sat, watching her husband. Nobody but Stalin himself noticed this and he addressed his wife: "Hey, how about a drink?" To this Nadezhda shouted back at him: "Don't you "Hey" me! I won't allow you to treat me like this!" And she left, slamming the door behind her. Molotovs wife and her friend - Polina Semenovna, ran out after her. As she tells about this event, she explains that together they walked around Kremlin grounds and talked about diffrent matters, including their husbands. Nadezhda was complaining to Polina about her miserable life, how there were problems with money, Stalin is almost never at home, that she suspects him of having an affair, that she can't remember when was the last time they went to a theater and etc. Basic family problems. Polina Semenovna grew tired of this topic very fast and tried to switch to other discussions. Eventually they went their separate ways.

Now we pick up the story of the Tragedy from Stalins Daughters book, where she tells about the events of the next morning. Karolina Vasil'evna Till - the housekeeper, made breakfast in the kitchen and went to wake up her mother. Suddenly she ran into the kids room, all shaking, she called the baby-sitter to go with her. They went to Nadezhdas room, where she lied dead in own blood near the bed; in her hand was a small pistol "Valter", which was given to her by her brother Pavel from Berlin. The two women were dead scared, that Stalin would come in at any moment (he in the meantime was still asleep in his work-room), so they moved the body on the bed and cleaned the blood from the floor. Afterwards they ran and started calling people: Head of Security Avel Sofronovich Enukidze and Molotovs wife Polina Semenovna (which is more then weird: why be afraid of Stalin finding out his wife died? On the contrary he was the first they must inform). Soon they arrived and with them so did Molotov himself and Marshal Voroshilov. Everybody were astounded by the tragedy. Now Stalin came out of his room and he was told: "Iosif, Nadiya is no longer with us".

Now it is a known fact that suicide is committed as a form of "punishment" done by the suicider to some specific close people (the basic "I'll show you! When I am dead you'll see!" suicidal logic). So its safe to assume that Nadezhda committed suicide to "punish" Stalin, but what for exactly is hard to say. The opposition was probing Nadezhda for such a long time and with such precision, that it was only a matter of time before disaster struck. This was the oppositions last blow to Stalin. Svetlana tells in her book, how before the funeral her father came up to mothers coffin and after a silent minutes pushed it away from himself with his hands and left. He didn't attend the funeral itself afterwards. It was lied, that Stalin never even came to visit her grave, but this is disproved by Stalins personal driver, who tells that Stalin came to visit his wifes grave on regular basis.

Yes, and that kinda sucked (the killings of millions for no reason).

I'd say that the murder of millions of people (for no reason) outweighs what good he did. I mean, Hitler also did some good, he started the Autobahn, but he also killed millions for no reason.

So Stalin pretty much sucks, much like Hitler. And the OP phails.

I dunno. People also like to defend Genghis Khan, who killed 20,000,000.

tl;dr

I WIN.

I trust we get a full citation of sources at some point. Thanks in advance.

I trust we get a full citation of sources at some point. Thanks in advance.

Ditto, considering some of this seems...far-fetched...

tl;dr

I WIN.

Honestly, I don't think that can fully encompass what's going on here.

And yet further proof that I was right in calling AP here a stalinist.

Click Stand;13300811']I started reading util I realized it went on forever, so I stopped.
Well don't say it wasn't asked for, I was asked in the other thread when my defense of Stalin thread was coming, so here it is, I'll bridge it out over a few pages but seriously if you're not interested in reading another side to the Stalin story from facts then don't read it. I have to admit though that it's pretty old, I wrote it in college like 3 years ago.

Ditto, considering some of this seems...far-fetched...
Well, I'm interested in them because I haven't read the essay of his yet. I'm not interested in reading some short story. If the sources seem ok, on the other hand, then I might read it.

Still, Stalin had his sons and daughter, whom he loved very much, and they loved him. Infact, lets now take a look at Stalin, from one of his sons point of view. Lets take a look at Stalin through the eyes of his adopted son - Artem Fedorovich Sergeev.

Artem Fedorovich Sergeev has an amazing memory and possesses unique family photos (just a few of which I will scan from the book and insert here later). He entered the Great Patriotic War when he was but a 20 year old lieutenant, 4 days after Nazi Germany invaded USSR, and exited it three days after its end on 12th of May, 1945. He retired as a General-Major of Artillery. He was adopted by Stalin after the untimely death of his father, legendary Russian Revolutionary 'Comrade Artem' (this was his nickname, full name: Fedor Andreevich Sergeev. While in Australia in 1910 he was known under the nickname "Big Tom"), comrade to Lenin and Stalin, who died on the 24th of July, 1921, during a test of the 'Airocart' (special train cart designed to transport Soviet officials) and was buried near the Kremlin wall. 'Comrade Artem' was the founder and Chairman of the Soviet of Peoples Commissars of the Soviet Donetzk-Krivorozhsk Republic. Later a member of the Central Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party (of Bolsheviks), One of the leaders of the struggle against the Central Rada, the kazaks of Ataman (leader) Kaledin, and against the AustroGerman occupation. Organizer of the first Donezk Army. His son Artem Fedorovich Sergeev is the only man alive today who knew Stalin close and defends his Father from western lies, while western media tries not to talk about him, as if he doesn't exist, knowing that they can't lie about him while he is alive.

I will translate the most interesting and important parts of his 2006 interview with Ekaterina Glushik.

Glushik: What are your first memories of Stalin? Do you remember first meeting him?

Sergeev: Its impossible to talk about the first or the second time meeting Stalin. From the very beginning, as far back as I can remember myself, I remember him as well, and always had the up-most respect for him. I thought that is the smartest, the most just, the most interesting and even the kindest, even though in some matters very strict, but still the kindest and gentle person. Whenever he had free time, he would spend it with us, his kids. Whenever he came home from work and we weren't asleep yet or if he came in the middle of the day he would at least spend a few minutes with us. And each time we learned something from him, something new and interesting. But he never actually made us learn anything, as if we must. He knew how to get us interested in the matter we were discussing and he never made us feel like we don't understand anything. He would ask diffrent questions and ask our opinions on the matter, and if we couldn't answer something, he would explain it to us in simple words, and never acted like a mentor.
I can remember one of these talks we had back in 1929. Stalin asked me: "What do you think about the crisis in America?" I only heard a few news, something about the bourgeois dumping coffee in the ocean. "And why are they doing it?" he would ask. And I replied that they are just bad, and they should have just given it to our peasants and workers since they have so much of it. "No, see they wouldn't be bourgeois if they gave it to us. Why do they dump it? Because they only care about themselves and how to make a bigger profit. They dump it, because the surpluses remain and their people can't buy it. And if they lower the price, then the bourgeois will loose money, and he doesn't want that. So to keep the price high, they dump it. The Capitalist will always do so, because his main concern is to have more money. And our main concern is to make life good for our people, to make it better, that's why you say that it would be better if they gave it to our workers and peasants, because you think that their concern is the same as ours - to make life better for the people."
Or I remember another one. In 1935 after me and Vasily watched the play "Days of the Turbins" (a play by Michal Afanas'ievich Bulgakov, describing the life of a few White soldiers, officers and family members during the Civil War, the whole play is about the Whites, with the Reds appearing only at the end, but without actually coming out on the stage / Stalin often sent his two sons to the theater, as Artem Sergeev explains) Stalin asked us: "So what did you see?". I answered that I didn't understand it: there is a war there, but no Reds, only Whites, but they fight someone and I didn't understand whom. And Stalin tells me: "And do you know why? Whites and Reds are only the the two opposite ends. Between them there is a line that turns from white to red. The people, whom you saw fighting in the play - some of them are completely white, some others are slightly pink, but not red. But they can't band together, so they are fighting. Never think that you can separate people to just reds and just whites. Only leaders and organizers, the more understanding and self-aware people are purely of one color. The masses follows both, sometimes gets confused and goes in the wrong direction."

Glushik: Do you think Svetlana and Vasily believe in their supremacy or importance as children of the Leader of the People?

Sergeev: Svetlana was a shy and modest girl, she tried to hide (hide away from) her elite status. She had her own friends, she was best friends with Marfa Maximovna Peshkova and was friends with Levina, all her school friends.
Vasily liked power, but was completely not materialistic or selfish. He could give away everything he had, even if that would get him into trouble. He always tried to make gifts for his comrades, even if he himself needed what he was giving. As a school kid, he got into many fights, but never fought those who were smaller and weaker then himself. He fought with older boys after some argument or if they offended a weaker kid. He was "the protector of the weak". He often got beat-up, but he never complained or told on someone, as he was convinced that it is shameful to tell about getting beat-up. He was a nice kid, kind to his comrades, but unfortunately with age it passed.

Glushik: Were Stalins own kids jealous of you?

Sergeev: No, never. Vasily could have been jealous of anyone only about power. But even so it was just a one-minute jealousy. His relations with Svetlana were fine, he didn't love her that much and felt a little hurt that his father really loved Svetlana and constantly set her as example to him.

Glushik: and how were their relations with Yakov (Stalins son from first marriage)?

Sergeev: Vasily really liked Yakov, and Yasha (Yakov) liked him even more-so, he as an older brother really liked both Vasily and Svetlana.
Yasha fell in love once, but something didn't work out and the lovers decided to shoot themselves. Yasha shot, and she didn't. He got an injury. There is a myth that Stalin laughed at him, saying that he couldn't even shoot himself right. But to whom did he say that? To whom? Where is it documented? Or, just as a lot of other things, is it made up by todays liars?

Glushik: Was Stalin proud of his kids?

Sergeev: Stalin constantly set Svetlana as an example to Vasily, and, what he disliked even more, set me as an example to him.

Glushik: Did Stalin congratulate you on holidays, give you presents?

Sergeev: He gave us books. On my 7th Birthday he gave me "Robinson Crusoe" by Daniel Defoe, and for my 8th Birthday - "The Jungle Book" by Kipling.

Glushik: Did Stalin read a lot? Which books were in his library?

Sergeev: Stalin read many books. And each time we saw each other he would ask me what am I reading at the moment and what do I think of it. Right before the entrance to his cabinet, on the floor there was a tower of books. He would look through them and set aside those which he would put in his personal library in the Kremlin. I don't know what happened to it now.
He always read books with a pencil in his hand, marking something. The majority of his books were philosophical works and our classics. He liked Gogol', Salti'kov-Shedrin, Tolstoy, Leskov, had works of Esenin, Mayakovsky, Pasternak, Bulgakov (famous Russian writers). The last one Stalin respected and told us: "This writer shows that heroes were not only in the Red Army. Heroes are those who love their Motherland more then life itself. And such, unfortunately, didn't fight only on our side." In fact Stalin payed special attention to education of Russian language and literature. Knowing who we want to be when we grow up he asked us: "So you will be in the military. And what is the most important subject for a soldier?" We began naming diffrent subjects: mathematics, physics, fitness training. And he told us: "No. Russian Language and Literature. You have to speak so that everyone could understand you and in extreme battle conditions you have to speak brief. And you too have to understand what you are being told. A military must be able to express himself both verbally and in writing. In war you will face such situations, which you have never faced before. You will have to make decisions. And if you read a lot, then in your memory you will find a hint how to act and what to do. Literature will help you."

Glushik: there are rumors about Stalin having look-alikes. Have you ever seen them?

Sergeev: Not only have I never seen them, but I never even heard such rumors until recent times. He had to often addressed many people from the Mausoleum, so if there was a fake of him, somebody would notice, some rumors would appear, Vasily would know for sure, but there were no such rumors. I often talked to Nikolai Sidorovich Vlasik (head of Stalins security). But no, never heard from anyone about that.

Glushik: Did Stalin like guests and company?

Sergeev: All his company always concerned his work. At the table they would discuss important matters. They would grab a small bite to eat and then back to work. There were constantly people in the house, soon as the first group leaves - another one comes. And if referring to Stalin, let me say it again: he constantly worked, always, everywhere, at his country house as well.

Glushik: There are talks that Stalin was afraid of leaving Moscow, didn't like and was afraid of the army, and during war never went to the front.

Sergeev: He was right when he said: -Following quote cut out, Partial quote of 'Stalins Prophecy' which will be addressed in the end of the essay-. During the war I was at the front, but I didn't see Stalin. But my comrade from the Academy Igor' Alexandrovich Sokolov, at the time a Senior Lieutenant, now a retired Colonel, was Marshal Voronovs' adjutant. He told me of how they came to the front. They were called, to come immediately. When they came they were greeted by Stalin. In the HQ for the Western Front and the Kalinisk Front.

Glushik: During which years was that?

Sergeev: 1941, 1942, 1943 - the hardest years, when some matters needed to be handled directly. General Ivan Alexandrovich Serov, back then a zamnarkom (vice of national commissar) of Internal Affairs, and later Chairman of the KGB, told me how Stalin would call him and say that, for instance, they have to travel to the Western Front HQ. He didn't like huge Escorts and during the time it was important not to attract attention. So Serov would prepare a car that no one knows as Stalins and they traveled to the Western Front. After arriving and handling all important matters Stalin would ask how is everyone performing. He was told about Alexander Evgeni'evich Golovanovs aviation, and of how great it performed, all tasks performed perfectly according to orders. Next they traveled to the Kalininsk Front where too everyone praised Golovanovs Aviation. Stalin called Moscow, and Malenkov asks him: "Comrade Stalin, where are you calling from?" And Stalin answered: "That isn't important. Prepare and publish an order about promoting General-Colonel Golovanov to Marshal of Aviation". Then he called Golovanov himself: "Comrade Golovanov, I wish to congratulate you." And he replied: "With what? It's not my Birthday and I don't think today is any other holiday." And Stalin then said: "Read the newspaper".
After all the matters were taken care of they had to spend somewhere a night. Stalins security service chosen a house at the edge of a village, almost unnoticeable. But the house owner (an elderly woman) refused to let them in, scolded at them. They quarreled for a while even threatened her, but finally got in the house.

Glushik: But today people constantly talk how the people back in those days were afraid to speak out against the government. And here there is a war going, and a group of military officers ask to spend a night, and the house owner doesn't want to let them in and scolds on them?

Sergeev: Today you can hear a lot of things. So anyhow, they spent the night and the next day Stalin asks: "Did you thank the house-owner?" The men accompanying him were a little startled, why thank her, she didn't want to let them in in the first place. And he replied: "If she knew who was staying she would have acted differently. You must thank her, after all we spent the night in her house."
Todays talks that he never visited the front is just garbage of those who don't know anything. For him it was a basic work trip and it would have been foolish to announce it publicly. And Stalin wasn't concerned with providing proof to break future lies. He was busy working for the country, not PR.

Glushik: How did Stalin relax in his country-house and spend his free time?

Sergeev: Stalin liked to play "Gorodki" (From Russian Gorod - Town / Gorodki is an old Slavic game, dating centuries back. The basic principle was to hit all parts of a figure (parts - cylinders, made out of wood, 20 centimeters long and 5 centimeters wide) out of a square (town) from a distance by throwing a stick/bat (no longer then 1 meter, also made out of wood) at the figure. Whoever uses the least bats to hit the figure out of the square - wins. Can be played in teams and individually. / The game developed many important to a Red Army Soldier skills and aspects like calculating strength of a throw and eyesight) and on his country-house there was a "Gorodki" field made. In Sochi he used to play it with Kirov and Budenni'. All three of them loved the play and watch the game. Each had his own style of playing it. Stalin threw the bats trying to be precise, both in aim and strength, he never put too much strength in a throw. Kirov threw harder, and Buddenni' threw so hard that the bat sometimes got stuck in the fence, if it didn't just break through it. Buddenni' had an iron hand.
During the game they always talked. Sometimes discussed specific events. They would discuss and talk about such matters and then after somebody threw a bat they would discuss how how was it, where did the bat fly off to and etc. It was done with humor and slight jokes. So even during a game they would discuss work, and the game itself was just to stretch a bit.
Also there was a billiard room. Stalin was good at billiard. Once he invited over Kalinin and utterly beaten him in it. Kalinin ironically began complaining, saying that a good host would let his guest win.
Stalin liked and respected Kalinin, for his qualities and heights reached as a worker. Kalinin was a Slesar'-Lekalshik (First word in Russian means metal craftsman, second I am not sure how to translate into English) which is a worker of highest qualification, as he could make any part of any shape. Also he was renowned among peasants for his work in the field with a scythe. Stalin respected mastership in all fields, whether it was art or science, but most of all he respected labor and especially labor of a worker or peasant.
In Summer, August of 1934, on his country-house in Sochi, Stalin and Kirov were working on an order to make a new school-book "History of USSR", which was published in 1937 under professor Shestakovs editing. Stalin himself new history brilliantly, including history of war, he didn't just know all the great wars and battles, he knew what got them started, the proportion of forces and how they ended: he studied and knew why did one side loose and how and why the other came out victorious.
Me and Vasily were given assignments. We both received a book - Illovai'sky and Bel'yarminov history schoolbook. We had to read it and answer questions, do assignments on what we read. I think Stalin and Kirov didn't just want us to learn it, they also wanted to know our attitude on what we read, what interested us more and with what we had difficulties. While Kirov was away we had a little free time, but when he arrived, we completely forgot that there is a sea near us.
The books were really old, and their condition was proof enough. And when Stalin gave them to us, we laid them down on the terrace and gone out to play volleyball to a neighboring house. When we returned we saw that the entire terrace was filled with something white and Stalin was walking around and was picking something up. Thats when we realized that something was wrong, so we ran to the terrace and saw that he was picking up pages. Turned out there was a strong wind and it tore apart one of the books (and it turned out to be one of mine), and so Stalin was walking around, gathering its pages. When he saw us, he told me "Do you have an ass instead of a head?" But that flash of anger instantly died and he calmly explained to me, that in that book were centuries of history, and that people literally shed blood to collect and store all that knowledge, and that later scientists and historians spent dozens of years working with that material, to provide us with knowledge of mankinds history. "And you?" He then told us to get awl, some thread, glue and peace it back together. We spent the following several days working on that book, with great effort. Finlay we showed it to Stalin, and he said: "You did good. Now you know how to treat books". It was a lesson we never forgot, ever since then I don't dare to tear even a newspaper. And Vasily from that moment on and until the end of his life was always extremely careful with books.

Glushik: Did Stalin swim in the sea?

Sergeev: No, Stalin was of the mountaineer people, and they usually don't like swimming. Kirov however liked to swim. He would everyday go for a swim and Stalin would accompany him, and then walk along the seashore, waiting until Kirov finishes his swim.

Glushik: And how did he address Kirov?

Sergeev: "Dear Comrade Kirov".

Glushik: And how did Kirov address him?

Sergeev: "Great Leader". Of course that was ironical. On an official scale they were Comrade Kirov, Comrade Stalin.

Now we skip to the part of the interview about Stalins friendship with Kirov.

Glushik: What were Stalin and Kirov relations like?

Sergeev: They knew each other for a long time and were true friends. They were comrades and shared same political views, but first of all friends. One could easily see that if they spent some time observing them. And I observed them first-hand from the end of 1929 and almost until the very day Kirov died. I must say that after Nadezhda, the closest person Stalin had was Kirov. He had no closer friend. Nadezhdas death changed Stalin in some ways, and so did Kirovs death. Those were horrible losses that influenced his life.
He died on the 1st of December, 1934. The Plenum just ended, after it there was a big parade and Kirov was present there, made a speech, being a brilliant orator. A Brilliant Orator! He left for Leningrad and the day after that this horrible tragedy happened. It was a great tragedy both for the country and for Stalin personally - he lost a friend with whom he practically shared his life, his work, shared his opinions with him, sought advice and sometimes debate on something wit him. And have a good laugh.

Glushik: Did Stalin enjoy humor?

Sergeev: Always. No matter what, in any situation. He often quoted Gogol', Salti'kov-Shedrin, Leskov, Zoshenko and other funny things. He and Kirov knew well Satirist-writers and classics of the genre.
They also had personal humor, like Kirov would call Stalin the "Great Leader of all Peoples and Times". He would joke: "Listen, maybe you can help me, you are more educated then me, the Great Leader of what else are you? Other then Times and Peoples, what else is there?"
And Stalin called him "The Beloved Leader of the Leningrad Proletariat" and also liked to joke around: "And not just of the Leningrad Proletariat, but of the Bakinsk proletariat, perhaps of the entire North-Caucasus proletariat! Wait, "the Great Leader of what else are you?" What do you think? My head is not the House of Sovnarkom (From Russian "Soviet Narodnih Commissarov" - Soviet of the Peoples Commissars) to know everything!"
Stalin and Kirov always fruitfully spend time, even during the so called vacations. On his country-house in Zubalovo, Stalin and Kirov would grab gardening tools and go to the vegetable-garden. He loved hand-labor, just like everyone in the family, in fact love for labor was developed and appreciated in our family. At his country-house in Sochi Stalin himself grew lemons, apricots, peaches, took care of them himself when had the opportunity, and those trees nicely grew fruits, and Stalin would offer guests and the country-house staff a treat of his own-grown fruits. He and Kirov discussed how to best grow them and if it was possible to cultivate them in other regions of the country. For instance Stalin tried growing watermelons at his country-house outside Moscow. I think he wanted to make sure himself if it was possible to grow them in our climate and then spread experience how to grow them across the country.

Glushik: What was Kirovs attitude towards you and the other children?

Sergeev: He was very kind to us. Besides, Kirov was friends with my dead father and acted like a caring mentor.

Glushik: Do you believe that Kirovs death was a planned blow against Stalin by the people, who knew that this would cause a great impact on Stalin?

Sergeev: When on the 24th of July, 1921, my father died in the crash of the "Airocart", Budenni' said that it was a horrible accident, a catastrophe. To this Stalin answered: "If an accident caries political consequences, then this accident deserves special attention".

user posted image
Kirov Segey Mironovich



Glushik: There is a version, that Stalin was jealous of Kirov and wanted him out of the way.

Sergeev: I am more then sure, that all these "versions" and assumptions are lies. Political lies. And a political lie is already harmful and, even if unintentional, a crime. Stalin couldn't be jealous of Kirov. Sure, people get jealous of each other, of each-others qualities, but Stalin would never be jealous of Kirovs fame and love from the people. And Kirov was indeed loved by the people, which isn't surprising. Relations between Stalin and Kirov were foremost of friends and comrades, fighting for the same cause. One of them was the Leader and the other was a helper, friend and a trusted adviser, who couldn't be replaced in certain matters. There couldn't be any jealousy because they were diffrent people. Stalin was the Leader: he understood economics and was leading all political matters. Kirov was a brilliant orator, whom the people followed, he knew how to inspire the people, get them to contribute to even the hardest work, he knew how to lead the people into the right direction. But he didn't know economics. He understood the principles, yes. But he wasn't as detailed in the matter as Stalin, he couldn't see several moves ahead like Stalin.
When Kirov was in the house everything seemed sunny and happy. Now whenever Beria was in the house, everything seemed to darken.
When Stalin was informed of Kirovs death, he and a group of Party leaders traveled to Leningrad and he personally organized all the details of the funeral. And Kirov was buried like a soldier who died in battle. During the funeral procession it was easy to see that it was hard for Stalin. He made a speech but he was talking in a very low voice and in short sentences. Suddenly he began talking louder and more active, and said that Kirov was an optimist, who enjoyed life and if we will keep crying, we will insult his memory, and he said that the best way to honor our dear friend Kirov is if we continue working to achieve our common goal. Then he said that Kirov knew of the risks in this struggle, but he was dedicated and sure of our victory and was ready to sacrifice his life for it, so we had to prove that he was right to be sure.
Then he began remembering diffrent episodes he had with Kirov, some of which were funny, some were more serious. Stalin remembered how he and Kirov would joke with each other to lighten the tensions, and he did the same in his speech, because by the end of it everybody felt better, though still mournful about Kirovs passing. And it was hardest of all for Stalin.

Now we skip to the part of the interview where Artem Sergeev talks about Stalins attitude to Culture and Sports.

Glushik: Did Stalin choose books to read himself or did he consider his friends and comrades taste in literature?

Sergeev: He always picked books to read himself. He looked through and read a huge amount of literature. I never counted exactly how many, but I always seen him reading and writing from dawn to dusk. He would be brought new documents and old ones would be taken away. There was a Commissar of the Artillery Command - Georgi' Savchenko, who even knew Stalins parents, and knew Stalin himself very well. He wrote that Stalin read 500 pages a day. I think that's true.

Glushik: Did he have preferences is the genre of books?

Sergeev: No, he never had specific preferences, he ready a bit of everything and always learned something and thought how to use it for the benefit of the soviet government.

Glushik: Under Stalin there was a powerful program to fight illiteracy, libraries were opened, theaters, cultural gatherings. Did he believe that through culture it was possible to re-educate the people and create a "new man"?

Sergeev: Never heard anything about trying to reform the people into something diffrent. He understood that people have certain beliefs. Some can be persuaded and some can't. And he respected that.

Glushik: Stalins Grants in Culture were prestigious. Were they his idea or did he support someones proposal?

Sergeev: I don't know the details, but the money was his and his initiative. Usually he decided who should receive the grant. The money was from all he earned from the books he wrote and were already sold in millions of copies. He never did keep money, he distributed it where he saw fit. I should point out that his work (books) re wrote himself and by hand. He was surrounded by books and material and newspapers. And then he arranged where would what go: to the press, to the archive, some things as recommendations, some were top secret and with a long-term seal. And regardless of how much paperwork he had on his desk, it was always neat and organized.

Stalin stole my birthday.

Glushik: Stalin knew that people saw him as their ideal, do you believe he had to try and maintain that image?

Sergeev: To meet the peoples ideal when in public is one thing. There were many writers and journalists who formed his image. And he understood that well. For instance take his talk with Lion Feuchtwanger (German writer, spoke with Stalin during his trip to Moscow in early 1937 and wrote notes about life in Moscow under Stalin, named "Moscow 1937", where he praises life under Stalins rule). He told Stalin that an entire cult is forming: no matter where you look, Stalin is everywhere. To this Stalin answered, I believe, this way: the people have to believe in something. The Czar is gone, God was taken away from them, but they still have to believe in something.

Glushik: during those years it was the rise of sports and fitness. Did Stalin do any sports?

Sergeev: He enjoyed playing "Gorodki", billiard, he was good at shooting with pistols, revolvers, rifles, hunter guns. He rarely practiced, but he was a sharp-shooter. And he used to tell me and Vasily: "You have to know the weapon, and know how To shoot".

Glushik: You and Vasily were training in horse-ridding and you skied. Did your parents approve?

Sergeev: We loved skiing, especially mountain-skiing. And back then there were no specialized fastenings so me and Vasily got our fare share of bumps and bruises from the falls. However, no matter how severe our bruises were we would not complain. And Stalin was never overprotective in this matter, you would never hear him say "Be careful, you might fall!". If Stalin saw us in bruises it was alright, but if we would complain about it - that would be bad. Without falling you would never learn how to do it properly. Same was with horses. Stalin told us that he rode horses when he was our age too and that he often fell down, but never complained. Me and Vasily learned that lesson well: try and try again, but never complain.

Glushik: You said that Stalin rode horses. But it is rumored that he was afraid of horses and that it was the reason why he didn't want to lead the Victory Parade and assigned Zhukov to do it.

Sergeev: Complete rubbish! He was a brave person, and to think that he was afraid of anything is foolish. But he was a realist, he knew exactly his abilities and their limits. To ride a horse is not simple, one has to train regularly, spend a lot of time on it. He didn't have such time, and if he was to participate, he would have to do it professionally. But even getting on a horse is not simple. Besides, Stalin was already not as young to do such things, his health wasn't as good as before, and he knew all of this. So naturally it was out of the question for Stalin to lead the parade riding a horse. And all modern rumors and talks about this matter are rubbish.

The next part of the interview we skip to is about Stalins Birthdays, though before we go into this matter there will be a few questions about Religion.

Glushik: Were there any talks about religion in the house? What was Stalins attitude to religion? Did you celebrate any religious holidays?

Sergeev: No we never celebrated any religious holidays. However everybody used such phrases as "Thank God", "God protect", "God forgive", and Stalin sometimes used those too. I never heard Stalin say a single bad or even negative word about the Church, Faith or Religion. In fact I remember how, I think, in 1931 or 32, right across the school where Vasily studied, there was a church. One day when there was a procession inside and everybody were praying, some of the guys from his school were shooting with a fake gun nearby (the fake guns referred to in this situation are made to sound like real guns and have a small fire spark to make it look like its firing, originally made for self-defense, to fool aggressors that you have an actual gun), Vasily didn't participate in this but he did tell Stalin about it. So he asked him: "Why were they doing that? Those people pray, they don't interrupt your studying, so why are you interrupting their praying?" Then he asked Vasily: "Do you love and respect your grandmother?" And Vasily answered that of course he did, she was after all his fathers mother. Then Stalin told him: "She prays too", and Vasily asked: "Why?", and father answered: "Maybe she knows something that you don't".
Stalin knew matters of religion very well, he had many books, including ones about history of religions. He wrote important articles on the matter as well. For instance in his article "Against destruction of Churches" he explains, that churches - are cultural monuments of our Motherland. And to destroy them would be destroying cultural heritage. In his article "Forbidding political pursuit for faith" he speaks about the importance to stop hunting people for their faith.
I was present at Stalin funeral from the beginning and to the end, and amongst the people who came to pay their respects to him, were many priests and other church servants.

Glushik: How were Stalins birthdays celebrated at home?

Sergeev: Everything was as always, but with some special detail. And diffrent manner of speaking, but nothing really special was done. So nothing really colorful exists in my memories, it was just another day. Though a lot of singing was done. Other then national music we listened to Leshenko and Vertinski'. Once someone critically spoke about Vertinski's songs. Why are we listening to them, who needs them? He left the country and now sings some sad and strange songs. Neither the workers nor the peasants need it. To this Stalin answered: "There are not only the bourgeois and the proletariat in Russia. There are many more of other people too".
Even in 1934, when Stalin turned 55, there were no special arrangements. Just more people got together, relatives and friends and co-workers. They laughed, sang, and danced a little, since there wasn't really much place to dance.

Glushik: It is rumored that Stalin showed some special attention to his comrades wives.

Sergeev: He was kind and social, all his toasts were formal or with a bit of irony. But, no, I never seen or felt him provide any sort of special attention to anyone.

Glushik: Did Stalin work on his Birthday?

Sergeev: He always worked. Even at the dinner table on his Birthday, most talks were related to his work. These dinners didn't differ that much from our regular ones. Sometimes more people attended then usually, but thats it.

Glushik: Were toasts made in his honor?

Sergeev: Ofcourse. But if someone started overpraising him, he would joke about it. He always joked about the praises he received. He made toasts as well, in which he thanked everyone for their kind words. His toasts always had meaning in them, he always had some specific word for each person, which was simple, yet satisfying for the one, whom it was meant for.

Glushik: Did Stalin receive gifts?

Sergeev: Never! There were absolutely no gifts, ever! He didn't like getting presents, and everyone knew that.

Glushik: And did the country celebrate Stalins Birthday? Were there congratulations in the papers?

Sergeev: Yes, and when Stalin read them in the papers, he would joke about them. Stalin never liked being worshiped but he accepted it as something unavoidable, like something he had to go through with, even though he didn't enjoy it. And he never considered his Birthday a personal holiday, even less so as a national one.
I remember that on the 23rd of February, 1948, when Red Army Day was celebrated and it was an anniversary, there was a great concert in the Bolshoy Theater. Many who came mostly spoke about Stalin. He didn't interrupt anyone, but during a small break he spoke: "Comrades, I believe you forgot, where and why you came. I don't have an anniversary today, the Red Army does. I am telling this to those who have forgotten, who is celebrating an anniversary today. And that would be the Red Army and not Comrade Stalin".

Glushik: Perhaps he dressed more officially on hist Birthdays?

Sergeev: No, he always had the same clothes: soft boots, straight pants, and a french (service jacket). It was plain, simple and comfortable.

Glushik: And after Stalins death, did you celebrate his Birthday? Maybe with Vasily? And do you still celebrate it?

Sergeev: We couldn't possibly celebrate with Vasily, since he was arrested shortly after fathers death. But we always celebrated his Birthday. Even during the war me and my comrades on the front, who respected Stalin, celebrated it. And even during the years when Stalins name was suppressed by all means, we celebrated. And I still do celebrate Stalins birthday with my dear wife Elena Yurievna. And whenever we can, we place flowers on his grave near the Kremlin wall.


And so we finish looking at the Man behind the Politic. The real Stalin, as remembered by his adopted son Artem Fedorovich Sergeev.

Now comes the biggest and most important part of my essay. Beating myths and lies about Stalin and his politics.

Earlier it was already shown that Industrialization and Collectivization were the only choices for USSR if it was to survive in a hostile Imperialist world. Without these, The Great Patriotic War would have been lost, and no compromising solution could have helped. Industrialization and Collectivization saved future generations from extinction or slavery.

Before we go into destroying other myths and lies however... we must study another one of Stalins Victories - The Destruction of the Fifth Column, a Victory of such magnitude that it can be compared to the Victory achieved in the Great Patriotic War.
This is where we once again remember about Trotsky and show his Zionist nature.

Taken from one of Trotskys speeches: "On the ashes of Russia we will become such a Power, before which the entire world will bow on its feet!". For Trotsky and his friends, Russias history didn't mean anything, it was just a tool for their plans, and neither Russian History, nor Culture, nor even its people meant anything. Already in the 1920s, under the pretext of fighting hunger, and grotesquely deforming the Bolshevik idea of fighting religion Trotsky managed to order to rob and close thousands of Churches, thereby aiming to destroy the only thing left for the people to believe in - Faith.

Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic. ALL-RUSSIAN CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (VZIK in Russian) of the Soviets of Workers, Soldiers, Peasants.
MOSCOW. KREMLIN I 1866672
01..V. 1919 STRICTLY SECRET for Chairman OF V-CH-K (3 letters in Russian) comrade DZERZHINSKIY F. E.
ORDER


In accordance with the solution OF V.Z.I.K. and Soviet of the Peoples Commissars, it is necessary as fast as possible to put an end to priests and religion.
Popes are to be arrested as counterrevolutionaries and saboteurs, must be shot mercilessly and everywhere. And as many as possible.
Churches are to be closed. The buildings to be sealed and converted into storages.
Chairman of V.Z.I.K
Chairman of Soviet of the Peoples Commissars

But the original idea of the fight against religion was not by force, but by peaceful educational means. But Trotsky successfully perverted this idea for his own purposes. But the person who signed this order is actually Michael Ivanovich Kalinin - A Russian and a respected party member, renowned for his kindness. Lenin described Kalinin as: "A Comrade, with 20 years of experience in Party work; he is a peasant of the Tver' Gubernya (In the Imperial Russia, lands were owned by local "Governors" and those lands were called Gubernyas) who has direct experience with peasantry... The Petrograd Workers believe him to be able to appeal to wide working masses..." How could such a person, a Russian (who was christened!), who knows how deep the Russian peasants religious beliefs are, sign or ever write such an order? But when compared to other Kalinin orders, the difference in tone and style of writing is obvious. So who wrote this abomination? And why would Kalinin sign it? Here lies a grave Party secret: Politbureau obligated Kalinin to sign any and all orders made by Trotsky. During the Civil War Trotsky made hundreds of orders for merciless shootings, which, if compared to the order presented above, match in style and tone. Another peculiar thing about this order are the signatures. First by Kalinin and then by Lenin. But Lenin was "outranking" Kalinin, so his signature is supposed to be first, as all Soviet orders are signed. So why is Lenins signature second and why would HE sign this order? The problem is, however, that it is not his actual signature, but his facsimile (usage of these was practiced in the Central Committee). In a scientific study "Politbureau and the Church 1922-1925" (Kremlin Archives) on page 5 of Volume I, it is said: "there have been cases when signatures of members of the Politbureau in documents, were made by their technical secretaries, who were skilled at forfeiting their signatures; it was also discovered that sometimes members of the Politburea would sign under the name of another member”. This may very well be the case in this order, when after the attempt at Lenins life on the 30 of August, 1918, when he was unwell and wasn't involved in any political matters, a facsimile of his signature was probably made for this order. However there are evidence that Lenin might have willingly signed the order, but under diffrent pretext of simply robbing churches of gold possessions in order to help fight starvation, which began after the end of the Civil War and further fund the Party. This theory is supported by Lenins letter from 19th of March, 1922, "For members of the Politbureau concerning the events in Shue and Church Policies", in which he even calls for a secret meeting on the matter, after the Party Summit, for which Trotsky prepared a "top secret" note "Policies towards the Church", where he calls to fight the counter-revolutionary tendencies within the Church, while giving a back up to his reasonings by providing history of European Churches from the Dark Ages and of the Russian Church in Imperial Russia, proving its "bourgeois tendencies". Amongst the people present, the only person not to vote at all on this matter - was Stalin.
Notice, however, that the Politbureau agrees with the program in order to help fight starvation, while Trotsky was now ready to pervert this into a plan to destroy the Church. The most eager and energetic people to carry out this plan in accordance to Trotskys real intentions were actually former members of the Jewish Communist Party, who before joining the Bolsheviks, formally stated that they forsake all their Zionist ideals and now were a part of a National regiment in the Red Army (Trotsky proposed dividing the army by nations). No need to connect the dots to see the answer here: Zionists were destroying the Russian Orthodox Church and also rising anti-bolshevik tendencies amongst the population, which blamed them for this terror. Also it was Trotskys suggestion to open numerous anti-religion newspapers ("Atheist", "Warring Atheist" and etc) in which the Zionist propaganda constantly insulted the Church and religious folk. Some may ask that if Kalinin was a Russian who respected religion, why didn't he try to fight Trotskys ambitions? He did. Learning of the impeding massacre of religious people, he wrote a telegram order as the V.Z.I.K. Chairman, to immediately stop the execution of said order. Trotsky was infuriated with Kalinins move and addressed the Politburea on the matter of Kalinins insubordination, who directly broke the Politbureaus obligation made for Kalinin to sign and follow any and all of Trotskys orders. Politburea discussed the matter and warned Kalinin and even threatened him with a Military Tribunal and execution. Kalinin must have known about Stalins negative views about the matter and wrote him a letter, asking to somehow influence the Central Committee to stop this madness. But during those years Stalin didn't have such power yet, to stand against the power of the Chairman of the Revvoensoviet (Revolutionary Military Soviet) - Trotsky. The country was overwhelmed by terror against religion, as all who opposed Church robberies were viewed as counter-revolutionaries. In 1922 alone, more then 250 Trials were held, in 1923 over 300, within 2 years more then 10 thousand people were trialled and every 5th was shot. Kalinin still tried to fight this and didn't just refuse to sign death orders, but constantly spoke out for their cancellation. Trotsky fought back Kalinins demands to the Politbureau and demanded himself, that Kalinin be interviewed on the matter.
During the XII Party Summit, however, Delegates from all over the country, spoke out against the brutal policy towards the Church and stated that these methods differ from the Partys Program. Using this, Stalin immediately published a Declaration of the Central Committee regarding the religion question. In this declaration it was stated that the Party Program regarding antireligion actions was not being uphold, as the program, according to the Resolution XI of the first Party Summit, states, that forceful means of erasing religion only make it stronger, increasing fanaticism in believers, therefor increasing their resistance on the matter, while it was stated that educational means of scientific disproving the existence of god would be more efficient then forceful means. Then the crimes committed by local authorities regarding churches and believers are listed after which there is an official declaration of the Central Committee that churches are forbidden to be closed for specific accusation listed in this declaration, and also all the churches that have been previously closed for said reason are to be opened immediately. This declaration also forbid arrests of "religious character" and responsibility for the brutal antireligion actions must be put on local officials (secretaries of Gubkoms, Obkoms, Oblbureaus and of National Central Committees and Kraykoms). However the declaration warns that everyone must keep a close eye that religion doesn't turn into the tool of the counter-revolution. Declaration signed by Stalin - Secretary of the Central Committee on 16/VIII-23 year. This declaration was Stalins stand-off against Trotsky and his defense of the Orthodox Church. The declaration doesn't say a word about Trotskys and the trotskysts responsibility for breaking the Party Program as all official documents were signed on behalf of Kalinin and the V.Z.I.K. while the real culprits stood in the shadow. But never the less Trotsky and his associates completed their task - thousands of Russian popes and priests were repressed and killed, hundreds of churches were robbed blind and turned into storages, while putting the Bolsheviks credibility in the peoples eyes on the line. According to a report from the 4th of November, 1922, the collected church valuables (gold, silver coins and precious stones) were worth 4,650,810 in Golden Rubles. Also a total sum of 964 items were obtained, which need special specification for their worth. However not all of this was used to fight starvation. A certain percentage (a sum of 25 million golden rubles) was presented to Trotsky (or on the official level to the Revvoensoviet, the Chairman of which was Trotsky) by the Politbureau, for support and development of the Army and Trotsky received even more funds for his dream - World (Zionist) Revolution. The most precious church artifacts were transfered to a museum directly under Trotskys supervision. However the museums director is none other then Trotskys wife Sedova.
The Bolsheviks seized in the beginning of 1920 the Empires gold storages and never needed the church artifacts and "precious possessions". Besides the Bolsheviks nationalized all property and withdrew even more gold from the bourgeoisies. A great sum of this gold was transfered OUT of Russia by the Trotskyst-Zionists. The american Newspaper "New-York Times" published that in just first 8 month of 1921 USA extorted 460 dollars worth in gold (767 tons of gold according to another source), from which at least 102,9 millions was transferred to a company that belonged to, yet again, a Zionist, banker Yakov Shiff, who is also known for originally funding Trotsky and his "revolutionary" activities. This was simply Trotsky paying dividends. American newspapers have multiple times written articles about the process of "washing" stolen gold: it was transported to Scandinavia, where from it is transported to USA but with new marks. More specific: "the director of Swedish mint stated that in this year (i.e., from 1. 01 till 22. 04.1921) they remelted 70 tons of gold worth approximately 42 million US dollars, and the large part of this gold was transported to the USA. The marks of Swedish mint were placed on remelted gold. A quantity of "bolshevist" gold, stored in the Stockholm banks, is estimated to be a total sum of more than 120 million US dollars". And it was in 1921 that the "New-York Times" publishes the article about the overwhelming amount of Gold being received from all around the world, which resulted in government storages to halt the gold income.
So the gold which was supposed to help stop the starvation was concentrated in Trotskys hands who happily transferred it out of Russia. An interesting opinion about Trotsky gives Dr. George Robert Ackworth Conques, in his book "Great terror", who was always negative towards the Soviet Union and Stalin. He speaks of how Trotsky was preventing Lenins attempts to influence political matters of the country from "the hospital bed". and that in the following intrigues Trotsky shown himself to be not a direct follower of Lenins/Communist ideals, but actually a dodgy and cowardly figure.
Another famous western figure Adam B. Ulam, professor of the Harvard Univercity writes that Trotskys own description of the events is a "pathetic half-truth with an attempt to ignore facts".

“Trotsky never lost a chance to hide or pervert facts in his political interests — continues Robert Conques — The overall credibility of his works can be judged by his accusation of Stalin poisoning Lenin. There isnt' a shred of proof for this accusation, which Trotsky abandoned in 1939, many years after Lenins death and his exile from the country" when he was already working with Nazi Germany against USSR.

Also Conques writes: "When people say that Trotsky had a charming personality, it is referred to his speeches on big gatherings, his most famous works and his fame in society. But still Trotsky repulsed many with his vanity and irresponsibility, when he proposed "brilliant" ideas and then demanded their execution no matter the cost.

Trotskys vanity, unlike the same characteristic in Stalin, was a show. There was something theatrical in Trotsky. During the Civil War he shown himself to be ruthless and executed more people, then Stalin is accused of killing. Yet even in this Trotsky was playing a dramatical role of The Great Revolutionary simply executing the cruel will of history. If Trotsky came to power, he would surely rule ruthlessly, people would be just material for his vain and ambitious goals”.

What Stalin did at that time, was guarding his own positions until he would achieve more power to directly act against Trotsky. When he finally achieved this and numerous times defeated the Opposition in open debates (as you may remember previously in this paper), he made an official document on the 12 of September, 1933, which defended the Orthodox Church, in which he stated that the remaining Churches must be protected as architectural monuments of Russian culture, and that their defense from demolition and usage in other purposes is important and that even disciplinary actions should be taken against those who attempt to destroy or misuse these monuments. Final proof of Stalin saving the Russian Orthodox Church is with another document, an order for Beria, issued by Stalin on 11th of November, 1939, where he states that all religion-based prosecutions must be immediately stopped, Lenins order from the 1st of May, 1919, about the "struggle against popes and religion" to be canceled, and for the USSR NKVD (in English - National Committee of Internal Affairs) to immediately revise all cases of religion-based arrests and to immediately free all those whose activities did no harm to the Soviet Regime. On the 22nd of December, 1939, Beria made an official report on the execution of Stalins order from 11th of November, 1939, which stated that since the day of orders issue, 12 860 people were freed from the GULAG labor camps, 11 223 were released from detention and that around 50 000 people were still incarcerated, but it is estimated that at least 15 000 would be released after further investigation of these citizens.

My my, I believe we just discussed Trotskys Zionism and disproved one of famous lies about Stalin.

But now back to the matter of the Fifth Column. Here we will have to make a few set-backs and you will have to remember what we discussed in the very beginning.

The Zionist Order saw Trotsky as the local ruler in Russia, whos army was to help establish the Zionist Order. A famous quote from Trotsky himself related to this issue: "Russia is just firewood for the flame of a World Revolution".
After Lenins death Stalin began executing Lenins idea, which he explained in his last letter to the Party, which you may remember from the beginning of this essay, and recruited more people into the Party membership who seen Stalin as the dedicated follower of Lenins doctrine, but Stalin recruited people only from the native nations, who were concerned for the future of their Motherland, thereby creating the opposite to Trotskys team of foreigners (mostly Zionist), who had no interest in Russia and its history, culture or future.
Stalin now lead the country to becoming a self-sufficient government, which would produce everything it needs itself (as you may remember from previously in this essay), thereby eliminating the possibility of the capital to exploit USSRs resources. This was not welcomed by western capitalists or by Zionists (in actuality the Zionists pretty much held control over capitalists, so naturaly their interests were the same), and it was now Trotskys Duty before the Zionist Order to propagand impossibility of "Socialism in One Country" which in actuality meant capitulation before Capitalism, Imperialism and Zionism. But just to be sure, those who were not interested in Russia and USSR becoming self-sufficient and Free country, were now preparing the rise to power of a Nazist state in Germany, which would be driven later to destroy and exploit USSR by force, just in case if the Fifth Column is not successful. In 1920s the Political Control in Russia and USSR was practically divided: The higher ranks of power were under control of Stalins native nations representatives, and the lower, local Narkoms (From Russian - The Peoples Commissariats) were held tight by representatives of the Fifth Column, including at least half of the NKVD staff. That resulted in high orders that were issued with good intentions, being carried out in a completely diffrent manner by local authorities (we just read about one such example with the Churches issue: Fighting Starvation - Zionists eradication of Orthodox Religion).
After Trotskys exile, there still existed an illegal Trotskyst movement, which had a rich experience at terror and was preparing for an armed takeover of power. In the 1936 and 1938 public trials, truth was revealed about several incidents, like train crashes, explosions in mineshafts and the "freezing" of several important military objects. These diversions and sabotage were done so as to deliver as big a blow as possible to the economy and stability of the USSR, before the impending war with Germany. The members of the Fifth Column had no doubt that this war would happen. According to the materials of the 1937 trials it is discovered that in exchange for power, the Fifth Column (Trotsky, Radek, Pyatakov and others) would be willing to tear USSR apart and give Ukraine to Germany. Then it was planned to restore capitalism in Russia and turn it into a source of raw material for the capitalist west. Here is what a trotskyst leader - Karl Radek, said durring the trial of the 24th of January, 1937: "We now must fight for endorsement of foreign capital here". The other leader Pyatakov stated: "Nazist Germany promises good relations with the Trotskyst Bloc, if it comes to power, but only if we surrender to them some territories".
Before this, while terror was still handled by the illegal trotskyst movement, some trotskysts made thei way back into the eshelons of power and still had control on at least half of the NKVD staff and they used this asset to kill some key Party members. Knowing that a certain party member Nikolayev is jealous of the Leningrad Proletariat Leader - Sergey Mironovich Kirov, the replacement of the Chief of the Leningrad OGPU - Zaporozhets, did not attempt to prevent the murder. Before this, said Nikolyaev was arrested twice with a revolver in his hand, but both times was released with no charges pressed. Stalin was absolutely right, when after receiving information of Kirovs death, he said that this was the work of the Trotskyst Opposition. Later, during the public trials, its leaders did not attempt to disprove their connection to Kirovs murder.
If you remember, we previously mentioned in this essay Lion Feuchtwanger, who praised Stalins rule, after visiting Moscow in 1937. But during his stay in Moscow at that time, Feuchtwanger was present at several of these public trials and wrote in his book "Moscow 1937": "Majority of the accused were conspirators, revolutionaries against the current Soviet Regime, rioters and supporters of an uprising. This was their calling. They saw in Stalins government a "shattered-mirror" reflection of what they were trying to achieve themselves."
Durring this time the new Narkom (Peoples Commissar) of NKVD became the famous figure, from the edited photograph with Stalin, on the first one he is present, and on the later one, he is edited out (we are about to touch the myth of Stalin "erasing" people from history for no good reason) - Nikolay Ivanovich Ezhov.

Stalin didn't remove this Butcher from his position for some time, until he got infuriated with a report presented to him in September of 1936, with a list of horrible illegal actions committed by the NKVD under Ezhovs orders, like incarceration of citizens for concealment of ones social heritage. Ezhovs problem was that he saw as the route of all problems to be Jews (though Stalin once told Ezhov, that its not the Jews that count, but the Zionists) and his competitive nature, as he wanted to make bigger reports of incarcerated "traitors, counter-revolutionaries, terrorists" and etc, which in reality were innocent people. He believed that the more such "enemies" he arrests or kills, the greater he is, and this competitive spirit was caught by all regions, who began competing for higher results. Khrushchev for instance was head of such operations in Moscow. And he was constantly beating on his staff that some other region arrested and/or killed 50 thousand more people then Moscow (here we see yet another real Butcher - Khrushchev). So it should be no wonder, that Stalin, a man of great principles, as you may or may not have realized by now, was disgusted by Ezhov and his actions and wanted to have nothing more to do with his filth, not even be with him in one picture. But since it is believed that Stalin had ultimate power, all these atrocities are now, and even some were back then, blamed on him.
Aftor Ezhovs predecessors and another Trotskyst infiltrator as head of NKVD - Genrikh Yagoda, was replaced, a mass purge of the infiltrators within NKVD and the GULAG head-officials, responsible for the real repressions of the innocent began (we have now touched the myth of Stalin repressing innocent people), thereby finally revealing the double line within the work of these official structures, and allowing Stalin to destroy the one, that was following Trotskys orders and caused repressions of the innocent. Now, they were going to the GULAGs themselves. Also a massive purge of infiltrators within the army began, as it was discovered that the trotskyst elements existed there as well, since many of the commanders and officers served in the Civil War and were appointed by Trotsky and they supported Trotsky in the twenties (we have now touched the myth of Stalin being paranoyed of his military officers planning a murder on his life, which resulted in him ordering to kill said officers), and these elements were to help Nazi Germany win the war against USSR, by simply allowing the invaders go right through the borders, unchallenged, as was Trotskys intention, as we have discovered previously in the text. But yet again the Fifth Column twisted Stalins righteous actions in their own interests.
Еhe chief for administration of calculation of command personnel - Feldman together with a First Rank Army Commissar - Gamarnikov (both Trotskys Zionists), have created a code "OU" in regard to Heads of Staff, expelled for political/moral issues. Under this Feldmans code, thousands of innocent army commanders were expelled from their positions and some of them shot, since the lists of OU figures was transfered to the NKVD. The head of this plot was Marshal Tukhachevsky Mikhail Nikolayevich - an ambitious, almost Napoleon like person, with absolutely no military awards, who, because of his incompetence, failed ever single possible assignment, from his actions in the Soviet-Poland war, to his attempts to stop the Kronstadt rebellion (which was done in 2 attempts, first one proving his complete ignorance in warfare). His only "success" was stopping the Tambov Peasant Rebellion, where he used poisonous gas on the peasants. He also demonstrated his "tactical wit" to Stalin, when he suggest to him to produce tens of thousands of tanks of an already out-dated model, which needed to be replaced. However, for a member of the Fifth Column such a suggestion is only logical, as it is designed to further weaken USSR before the unavoidable war with Germany.
How did Stalin learn of the plot? There is a solid theory of a secret NKVD channel, organized by British Intelligence, with the help of Walter Friedrich Schellenberg - head of the Nazi German SS Intelligence Service. On the receiving end of this channel was their agent known as Beria Lavrentiy Pavlovich, who then passed the information about the Plot to Stalin. This was done, to get Beria closer to Stalin and to gain his trust, so that Beria could receive a high government position from which he would follow orders of Western Capitalism and Imperialism. According to the NKVD detective Ushakov, a.k.a. Ushemirsky, the evidence of the plot was so serious, that after being presented to Tukhachevsky, durring his interrogation on 25 of May, 1937, he confessed about the plot the very same day. Soon afterwards its other members Feldman, Putna, Primakov and other plotters were arrested. Stalin decided not to inform the population of all the delicate details of this plot and the plotters were officially accused of espionage for foreign countries.
In 1970, Molotov states in his interview with writer Chuev, that the events of 1937 were necessary and that it was thanks to 1937, that during the war there was no Fifth Column in USSR and he doesn't believe rehabilitation of many commanders to be right. And added that none of them tried to answer the question of whether they were participants of any anti-Soviet plots. And here is an interesting comment, of the USA ambassador to USSR Joseph Edward Davies soon after the start of the War: "The struggle, the witnesses of we are now, would have never taken place, if Stalin and his comrades did not eliminate the traitorous elements" and after he was asked about his opinion on the Fifth Column in Russia, he answered: "They don't have such. They shot them".
Before the War, Stalin did not only began to strengthen Russia and all of USSR, making it jump heavy industrialization in 10 years, but he also had to fight the traitorous elements within the government, and began to heal the wounds caused by their actions. As was previously stated, the purges in the army to get rid of traitors were used by those traitors to expel from the army and shoot some of them, innocent and loyal commanders. Already in January, 1938, sentences of commanders sent to the GULAGs went through more investigation and over 11 thousand military commanders were reinstated in their previous positions. Amongst these was Marshal Rokossovskiy Konstantin Konstantinovich. During the Summer of 1941, as Rokossovskiy remembers, Stalin invited him to his country-house in Kunzevo, where Stalin picked white roses from his garden and gave them to Rokossovskiy, saying with a sadness in his voice: "This is for you and for the torment you had to endure in the past".
The finishing touch in the destruction of the Fifth Column was an order to kill Trotsky in Mexico, who assisted Nazi Germany and continuously tried to undermine USSRs positions even from far abroad.

We have just also touched in this matter the myth of Repressions. As already proved above, the repressions of the innocent were NOT on Stalins orders, and the following repressions were done on Stalins orders, but the repressed were in no way innocent. Stalin repressed the the true killers of the innocent. Still the western media constantly lies about the number of the repressed (both innocent and guilty, blaming all on Stalin) reaching such ludicrous numbers as 20 or 60 or even 100 million people. Time to do some statistics and learn the true numbers.

To be Continued

The destruction of the Fifth Column was a great victory?

How the hell was killing anyone who opposed him a victory as great as the end of the Great Patriotic War? You make it sound as it were honourable or difficult - when it really wasn't.

Also: Sources/Citations please.

I applaud the sheer size of the essay you have written so far about 24,000 words. I didn't have time to read it yet but thanks for the post.

Click Stand;13300811']I started reading util I realized it went on forever, so I stopped.

You didn't miss much.

I skimmed it up until this point:

In Russia, Trotsky is called a Zionist, who perverted Marxes ideas for the Zionist cause of world Imperialism, and the Zionists sponcered him and his work..

And then I disregarded anything I'd read before that.

I skimmed it up until this point:



And then I disregarded anything I'd read before that.
Because of the spelling or the content?

Well, AP finally managed to convince me he's not a troll. I should still give him the benefit of the doubt - that he doesn't really believe all that he posts here - but if that essay is written by him (and as far as I can recognize the style, it is), there is now truly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
It is so sad to meet such an outstanding example of the horrible misuse of a human brain. :(

tfl;dfr

(owns GT :p)

I dunno. People also like to defend Genghis Khan, who killed 20,000,000.

20,000,000? Source? Sounds kinda hard to do at the time, there were a lot less people around when he lived available for killing.

20,000,000? Source? Sounds kinda hard to do at the time, there were a lot less people around when he lived available for killing.

If we take his word for it.

Anyone else notice in the midst of the massive amount of text there's remains of what was clearly a copy/paste job from somewhere else? "User posted image" et cetera?

Where'd you plagiarize this from?

If we take his word for it.

Dunno, Genghis Khan seems like the type who might be prone to bragging and perhaps exaggerating his um... 'accomplishments.'

Dunno, Genghis Khan seems like the type who might be prone to bragging and perhaps exaggerating his um... 'accomplishments.'

It must have been relatively high. 60,000 women committed suicide when Peking surrendered. Imaigne those he personally killed? And I know he killed a few million Muslims (by their population records.)

And do not fail to forget that Asia is the most populous region in the world, and Genghis Khan took all of it (aside from Japan.)

It must have been relatively high. 60,000 women committed suicide when Peking surrendered. Imaigne those he personally killed? And I know he killed a few million Muslims (by their population records.)

And do not fail to forget that Asia is the most populous region in the world, and Genghis Khan took all of it (aside from Japan.)


He was also fairly prolific. IIRC 1.3% of the worlds population are direct decendents.

He was also fairly prolific. IIRC 1.3% of the worlds population are direct decendents.

I know, 200,000,000. I think the Peking incident illustrates that nicely.

Anyone else notice in the midst of the massive amount of text there's remains of what was clearly a copy/paste job from somewhere else? "User posted image" et cetera?

Where'd you plagiarize this from?

Or, alternatively, you could give him a chance to post his sources. I'd imagine they'd be found in the end part of his post(s)... if it ever ends.

EDIT: Stalin is, in my opinion, responsible of killing 9 members of my family. I hate Stalin with passion. If Eureka Australis can help me hate him less, I'm gratefull.

And yet further proof that I was right in calling AP here a stalinist.
He's a troll ;)

Well AP, you're not stupid. You've just got an incredible talent for getting into a certain mode of thinking and not moving from it.

I read a book review recently of a book about actual people during Stalinism in Russia and its effects. Maybe you wanna have a look - it's certainly on my list.

http://www.amazon.com/Whisperers-Private-Life-Stalins-Russia/dp/0805074619

Because of the spelling or the content?

Content. The spelling is more amusing.

Fascinating: such a long text, yet so throroughly and deeply filled with crap. Special bonus for Protocols of Elders of Zion.

As for Genghis Khan: I guess, had Stalin built mounds of human skulls, in 700 years he may be remembered as epic dude. :)

Just waiting for someone to make a "in Defence of Hitler" thread too...

tl;dr;dc;

If Stalin really needs to be defended, I wonder all the fuss about when the Khrushchev administration initiated the de-Stanlinization process?

Even his own government, which he roughly raise to superpower-hood, tried to phase out his influence.

tl;dr

I WIN.

That's basically all that can be said.

But from an incredibly quick skim through, I got the impression that the OP was arguing at one point that Stalinism isn't so bad because it's close or the same as Leninism, or a continuation of Lenin's future plans.

I worry that the OP has somehow deluded himself into believing that either Leninism, or living under Lenin, was remotely good in any way. I worry that he believes that being like Lenin makes you less of a murderous tyrant, and that Lenin wasn't one.

The following information is almost common knowledge to all Russian communists, and that is why there are no Trotskysts in Russia and only Leninists-Stalinists.


Funny, that. I could have sworn that the reason there were no Trots in the Soviet Union was because Stalin had them all shot.

it does seem a rather long read, but reading the first post I'm curious as to how you discovered Stalins communism?

Well AP, you're not stupid. You've just got an incredible talent for getting into a certain mode of thinking and not moving from it.

I think its rather that he genuinely follows this because he cares, which is oddly something you don't really see all that much from NS

I worry that the OP has somehow deluded himself into believing that either Leninism, or living under Lenin, was remotely good in any way. I worry that he believes that being like Lenin makes you less of a murderous tyrant, and that Lenin wasn't one.

I think what AP is getting at is rather why Stalin did these things basically cracking eggs to make an giant communist omelet

Funny, that. I could have sworn that the reason there were no Trots in the Soviet Union was because Stalin had them all shot.

Or ice-picked. But a lovely essay. I hope one day to be as talented, but with a lot less verbage.

1) Did he indeed have a gross personality disorder, brought on by his upbringing, and did that lead to the Great Terror of the 1930's

...does having a disorder affect the evaluation of Stalin's as historical character? No. It may affect our views on his personality, but who really gives it a fuck? Dialectic materialism - it's all about facts and history, and masses of humans, not single men.


2) Further more, are the accounts of the Great Terror exaggerated more than the usual "Telephone" effect would suggest?

Meh. No credible data afaik, anyway the Purges killed off lots of the best thinkers, in the Party, in the Army and in the intelligencija.


3) Did he deliberately repress democratic processes in an effort to quash any real resistance to his own policies, or did he do it merely to stop counter revolution?
Problem is that Stalin defined as "counter-revolutionary" ANYONE who opposed HIM. Expecially other communists.


4) How do you explain the slaughter of his officer corps before WW2?

He was smart enough to understand that the Army wasn't totally under his control and that it could become a rallying point for the supporters of Trockij's (Trockij had been the maker of the Red Army, after all).


5) What were Stalin's reasons for Forced Collectivisation?

The urge to build socialism in an agricultural, backward country - while Marx theorised socialism as emerging from the internal struggles of an advanced capitalist/merchantile country system (like England).


6) In your own words, can you explain why Stalinism is the direct continuation of Leninism, and why Trotskists are wrong in their assumption that Bolshevism gave birth to Stalinism and that Bolshevism is inherently corrupt?

You may put it like this: Stalin took up the urge of transforming a backward country with feudal superstructures into a modern industrial power - and he took up this urge from early thoughts of Lenin's (1905-1917). The problem is that, after War Communism, Lenin realised that this change couldn't be achieved via a totally centralised state capitalism, and this is why he introduced NEP - to have a more flexible production structure, that was expected to improve greatly CCCP's economy and life standards.
Anyway, Stalinism ISN'T the continuation of Leninism. Also Trockism ISN'T the continuation of Leninism. Stalinism transformed socialism and communism into a personal dictatorship with state capitalism, while Trockij hoped (and he was WRONG) for world revolution propelled by CCCP - at the time, CCCP didn't have the material resources and production structures not just for world revolution, but for itself. So, it's a match of dictatorship vs utopism.
Dictatorship fails to achieve one of the goals of communism (which is true democracy - that is, a democracy without census classes), and utopism is a youth disease of communism.

Enver Hoxha's memories of him
Enver Hoxha was a total moron and a tyrant to boot - look at the state Albania was in the mid-80's: they almost fared better under the italian colonisation.

and Mao suggested literally that he was a shy and softspoken person.
I bet that this is before Henry Kissinger, Chou En-Lai and Mao became friends over the corpses of the Vietnamese. No, I don't like Mr.Mao.


Here is an excerpt of his poetry

...really, paraphrasing Iosif himself, "how many divisions poetry has"? Again, dialectic materialism isn't about single men: it's about HISTORY, MASSES, PRODUCTION RELATIONSHIPS. Stalin's poetry might tell us that he wasn't a drooling killer or the boogey man... he was merely an AMORAL RULER, and he used all means to achieve his own, very personal, ends - which, fortunately, in WW2 coincided with the destruction of Nazism.


Their style of writing is one of the easiest pieces of ideological writing to date.
Yes, very easy. Oversimplification, I would call it.
I prefer Lenin, Antonio Gramsci, Karl Marx, Palmiro Togliatti, Ho Chi Mihn. These comrades didn't need to oversimplify their reasonings to make them understandable to anyone. As example, read the speech Togliatti held in Naples after the fall of fascism (explaining the so-called "turn of Salerno", that is why italian communists had to postpone the institutional question of the instauration of the republic until the nazis and their lackeys had been driven off the italian soil).

Anyway, thanks to Iosif Stalin for leading CCCP to victory against the fascist aggressor. That, and no more.

The following information is almost common knowledge to all Russian communists, and that is why there are no Trotskysts in Russia and only Leninists-Stalinists.
I think that it may also be because being a follower of Trockij's earned you some years in gulag, or a summary death sentence... ;)


(Stalin) He wasn't a theorist or obsessed with Ideologies

This puts his "ideological writing" under another light, doesn't it?


(Lenin) was born in a respected, wealthy family, he was interested in the Marxist idea of Communism, but sought ways to make it better, became a theorist, but all revolved around this ideology, all he did revolved around the ideology itself. He was dedicated to it and to its cause, but first of all he though about the Ideology.

That is because scientifical socialism is grounded on social sciences. Acting before thinking isn't a good idea, generally, so bully for Lenin.


What about Trotsky? Born in a rich family, theorist, but was he even dedicated to the ideology? Or did he use it for other purposes? In Russia, Trotsky is called a Zionist, who perverted Marxes ideas for the Zionist cause of world Imperialism, and the Zionists sponcered him and his work.

Translation: Trockij was a jew. Jews are rich. Jews hate Russians, rich men hate communism.
Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, anyone?



They explained to Lenin the price of return to Russia: if he was to succeed and rule Russia, he would sign a peace treaty with them, which later was called the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Peace Treaty that would cause Russia to loose a great deal of its lands.
Btw Lenin was happy of getting rid of Poland - why continue the tsarist, imperialist occupation of Poland?


Basically Trotsky was jealous. After all Trotsky was the son of a rich Jew land-owner and colonist, was a remarkable student of an educational center in Odessa, knew 7 languages, loved literature and was a remarked theorist.

So, Trockij was an intellectual while Stalin was a poor guy. Ach, those damned jews...


Also, however, he saw in him a dangerous element to Zionist plans, because he was not from the Zionist Bolsheviks (yes, Trotsky wasn't the only one, he had a team around him that assisted him), and was not attracted by goals of a World Revolution, which they wanted to later twist into a Zionist Order, but was attracted by a dream to make Russia great again.

...

Man, I got only through one-third of your "essay" (errata corrige: through one-third of the first part of your "essay"), and you already managed to spit more antisemite fanatism than a Nazi would dream of. The "terrible jewish plot to destroy Russia and Communism"... looks very similar to the "terrible jewish plot to destroy Germany and Aryan Race". Both totally bogus, both built by people who wanted to point out an easy target to the discomforted masses - because they were POLITICALLY and PERSONALLY UNABLE to give the masses the MATERIAL WELL-BEING that represents their FIRST NEED and RIGHT.


Really... get a grip on reality, will you? Start with Das Kapital and Die Grundrissen der deutschen Ideologie, again. One chapter before going to bed, every night.

Just waiting for someone to make a "in Defence of Hitler" thread too...

Here. I volunteer.

"In Defence of Hitler.

Your Honorship, try to understand that this piece of shit, Herr Adolf Hitler, formerly Reichskanzler and Reichsführer, still is a human being. Have pity on him: have him executed in a swift, possibily painless way, and let's forget what our gut feelings yearn for. We want to be better than him."

There. Done.

Here. I volunteer.

"In Defence of Hitler.

Your Honorship, try to understand that this piece of shit, Herr Adolf Hitler, formerly Reichskanzler and Reichsführer, still is a human being. Have pity on him: have him executed in a swift, possibily painless way, and let's forget what our gut feelings yearn for. We want to be better than him."

There. Done.

Not what i would call an essay, but indeed a good summary. You get an A. :p

Fascinating: such a long text, yet so throroughly and deeply filled with crap. Special bonus for Protocols of Elders of Zion.

As for Genghis Khan: I guess, had Stalin built mounds of human skulls, in 700 years he may be remembered as epic dude. :)

Wait, he quotes from the Protocols?

If so, then bang goes any chance of it being a serious article.

Lemme guess: The evil capitalists are covering up the truth of the actions of Stalin, who was forced into his more distasteful actions by what the evil capitalists did. In reality, he wasn't all that bad, and only did what he needed to.



What a massive load of degenerate, rancid horseshit.

I mean, such vast quantities of useless babble, narrow thinking and vomitous support of one of the most brutal mass murderers of the past century is hardly worth looking at.

Funny, that. I could have sworn that the reason there were no Trots in the Soviet Union was because Stalin had them all shot.

No! He might blow-up dozens of innocents while pulling-off a robbery, but he surely would not kill people who disagreed with him.

Nobody with a mustache would be so uncouth...oh wait, never mind. :(





















http://blog.wired.com/cars/images/2007/03/29/castro_2.jpg

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/graphics/hitler_fuhrer.jpg

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=35483&rendTypeId=4

http://libro.uca.edu/payne2/Franco.jpg

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6806/lenin010605nv9.jpg

A russian friend once summed up Stalin and his influence on the Soviet union for me

"He was the worst leader the Soviet union could have had from 1924 to Dec 1941, and from Aug 1945 until 1953, between those times he was the only leader the Soviet union could have had that would ensure an allied victory over the nazis"

The only redeeming feature of Stalin was the fact unlike Hitler, he realised he was'nt a brilliant military general and handed over conduct of the war to his generals who wisely stayed in the background and allowed Stalin to claim victory was due to 'his' leadership.

Lemme guess: The evil capitalists are covering up the truth of the actions of Stalin, who was forced into his more distasteful actions by what the evil capitalists did. In reality, he wasn't all that bad, and only did what he needed to.


"Jewish". You forgot "Jewish". "The evil jewish zionist capitalists disguised as trotskysts are covering up..."

So, does EA ever come back to defend this rubbish, or what?

So, does EA ever come back to defend this rubbish, or what?

Not really. AP rarely defends but attacks those who disagrees with them.

He was very kind to kittens.

They are exaggerated also keep in mind the Great Terror was initiated by Yagoda and Nikolai Ezhov. Ezhov as if you did not know was a butcher who was the one who initiated "quotas" during the Ukranian famine to find suspected kulaks, thus creating competitive killing, when Stalin found this out he had him shot and the Great Terror ended along with Ezhov.

Historian Michael Ellman 950,000 to 1.2 million, which includes deaths in detention and those who died shortly after being released from the Gulag as a result of their treatment in it. British Service Agent Robert Conquest claims double that number.A million (or more) people died under his watch and he didn't know about it??? What kind of grossly incompetent and negligent leader was he?

Let us also keep in mind the kulak had a deep control in the markets prior to collectivization. in 1926 they controlled 20% of the agricultural sales. According to another statistic, in the European part of the USSR, the kulaks and the upper part of the middle peasants, i.e. about 10 to 11 per cent of families, made 56 per cent of the sales in 1927-1928. collectivized agriculture brought 0.57 million tonnes of wheat to market, the kulaks 2.13 million.

The kulaks were a danger to the industrialization of the USSR since without it the cities would have starved and since the kulaks had control of the markets they could have seized the grain and sell it at enormous prices(like they did in the Ukranian famine). In the Ukranian famine the kulaks had held grain and sold it to starving people at ridiculous prices!So? This doesn't justify starving the kulaks.

This is one of the falsehoods that has spread about Stalin. In the USSR during the Civil War the Soviet Union was formed as a hiearchy of Soviet councils. After collectivization Stalin had wanted to introduce more democratic reforms since most peasants were now in collectives and he initiated the passing of the new Soviet Constitution of 1936 claiming they could change this because they were in a new era of socialism.And how many free and fair elections did the Soviet Union have?

EA your posts are so full of shit I don't even know where to begin.

Part IV of your essay is just full of the rabid anti-Semitism I'd expect out of you. I now understand why you support Hitler's massacre of the Jews and want the job finished. You believe Jews are part of the capitalist conspiracy. Really sick of you.

What makes your ramblings even funnier is that Zionism was founded as a Socialist movement. You should love it as Zionists made Socialism work with the Kibbutzim.

Your ignorance of Zionism is quite clear. It is obvious you have "The Protocols" on your bookshelf and treat the book like a Bible and use it as your base of knowledge on Judaism.

If Stalin was so great, then Khrushchev and Malenkov wouldn't have needed to spend so much time and effort cleaning up his mess, and dissidents throughout the USSR wouldn't have spent so much time and effort bringing the crimes of Stalin to light after years of Soviet secrecy. It seems rather odd that the massive backlash against Stalinism during the 1950's and 60's, and again in the 1980's would have happened if Stalin was such a wonderful character.

All I need is to see those tanks crushing the Prague Spring, the uprising in East Germany, or even the Hungarian uprising (which really bothers me because I do respect Khrushchev greatly) to know the face of Stalinism.

Was the attack on Trotskyism really necessary?
Yeah sure part of Trotskyist philosophy was to reject the Soviet Union as a true Communist state, but that's only because of its Socialism-In-One-Nation Policy. I would love to argue more, except sleep is looking really nice right about now.

Defending Stalin


*Laughs ass off*

Ok, okay, sorry, I'll pay attention and try to take you serious now.

I'm not going to bother to read the topic beyond the title.

Instead I will start, and end, with this note.
Last year for my final exam in an honors level History of the Soviet Union course I took for my minor, I managed to get an A on the essay point by sucessfully explaining why Stalin was not only good for the Soviet Union, but good for the world as a whole. And I did it with only a third of a page (Of like, more then I ever want to write again) on how he won the second world war.

Now this may not seem too impressive. But understand this. My professor was Ukranian, her family fled the USSR under Stalin, and her family has a deep and resentful hate of him. But she gave me an A for it.

Now if I still have that essay I can post it, but as I have reformatted my hard drives twice since then, I would not bet on it.

...A defense of socipathic people who genocide puppies with cheese graters and mass murder kittens with millstones.

Seriously, I don't care if a hundred and ten percent of the people Stalin killed were "counterrevolutionaries", the man is a genocidal tyrant. W.E.B. DuBois never lived through Stalin's purges. Khrushchev did, and even his blood curdling accounts are heavily censored.

Seriously, I don't care if a hundred and ten percent of the people Stalin killed were "counterrevolutionaries", the man is a genocidal tyrant. W.E.B. DuBois never lived through Stalin's purges. Khrushchev did, and even his blood curdling accounts are heavily censored.

I read quite a bit about that in William Taubman's Khrushchev biography; in fact, before he was ousted in 1964 by (of course) the more conservative elements in the Politburo, he was planning an even more comprehensive reform program and a renewed attack on Stalinism. This, of course, was highly threatening to the entrenched conservatives who already had many problems with his erratic policies and extensive liberalization in the 1950's.

It would have been very interesting to see what additional evidence would have been revealed had he launched his second campaign against Stalinism and the abuses of the period.

I trust we get a full citation of sources at some point. Thanks in advance.

*taps foot*

I read quite a bit about that in William Taubman's Khrushchev biography; in fact, before he was ousted in 1964 by (of course) the more conservative elements in the Politburo, he was planning an even more comprehensive reform program and a renewed attack on Stalinism. This, of course, was highly threatening to the entrenched conservatives who already had many problems with his erratic policies and extensive liberalization in the 1950's.

It would have been very interesting to see what additional evidence would have been revealed had he launched his second campaign against Stalinism and the abuses of the period.

My best friend's father has quite an extensive collection of Soviet history books and personal knowledge of Soviet history, so I'll have to see if he has that book in his collection. His father (ergo my best friend's grandfather) was Albert E. Kahn, a semi-famous Communist Party member, journalist, and author. Perhaps EA should have a chat with him to dispel all these myths about the glories of Stalinism.

I continually ask myself why young Stalinists of today won't listen to what reformed Stalinists and post-Stalin communists actually had to say about Stalin from personal experience. I am still at a loss for answer. Do you have any idea, because I'm clueless.

I continually ask myself why young Stalinists of today won't listen to what reformed Stalinists and post-Stalin communists actually had to say about Stalin from personal experience. I am still at a loss for answer. Do you have any idea, because I'm clueless.
Stalin has no followers, only worshippers. And worshippers are inclined to see all who have to say anything negative about their deity as agents of evil.

So, where the hell is AP?

Come on, you posted this garbage, defend it!

...right...:confused:

Well, EA reminds me of some wacko's from the NCPN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCPN) who I met. They could only talk about how glorious Stalin was. They even refused to believe the massive number of people killed during the collectivisation.

But it is admirable that EA took the time to defend Stalin :D

So, where the hell is AP?

Come on, you posted this garbage, defend it!
Trolls have a habit of posting garbage and then refuse to defend it.

I'm guessing if EA doesn't turn up soon, we can just declare victory.

I, for one, applaud this essay. Because it says exactly what the author - whoever he may be - believes, and makes no apologies. To wit (Just as an example):

What about Trotsky? Born in a rich family, theorist, but was he even dedicated to the ideology? Or did he use it for other purposes? In Russia, Trotsky is called a Zionist, who perverted Marxes ideas for the Zionist cause of world Imperialism, and the Zionists sponcered him and his work.If you're born into a rich family, you're a criminal. Automatically, no ifs and buts. A teenager, a child, a toddler? Only stabbing them with bajonets can safe mankind as a whole from corruption. Not your deeds define whether you're guilty or innocent, but your class - you could take 'How to kill a Mockingbird', replace 'Black' with 'Rich', and 'White' with 'Proletarian', and you've the Societ Union, as well as what the 'Ideal World' of the author of this looks like.

This is perfectly in line with the policies in the Soviet Union under both, Lenin and Stalin. There's no apologies here, no explanations, just a perfectly simple 'This is what I think it is. No apologies, no explanations. JUST REALITY AS I PERCEIVE IT.'

I respect that. I also think that whoever wrote this should be shot for the good of mankind, of course, but I still respect it, simply for the fact that its logic, circular and inhumane as it is, is internally consistent. That it is utterly disconnected from reality matters little - it's still more than you usually see in this kind of thing.

*taps foot*

You have a wide stance.

Well, EA reminds me of some wacko's from the NCPN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCPN) who I met. They could only talk about how glorious Stalin was. They even refused to believe the massive number of people killed during the collectivisation.

I'm just amused that they feel that way, considering what Khrushchev revealed about the Great Leader during the Twentieth Party Congress. He was way more competent than Stalin ever could have hoped to be...and the Soviet Union only really started to go downhill once Brezhnev started to revive Stalinism in the Soviet Bureaucracy.

But hey, it's not like Stalin nearly cost his country WWII or anything like that...he was too busy getting hammered at his dacha and playing soldier to fight the Germans, and it took the rest of the government to offset his ineptitude.

Try reading "One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich" It is a simple yet truthful book. Then tell me what you think of "Old Whiskers"

:eek::eek::eek::eek: :mp5:
EXECUTE THE OFFICERS! I NEED INCOMPITENT ARMY LEADERSHIP!-Stalin, for his actions speak louder then anything he's said.

EA, you should read some of Emma Goldman's work. She was no counterrevolutionary. She was a genuine leftist who had the fortitude and principle to condemn the brutality of the Soviets. She ranks with Orwell as one of the staunchest members of the anti-Soviet left.

Now defending Lenin is possible, and as a Communist I would be tempted to so if I wasn't disintrested in defending dead people at this time of day. Maybe a living person... (like Castro). Anyways, my point is that defending Stalin is RETARDED! Stalin was an total ass and jerk.

Stalin was a power hungry madman who KILLED all the real communists in the USSR and then proceeded to play the people of the USSR like like a 7 year old playing Sim City who only cares about the 'Disasters' menu. Stalin probably would have preferred to rule a fascist country but had to make due with where he was currently resisting.

Stalin, while he did help defeat Nazism and spread communism, (too bad it was at the experience of some countries that obviously weren't ready for it, didn't want it, and should have been lest alone) he also destroyed Communism's reputation and allowed pretenders like Kim Jong Ill and Mao to come to power under Red banners.

Anything that Stalin ever did that was good can be solely attributed to A: Someone else's idea or B: It just so happened to help Stalin with his power trip.

In short: Power may not corrupt, but the Corrupt sure find power.

Also Stalin was a loser and can't be defended without coming up with some exciting alternate history.

PS: lol Antisemitism used to defend a murderer; how original.

Stalin was decent ruler. He made a lot of changes for the good. He also killed millions for no reason.

Boo, he killed at least one of my German relatives and many more Ukrainian ones living in that time period. :mad:

I dunno. People also like to defend Genghis Khan, who killed 20,000,000.


Check on the number there? 20 million seems high for that time. But these two are just communists spouting their propaganda. The sooner we all realize this the sooner it all stops.

Check on the number there? 20 million seems high for that time. But these two are just communists spouting their propaganda. The sooner we all realize this the sooner it all stops.

Well, I know the An Shi Rebellion in mid 8th century China killed upwards of 30 million; it's not implausible to assume Ghengis inflicted similar losses, especially with the sack of huge cities like Baghdad and Samarkand as well as the sheer geographic size of his conquest.

Oh he made poetry did he? Well Hitler sure made some nice paintings and Mao wrote little poems all throughout his life as well. Perhaps an effective litmus test of a good leader would be to judge whether they have any artistic merit. If yes, avoid em'.

Okay, but seriously. Stalin may have helped defeat fascism, but his own system was equally as horrendous. Hitler killed people because they weren't part of his grand insane plan for humanity. Stalin killed people on occasion because they were TOO GOOD AT THEIR JOB! Bravo.

Perhaps an effective litmus test of a good leader would be to judge whether they have any artistic merit. If yes, avoid em'.

To add to the pool of anecdotal evidence - Radovan Karadžić was a poet. And I recall Nero thought himself an artist.