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

Stalin was killing his offcials?

POST REPLY
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 132
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Dec 2006, 13:43
Pioneer
Post 27 Feb 2007, 16:25
there's many rumor over my country that Stalin was killing many his own high posts military, security rankers, officers. Any explanation or link to the truth?
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9230
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 27 Feb 2007, 18:37
He wasn't directly killing them, though many were sentenced to long terms or even execution by actual courts for several reasons. First, the country had to move forward quickly, and there was littel room for error. Removing incompetent people was the main strategyl. By removing incompetent people I mean those that were counter-productive. Also, keeping fresh cadres was key to avoiding stagnation, which was why the Communist Party was purged several times. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't, but overall it had a more positive effect as it prevented corruption and encouraged enthusiasm of new cadres. Also, such men as Nikolai Yezhov were executed for their deeds(Yezhov formed the ideological base of the purges).

So basically it was to keep the one-party state free of corruption. During Brezhnev's years the trend reversed, as the cadres started getting older, and more corrupt. The system of renewing cadres isn't necessarily cruel though. In Khruschev's years, the policy was continued, and the cadres were either fired or given low symbolic posts. In fact, Brezhnev was selected as the leader by the CPSU because he was considered the most stable, and would keep the men in power in their positions.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Soviet cogitations: 585
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jan 2007, 19:46
Komsomol
Post 27 Feb 2007, 21:52
Quote:
there's many rumor over my country that Stalin was killing many his own high posts military, security rankers, officers. Any explanation or link to the truth?


Let me give you an alternative point of view. Yes Stalin eliminated his "political opponents" for the most part because he wanted control...who doesn't. At heart he was a socialist, however there were many things about him (and countless more than we are unaware of) that seemed to fit the profile of an autocratic leader. Like Mussolini, he believed in a firm leader with a strong grasp on state power. Due to the politics of the CPSU, leadership was attained more through side talk and word of mouth debating. It was actually a lot like how the mafia works. Stalin did not want to be placed as a figurehead of the country while party members actually controlled the state and undermined his authority. With the ease of CPSU politics, to get rid of a political opponent one only needs to label them as a counter-revolutionary with "sufficient" proof. Sufficient could be planted documents. This is really only 1/100ths of the whole concept, but do you kinda see the opposing viewpoint? Some people believe what he did was necessary for the SU, while others like me believe he was an opportunist and was just doing what he could to stay in power.
Image

Joshua James Morris. Graduated UCSB with a BA in History.
Currently writing a dissertation entitled "Marxism in the 21st Century"
Soviet cogitations: 1103
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jul 2006, 10:21
Party Member
Post 15 Mar 2007, 12:27
Running a bureaucracy that doesn't get flooded with corruption & divisionary tactics (by politicians, officials, bureaucrats) is the BIGGEST challenge of ANY Socialist economy. The elements listed above is the sole contributor to public apathy & loss of social consiousness (sp?)- which in turn is the BIGGEST threat to Socialism- 200000 times more than the combined might of every single imperialist state out there.

Look at the ground realities of USSR during WWII years and post WWII USSR in the initial years. The infrastructure was in ruins. Stalin was tasked with not only rebuilding his infrastructure- RAPIDLY- but also with elevating the USSR to SUPERPOWER status against an adversary that suffered NO INFRA DAMAGE during WWII (USA).

We can give speeches or write letters about the most altruistic, ideal aspects of Socialism day in, day out, but at the end of the day- unless the people who are supposed to be implementing those policies on the ground are kept on their toes, and thorroughly & constantly probed, your system will fall and all your hard work, ideals, all go to waste.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the potential for political/ official / bureaucratic/ corruption in WWII USSR was very high, and the notion of officials, political subbordinates (of Stalin) & bureaucrats taking advantage of the situation to engage in corruption for personal gain during those times isin't above the horizon either.

Stalin did those purges to keep the system flowing, and he did a damn fine job at that. Bureaucrats, political subbordinates and officials got better perks than the normal Soviet citizen, which is ok- but better perks should accompany more severe consequences for blunder.

Like, if a farming commune screwed up and produced 200 kilos of rice instead of the stipulated 250 kilos (I made the numbers up), I don't think a purge would be in order. However, if the chief or bureaucrat in charge of that commune diverted those 200 kilos, stockpiled it, and sold it thru the black market for $$$, he'd most probably be dipped in a vat of hydrochloric acid. Is that a bad thing?

Why should officials / administrators / bureaucrats & political subbordinate not be harshly punished for their blunders, especially considering they were given considerably better facilities than the common Soviet worker?

Stalin's strict methods of dealing w/ his SUBBORDINATES is probably what shot USSR up in the world map, whereas our comrade Nehru's lenient "humane" way of dealing w/ his subbordinates is what degenerated our country into insignificance.

As far as Socialism goes, however much of a smart leader you are, and no matter how much of public support you have, your system ain't going NOWHERE unless the people who carry out your plans are kept under constant check & are punished harshly for their misdoings. The PDS (public distribution system) networks- the CEREBRUM of a Socialist economy- can't run properly unless the people implementing it on the ground (ex: chairman of collective farm / factory, district admin, local politicos) are void of corruption & opportunism.

In capitalistic societies, it works differently. As there is virtually no "social services" or a PDS in place & that the society is run with money, rather than a series of common social goals. Capitalism thrives on public apathy, whereas Socialism wilts when public apathy creeps in.

Thanks to Stalin, Socialism in the USSR not only survived- but prospered.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jan 2005, 07:15
Unperson
Post 15 Mar 2007, 13:22
I heard some rumours that Stalin used to share his 15 wives with 30 comrades, because he was a communist.

I heard that in battle, Stalin alone would devour every man in a 250km radius.

I heard that the reason the people stopped going to church so much was because Stalin used to wait outside the church every sunday to devour the children.

For crying out loud, use your own mind once a while. Stalin is one of the greatest leaders in the communist movement. He was so feared by the west that moronic lies about him are spread so that we do not recognize the greatness we had during his reign.

Do you know how many conflicts Stalin solved within his party, the USSR and other countries?
Without violence as well, he was a fair man who listened to every point of view.

And as the popular saying goes;
Quote:
Traitors will be shot.



EDIT:
I'm sorry Hugas, this was not meant as an insult at all, I hope you read through my sarcasm in the post and weren't insulted..
Last edited by fontis on 16 Mar 2007, 01:41, edited 1 time in total.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4032
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Oct 2006, 23:10
Politburo
Post 16 Mar 2007, 01:02
Fontis you are being very rude. Hugas just wanted info, he didnt necessarily beleive it.

And Hugas, I would have said the same thing as Arif Moin, but i would add that Stalin began to feal the bureaucracies usefulness had ceased, and that he was trying to create a more reliable system where purges are not necessary, by introducing contested elections and relegating the communist party to the position of agitator/propagandist (yet still the vanguard which leads society, but does not rule it).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 355
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Apr 2007, 07:56
Komsomol
Post 01 Apr 2007, 20:18
he removed 90% of his senior military officials, leaving 10% to train the new recruits. He feared them taking his power because of his paranoia.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jan 2005, 07:15
Unperson
Post 01 Apr 2007, 22:09
Quote:
he removed 90% of his senior military officials, leaving 10% to train the new recruits. He feared them taking his power because of his paranoia.


Thought ever occured to you that those 90% senior military officials were Tsarists? And that the only reason they were kept alive to begin with was because they had invaluable combat experience?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2272
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 May 2005, 13:28
Party Bureaucrat
Post 01 Apr 2007, 22:42
Well killing majority of his military officials really paid during World War 2, right? No.
Anyways from my understanding most of the tsarist officers had already died/fleed in the time surrounding the civil war, as most of them joined the white forces. Most of Soviet military leadership was probably old commanders from the civil war.
-With solidarity, FC

Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 355
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Apr 2007, 07:56
Komsomol
Post 02 Apr 2007, 03:28
they were not tsarists, they just had enough influence on the people to take power, stalin feared this.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2870
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 02 Apr 2007, 03:30
Quote:
he removed 90% of his senior military officials


A woeful exaggeration, I must say. Please identify the source on this statistic.

In Richard Overy's history of the GPW, 45% of senior officers and political officials were sacked or executed in the purge of 1938. Many were in fact reinstated in 1941 due to the increase in the number of divisions in the Red Army, although to be fair, most of the reinstatements were purged junior officers.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 355
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Apr 2007, 07:56
Komsomol
Post 02 Apr 2007, 03:33
it dosent matter how many, the fact is stalin killed people, during his stupid purges, that is the point.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2870
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 02 Apr 2007, 05:20
No, that's not the point. You have provided no explanation or background behind your opinions, which is what hugas asked for.

The purges were the main reason why the USSR did not bend over to the Nazis the way France and other countries in Europe did. Simplistic statements like "Stalin was evil and killed people" do not serve to help anyone understand the realities of the late 1930s.

Stalin's purge of the military was a direct result of Anglo-French "appeasement" of the Nazis at the Munich accords in 1938. Despite the protestations of Stalin, the UK and France essentially sold out Czechoslovakia to Hitler, and it became clear to Stalin that Nazi fifth column elements had infiltrated the British and French gov'ts enough to influence their policies. Given that the Soviet and German militaries conducted joint exercises in the early 1930s, there was a likely friendship and understanding between elements of the Soviet military leadership and their Nazi counterparts; Stalin worked to dismantle that connection for the sake of the country's security.

Granted, some of the people he killed in the purge were talented commanders, but what would you rather have: a slight deficiency in military leadership, or talented generals who will sell your country out to slavery and genocide (under the Nazis)? Stalin had to make that difficult choice, and luckily for the world, he chose the former.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 03 Apr 2007, 02:53
Quote:
a slight deficiency in military leadership, or talented generals who will sell your country


If you have any real proof of such then please, show it to everyone. Show us that Mikhail Tukhachevsky and Vasily Blücher ect (the list goes on and goes on) were traitors.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2870
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 03 Apr 2007, 03:03
Obviously, that can't be done because the trials against supsected military officers were secret trials, unlike the normal Moscow trials.

However, what is publicly known is that
1. Tukachevsky and gang worked closely with the Germany military
2. The Nazis (like the US gov't today) was known for its fifth-column elements in other countries
3. The Soviet justice system deemed Tukachevsky, Blucher, Primakov, etc. to be guilty, and thus they were executed.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3307
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jan 2007, 06:03
Party Bureaucrat
Post 03 Apr 2007, 08:16
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/tukh.html

And also, Molotov's belief that Tukhachevsky was guilty:

Molotov wrote:
"An atmosphere of extreme tension reigned during this period; it was necessary to act without mercy. I think that it was justified. If Tukhachevsky, Yakir, Rykov and Zinoviev had started up their opposition in wartime, there would have been an extremely difficult struggle; the number of victims would have been colossal. Colossal. The two sides would have been condemned to disaster. They had links that went right up to Hitler. That far. Trotsky had similar links, without doubt. Hitler was an adventurist, as was Trotsky, they had traits in common. And the rightists, Bukharin and Rykov, had links with them. And, of course, many of the military leaders."


Source: http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/molotov.html
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1151
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jan 2007, 19:56
Party Member
Post 08 Apr 2007, 00:06
What made stalin decide who was to be sent to the Gulags?was it justifiable suspicion or just paranoia?
Image

Don't Worry I'm Not Banned!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 865
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2007, 06:42
Komsomol
Post 08 Apr 2007, 00:23
Quote:
Well killing majority of his military officials really paid during World War 2, right? No.
Anyways from my understanding most of the tsarist officers had already died/fleed in the time surrounding the civil war, as most of them joined the white forces. Most of Soviet military leadership was probably old commanders from the civil war.

There was strong reason to believe there would be a military coup against the Politburo, not just Stalin himself. The turn-coat Aleksandr Orlov (NKVD officer who defected to the West) even admitted in a LIFE magazine article called "The Sensational Secret Behind the Damnation of Stalin" that he (and other members of the leadership of the KNVD) along with Red Army leaders had planned a coup against Stalin. It was after this plot was discovered that Marshal Tukhachevsky was (legally) tried and executed. It wasn't paranoia, it was a real threat and it has handled accordingly. The threat of an immediate coup from an internal threat is always more significant than the external threat of a foreign power, and sacrificing the leadership of the Red Army to maintain order and prevent a military takeover was consequentially the best route to take, as its always easier to throw your country's weight against a foreign enemy than risk not taking the preventative step in dealing with an internal threat - one of which may have gained popularity amongst the regulars in the Red Army.

So it stands that those leaders who were executed under Stalin were indeed justifiable. All educated accounts of Stalin refute the bias that he was paranoid or sociopathic. In fact, some of the most vehemently anti-Stalin works state he knew exactly what he was doing, and was well aware all along - clearly not the actions of a paranoid schizephrenic or someone exhibiting anti-socialist/sociopathic behavior.

Quote:
What made stalin decide who was to be sent to the Gulags?was it justifiable suspicion or just paranoia?

You need to get over the fact that Stalin was not the center of Soviet government, nor party administration. He (and the Politburo) delegated many powers to various Soviet officials who were responsible for executions. Stalin personally checked all the lists of those to be executed as this was his style, but he put faith in those below him who were deserving and he often times scratched off a name whom he disagreed with, but he didn't order the executions of every single individuals who was executed or thrown into the GULAG. This would've been an impossible task. Good administrators know how to organize and delegate responsibility, Stalin wasn't an arbitrary megalomaniac - as these people rarely hold on to power for very long.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Apr 2007, 01:15
Quote:
Granted, some of the people he killed in the purge were talented commanders, but what would you rather have: a slight deficiency in military leadership, or talented generals who will sell your country out to slavery and genocide (under the Nazis)?

==Firstly, it was not a "slight deficiency", from a a military point of view, it was incapacitating, millions of soldiers and civilians died because of it, secondly, is there indeed proofs that 3 out 5 marshals, 13 out of 15 army commanders, 8 out of 9 admirals, 50 out of 57 corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 out ofof 16 army commissars, and 25 out of 28 army commissars, i.e. majority of the Red Army's high ranking officers are traitors?

And you also should note that on the eve of the war, from 1940 to the onset of war, 12000 commanders and political officers that were purged were rhabilitated and returned to service, and what does that mean? Stalin letting traitors to run the army?

Quote:
However, what is publicly known is that
1. Tukachevsky and gang worked closely with the Germany military
2. The Nazis (like the US gov't today) was known for its fifth-column elements in other countries
3. The Soviet justice system deemed Tukachevsky, Blucher, Primakov, etc. to be guilty, and thus they were executed.

It is also publicly known that:
1. Guderian and many others worked closely with the Red Army in the early 30's.
2. Soviet Union, do have control, or at least have significant influence on communist parities in various countries.
3. Hitler didn't kill Guderian.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 301
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Jun 2004, 17:01
Komsomol
Post 16 Apr 2007, 06:43
That was the purge in the 1930s of traitorous generals, that later developed into him sending dissidents to the gulags.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.