Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Stalin

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 34
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Aug 2011, 08:16
Pioneer
Post 30 Aug 2011, 18:48
Ive never talked to a Russian who disliked Stalin, ive heard him been refered to as 'the crown jewel of the mother land' and 'the pride of Russia'. There was even a recent poll that named Stalin the 3rd greatest Russian in history (there is even a massive controversy, many belive the poll was rigged to keep Stalin or Lenin from being first. Thoughts?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5148
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 31 Aug 2011, 00:59
Stalin's become a symbol of russian power and challenging of the west, his appeal doesn't have much to do with communism anymore. It fuels the feelings of 'irredento' in modern russian nationalism, despite Stalin being an anti-nationalist Georgian.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 5437
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Sep 2009, 00:56
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 02 Sep 2011, 15:36
^This basically. It's a similar sentiment to that shared by Germans who look fondly on the days of the Kaiser, Italians that favour Mussolini or Japanese nationalists that sing the praises of pre-war Japan. It represents an era in their cultural history where they were in their eyes strong and independent countries as opposed to now where the opposite is largely true. Here in England even, Winston Churchill is practically (and justifiably I suppose) canonised as a national hero, and yet was a disgusting white supremacist beyond doubt. People just sort of overlook it even though they know it's true.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 02 Sep 2011, 18:05
Quote:
I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, before all, the Russian people.
I drink, before all, to the health of the Russian people, because in this war they earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the nationalities of our country.
I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people not only because they are the leading people, but also because they have a clear mind, a steadfast character, and endurance.
Our government made more than a few mistakes; at times we were in a desperate situation, when our army fell back... because there was no other escape. Another people might have said to the Government: you have not justified our expectations; go away; we will set up another government, that will make peace with Germany and secure us tranquility. But the Russian people did not come to this; they believed in the correctness of their government's policy and made sacrifices, to ensure the defeat of Germany. And this trust of the Russian people in the Soviet Government was the decisive strength, which secured the historic victory over the enemy of humanity, -- over fascism.
Thanks to them, to the Russian people, for that trust!
To the health of the Russian people!

I.V.Stalin
1945.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 26 Oct 2011, 05:28
My Russian tutor called him a bastard but even then still spoke positively about him, but overall did not like him. However I've spoken to some that did like him, one Armenian guy liked him, said he was tough "maybe a little too tough," but overall revered him.
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht.
The Party is always right.
Soviet cogitations: 4
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Dec 2011, 18:55
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 10 Dec 2011, 03:11
I think Stalin was a trader on the Soviet People, he had to much power and he was too aggressive. He is responsible for the
bloodiest era in Soviet History. Lenin wrote negative about him in his last Testament. But it was never read until Stalin's death.
In the Testament he suggested the Stalin should be removed from power and replaced by someone who was more Tolerate and Loyal.
Sadly Lenin's last testament was never read, on purpose. If it would have been read, the Soviet congress would have chosen someone
besides Stalin and the Soviet Union would have been a much better place.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 10 Dec 2011, 03:43
While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with some of your assessments of Stalin, it should be noted that Lenin's Testament was read out at one of the central committee meetings which occurred after Lenin's death. Stalin rather theatrically offered to resign, but the committee was persuaded however, that Lenin was unjustified in his fears about Stalin and so he was kept on as general secretary. Stalin assured them that he would behave himself and that he was only "rude" and "capricious" in his dealings with the enemies of the revolution. (This decision would haunt many of them for the rest of their brief lives.)

Officially the testament was not acknowledged for many years, however, so that might be the source of your confusion. At one stage, after having leaked the text of Testament to Max Eastman, Trotsky was made to deny it's existence and say that it was a forgery.
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Dec 2011, 05:00
I guess a more interesting question might be: Who instead of Stalin ?
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 291
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Nov 2011, 06:40
Komsomol
Post 10 Dec 2011, 05:14
Trotsky maybe? He was popular with the Red Army, and the citizenry before Stalin kicked him out of the country...
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 11 Dec 2011, 00:17
I find it hard to believe Trotsky would have been any less brutal.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 291
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Nov 2011, 06:40
Komsomol
Post 11 Dec 2011, 06:08
proletarian wrote:
I find it hard to believe Trotsky would have been any less brutal.


That's conjecture, although I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. I don't think he would have targeted the rest of his comrades like Stalin did though. From reading Trotsky's writings, it's pretty clear that he did *NOT* suspect Stalin of wanting him out of the way, even after he was kicked out of the country, and even after his own people tried to warn him.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 11 Dec 2011, 06:19
I had to look up the word "conjecture," sad huh?

Whether or not Trotsky would have done the same as Stalin is speculation mostly, but from the way he ran the military, I expect he would have kept the country's leadership just as centralized. Many people assume that Trotsky was some libertarian socialist, and I just question that assumption. Trotsky was a very brutal and effective general in the civil war. I don't think that his political career as General Secretary would've been much different.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 291
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Nov 2011, 06:40
Komsomol
Post 11 Dec 2011, 06:33
True... Brutal maybe, but I am sure he would have been effective. Also, he would have snapped into action when the Nazi's invaded, instead of going into hiding for six days like a coward.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 11 Dec 2011, 07:56
Quote:
from the way he ran the military,

And from the way he ran his own party in exile. He kicked out a lot of people due to disagreements with him, and some of them out of personal differences (such as Diego Riviera. The personal difference in question was that Mr Riviera was not ok with Trotsky sleeping with his wife). I don't think that, had he been given control of the police apparatus, he'd have been less repressive than Stalin. Maybe the contrary would have been true. At any event, while I'm not excusing Stalin's part in the events that took place, I don't think the purgues were born out of thin air, by which I mean that I think it likely that there had been underlying tensions for a while, and pressure had been building up, and that it was going to blow one way or the other.

Quote:
Lenin wrote negative about him in his last Testament.

To be fair, Lenin's quarrel with Stalin was also a purely personal one at that point. Then again, he advised to curtail the man's personal power, which is a good idea in general (not just when applied to Stalin, or whoever). Separation of powers is doubtlessly a good idea. (Too bad that in practice executive power often has both legislative and judicial by the balls, and all three are ultimatedly dependent of the whims of financial oligarchs.
)
Back in white
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 31
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2011, 23:17
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 21 Dec 2011, 13:21
Ya_Amerikanyets wrote:
Also, he would have snapped into action when the Nazi's invaded, instead of going into hiding for six days like a coward.


Steven Main, looking through the records of Stalin's appointments and Zhukov's memoirs, has noted that far from going into hiding like a coward Stalin "...stuck to a very arduous work routine, displaying little of the panic and fear that is generally attributed to him..."

Main goes on to say "...on the very first day of the attack Stalin held meetings with over 15 individual members of the Soviet government and military apparatus."

And for the final nail in the coffin, in the first week (168 hours in total) Stalin is on record as having spent "88 hours and 40 minutes" in meetings alone.

Source: http://www.jstor.org/pss/153001
Soviet cogitations: 1
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Dec 2012, 20:12
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 02 Dec 2012, 20:16
I'm doing a personal research project about the Cold War, and i was wondering if anyone here had a website with a Quote from Stalin about the atomic bomb right around 1945 - 1950?
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 04 Dec 2012, 05:07
Am I crazy for regarding Lenin's will as irrelevant, independently of what it said about Stalin, and whether it was justified or not? I just don't think that political power should be handed or restricted like that. In a worker's state political power should be ultimatedly be accountable to worker's councils, not to the dying wishes of famous figures, regardless of their importance during the Revolution.
Back in white
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 12 Dec 2012, 19:20
Krasniy_Volk wrote:
Am I crazy for regarding Lenin's will as irrelevant, independently of what it said about Stalin, and whether it was justified or not? I just don't think that political power should be handed or restricted like that. In a worker's state political power should be ultimatedly be accountable to worker's councils, not to the dying wishes of famous figures, regardless of their importance during the Revolution.

The workers' state is subject to the Vanguard party. Lenin's wishes had become irrelevant, as Lenin wasn't a dictator who sought to impose is views on others. The party is the authority, and when the Central Committee (the highest organ in the Communist party) decided to deny Stalin's resignation from power (which he offered after hearing of the testament), all had to be subject to democratic centralist principles.

Stalin's position on the matter is of some importance too, and I suggest visiting this to get a handle on it.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/10/23.htm
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.