Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
 08 May 2012, 02:50
Just ran across this article...
Apparently scientists trying to figure out what caused Lenin to die at such a young age- in particular, the seizures which preceded the stroke that killed him at only 53 years old- concluded that one of the most likely causes of them, unusual in stroke patients, was poison. And of course the most likely culprit in the case of poisoning would be Stalin, ever obsessed with consolidating his own power. What do people here think of this theory? Has Lenin's death at such a young age ever drawn suspicion in your mind? 08 May 2012, 03:22
Lenin's father died quite young also. Atherosclerosis (iirc).
Lenin had a number of strokes and don't forget that he was also seriously wounded in an assassination attempt. He had a bullet lodged in his neck and its removal was no simple matter. The worst you could say is that Stalin may have upset him to such an extent that he caused that final stroke. Trotsky mentioned the fact that Lenin asked Stalin to procure poison for him (for the purposes of euthanization), but if you've got a terminal condition that seems like a fairly reasonable thing to do. It's interesting to speculate upon how things might have been different if he'd lived longer, but sadly we'll never know one way or another. Not all politically convenient deaths are conspiracies. Despite what you may have heard elsewhere ... people did actually die of natural causes in the USSR. 08 May 2012, 09:07
Lenin's death ain't suspicious at all!
He had a family history of cardiovascular disease. It was common in early 1900s Russia to die on your fifties. A few of Lenin's major blood vessels were damaged in the assassination attempt: It was not practical to fix the damage and extract the bullets: He might've died in surgery. had a removal been attempted. Lenin would have needed plenty of rest and tranquility and physical rehabilitation in order to fully recover from his wounds: But he was an active man leading a victorious Soviet Power: I'm afraid Vladimir Ilich's later life fell more on the stressful side of the equation... And eventually he couldn't sustain the effort anymore and collapsed. Long story short: Nuthin' to see here, move along. Last edited by KlassWar on 08 May 2012, 09:10, edited 1 time in total.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
08 May 2012, 12:58
At least the syphilis hypothesis was disproven, the right wingers cannot claim he was an "insane syphilitic" (yeah, insulting a dead person for a deadly disease, really moral).
08 May 2012, 21:13
Is there anything that Comrade Stalin didn't do?
Quote: Thank goodness for Trotsky, where would we be without his view on things "Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle..." (Lenin)
09 May 2012, 01:42
Isakenaz wrote:Yeah! An articulate insider who wrote extensively on the period has absolutely nothing to offer the student of history. 
Soviet cogitations: 5532
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49 Embalmed 09 May 2012, 15:22
Don't trust primary sources too much, especially if the said events were still unfolding, as the left opposition was. Criticism of others and an assuredness in what you yourself write as being mostly true is quite a bad quality for a source. I thought that was pretty obvious, the same goes for official statements from the time, as quite apart from what is actually truthfully accounted for and archived.
 "Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx 09 May 2012, 16:45
Shigalyov wrote: Absolutely, as long as you remember that everything he wrote is his spin on things, and he had no reason to report anything good on Stalin. "Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle..." (Lenin)
10 May 2012, 00:42
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:Suggesting that Trotsky didn't have an agenda is clearly preposterous and not something I was even remotely implying. It would be simplest to assume that any report on political events has some degree of bias. Disregarding those primary sources entirely because of this seems like an over-reaction. A grain or two of salt is obviously required. Primary sources do have their value, but it is limited. |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||
[ Top ]
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.
