Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 14

Archives:

Thru Apr 2003 Thru Jul 2003 Dec 2003 to Nov 2004 Nov 2004 to Jan 2005 Feb 2005 to Jul 2005 Jul 2005 to Aug 2005 Sep 2005 to Dec 2005 Dec 2005 to Apr 2006 May 2006 to Jul 2006 Aug 2006 to Oct 2006 Oct 2006 to Dec 2006 Oct 2006 to Dec 2006 Dec 2006 Dec 2006 to June 2007

This is an archive of past discussions about Joseph Stalin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

The Joseph Stalin article talk page

This whole article is a stunning failure.

The opening sentence should have nothing about his birth name and how it is spelled in Georgian and Russian.

Stalin's name was Josef Stalin. Period. Footnote later the other stuff.

The opening should read: Josef Stalin, despite an official title that would seem to indicate a lower station, was leader of the Soviet Union from (date)to (date). Stalin was responsible for solidifying the Soviet Union after Lenin's death, and became a brutal dictator, ultimately responsible for the deaths of an estimated 20 million people, most of whom were Russians, and ironically mostly workers and peasants whom Stalin claimed to represent. Stalin's regime was marked by brutality, repression, mass murder, extraterritorial expansion into neighboring states, genocide, mass imprisonment and deportation, and was ultimately the cause of much fear and concern around the world for the future of civilisation and the continued freedom of the Human Race. Stalin's policies and practices not only caused much fear and consternation within and without Russia and its occupied territories, but almost irreparably damaged the Russian economy and caused significant harm to the economies of the Free World, in asmuch as untold energy and funds and lives were spent in reacting the continuous threat to freedom posed by the Soviet Russia and even today by way of legacy the Russian Federation. While Stalin had a vision of a great Russia, he explicitly stated that he thought he would have to kill more than half the population (who disagreed with his vision) in order to achieve his goals. Today, it is agreed by all who have studied the topic, whether inside or outside Russia and whether they personally are Russian or German or English or Japanese, Stalin has done more harm to Russia and to Russians than any foreign power could ever have achieved. Even today, Stalin's legacy is one of fear, paranoia and aggression, as seen in the policies of the increasingly desperate acts and statements of Russia's leaders of today.

This is just a suggestion, the wording could be a bit different. And it could be mentioned that Russia's declining population could be more than five times what it is today, had Stalin not killed so many millions of Russians for over three generations. Also the figure of 20 million is the lowest accepted figure, some historians think that between Hitler and Stalin, they caused over 100 million deaths, but these historians are mostly German or American or English, and are not accepted by Russian historians who believe the figure to be lees than that.

"The greatness that was Russia's future at the beginning of the 20th Century was killed by Stalin like an aborted child who would be king." This notion is central to understanding Stalin in a mdern context. I'll have to look up the sources for this--there are many most they are mostly from Russian Authors, not English, so the citations will be to Russian works. RUReady2Testify 21:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

if Stalin killed 20 million, or 50 million, then why is it not in the opening paragraph?

Seriously, oh wow, hitler killed 10 million and it's in HIS opening paragraph, yet when Stalin killed 20-50 million, it's NOT included? Wow you guys are the most biased POS I've seen in my life. Now you guys got 3 days to include this, or that's it. I will Zoola 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoola, regardless of the merits of your argument, please stay civil and avoid profanity. Ronnotel 03:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Even money our friend Zoola here is another JP sockpuppet/troll. - Merzbow 06:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite our troubled friend's lack of civility here, he/she does have a point. Is it mentioned on the article? I think it should be, considering it was such a large number, and Stalin's noteriety. Disinclination 19:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with the rant of the above yet it may be a little corrupt with ill language... I however feel that the sick deeds of Stalin and his "Purges" should be made obvious in it's introduction...as is made with any other dictator on this site.. --Historicalbroodofsprule 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Stalin was the most evil man who ever lived. It is almost impossible that the world will ever see such an evil again in the shape of one man. The uncivil rant, as some have called it, by Zoola is ENTIRELY appropriate, and even understated. The nonneutrality of this entry and its extreme bias as an apology for evil is readily apparent to the point of immorality. The opening to the article should be changed as soon as possible to reflect reality, not the current Russian regime's view of reality. RUReady2Testify 21:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear: It is immoral to present this article as a legitimate historical or biographical encyclopedia entry.

The opening, in particular, is a sight of hand trick that taxes way too much of the reader's attention with trivia (spellings of birth names in foreign languages).

I agree with Liam E. that Russian Dictator sums it up in two words, and if you have more space the next thing you need to add is the millions of deaths, and if you still have room the next thing you need to add is imprisonment and deportation of millions and then if there is still room the conquest of free nations and genocide committed against them and then if there is still room a general comment about the horrible horrible misery inflicted upon millions and millions and millions of people for generations, and it further needs to be mentioned that beyond all belief this was all done by one man and the fear that his brutality inspired by others.

There should be a section that addresses why a country with such a vast population did not produce one single person with the will to remove Stalin from power, and that it is not only remarkable but strains belief that`Stalin was able to live long enough to die of old age natural causes while still in power. RUReady2Testify 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WOW! Nothing you, RUReady2Testify, have to say is at all POV! --Mista-X 05:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

All the same, while I doubt a figure is appropriate for the intro (given that there is so much disagreement about figures), the current intro is absurdly inadequate. All it says is that Stalin rose to the top by dedication and hard work! That is a ludicrous summary for such a controversial figure and a leader of major importance in 20th century world history.

I don't know when the current intro was posted, but there were much better ones previously, I think I might try to dig one up and restore it. Gatoclass 10:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a wonderful idea, but if you desire to attach a death toll why don't we go ahead and do the same thing for the Pilgrims and all American Colonist who murdered and enslaved perhaps hundreds of millions of Native Americans. Why don't you attach an innumerable death toll to the Christian Church which destroyed the great Roman Empire, executed countless intellects, enslaved most of the population of the planet, forcibly converted pagans, instilled false white-supremacy ideology, and for the most part has caused the greatest amount of human suffering in history? (Even to themselves in the 30 years war) Everyone has the right to their own opinion of if a person is good or bad, but when presenting facts in a scholarly text, information cannot be structured in a way that implies one personal bias. Stalin did kill many people but those people were the same people who were oppressing the general population of Russia since Ivan the terrible and the rise of the Czars. Stalin saw them as a "Cancer" which he could not expect to turn into a "flower". The only way to deal with that "cancer" is to eliminate it. Amarmirza 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It would not be biased to put the fact in the opening paragraph-- in fact it would be biased not to. One cannot make their own determination on Stalin's character without that information. --Floormatster 02:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a great idea to include all the counts of genocide mentioned above by Amarmirza, but it would be impossible to say the American Colonists murdered and enslaved perhaps hundreds of millions of Native Americans considering there were only approximately 5 to 7 million Native Americans on the North American Continent when it was settled. Otherwise, you're right. All those genocides and Stalin's political Purges should all be included in their respective articles, but the Roman Empire fell due to its own corruption, inflation, and inability to protect the vast empire from Germanic tribes. But it's the thought that counts. -- Spitfire

It does seem to me that one of the principle reasons Stalin is notable is that he was involved in killing so many people (a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime, the article currently states lower down). It seems odd that it's not in the intro. How other articles could be improved is best discussed on their talk pages rather than this one. Hobson 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not the lead because there is no creditable evidence.159.105.80.141 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect Claim

According to Alan Bullock, "the total Soviet grain crop was no worse than that of 1931... it was not a crop failure but the excessive demands of the state, ruthlessly enforced, that cost the lives of as many as five million Ukrainian peasants." Stalin refused to release large grain reserves that could have alleviated the famine (and at the same time exporting grain abroad); he was convinced that the Ukrainian peasants had hidden grain away, and strictly enforced draconian new collective-farm theft laws in response

This is just simply false as is explained on the "Holodomor" page. The credibility of this entire article and Wikipedia has imploded. Tauger, Wheatcroft, Davies and others who've actually done research on the subject have concluded that the 1932 harvest was worse than that of 1931. Moreover, grain collections in 1930-33 stayed at a constant level. Bullock is also incorrect in his claim that exports of grain contributed to the famine. Bullock's claims on the subject are not valid since he did not study the subject but instead derived the work of others presumably Robert Conquest. Research by Davies and Wheatcroft concluded that collections were not excessive and that the 1932 harvest was worse than that of 1931. Bullock is also blatantly wrong about the deaths of 5 million Ukrainians as the declassified archives show that 1.5 million died. [1] [2] [3]

It is not up to Wikipedia to be right or wrong, merely to present the work of others in a digestible form. If a guy has published 5 million deaths and another 1.5 the range should be reported if both works are credible. --LiamE 01:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, LiamE, for your contribution. Do I understand you correctly, by your remark, it is not up to Wikipedia to be right or wrong, that you believe it is acceptable for an encyclopedia to expose wrong information to seekers of fact from fiction, just so long as there is a range presented, in a "digestible form." Is that not in direct conflict with your further insistence that presenters also only report works that are credible ? May I suggest that it is very much up to Wikipedia to continually discern right from wrong, and never sacrifice integrity for digestibilty. If a guy published 5 million deaths and another 1.5 million, neither should be reported, because one or the other or both is not credible. Free-basing statistics is going to leave all comers intoxicated with an illusion; the truth is out there, let's be vigilant in the searching and reporting of it. --Curious2george 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are free to add opposing information to the article sourced from other reliable sources that disagree, alongside the Bullock quote. (Haven't I said this 5 times already to you, JP?). Alan Bullock is one of the most highly-qualified historians quoted in the entire article; an Oxford history professor for many years. - Merzbow 02:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not free to add opposing information as this page is blocked from editing by others. Alan Bullock has not contributed a detailed study in concern to the famine rendering his opinions worthless. Alan Bullock is not more qualified than Robert Davies whose 5-volume "Industrialization of Soviet Russia" is essential.

In his 2004 book, on page 412, in the "Deaths from the famine" section, Davies and Wheatcroft still conclude that 4.6 million died overall in Russia, and admit that the total number of deaths is difficult to estimate. Some historians say 5, some 10, all notable views will be represented in the article. And whether or not you disagree with Bullock's research, the fact he's published books on the subject and held a prestigious professorship, makes his views notable. Just like Davies. This is basic Wikipedia policy. - Merzbow 02:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Bullock does not specialize in Soviet economic history the way Davies and Wheatcroft do. His viewpoint does not take precedence over scholars who've actually conducted research on the subject. Bullock's information is derived from the works of others like James Mace and Robert Conquest. Jacob Peters

Young man?

"Nikolai Yezhov, the young man strolling with Stalin to his left" Yezhov must be around 40 at the time the photo was taken.

Just wait till you're 60. --LiamE 15:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesuits?

Stalin's mother was fiercely Orthodox, there is no way she would have sent him to a Roman Catholic seminary. In fact, the story about the Jesuits being somehow responsible for Stalin is a myth, propagated by Internetters who believe in the Illuminati plot to take over the world. The mistake first appeared in Time in 1945. Have a look at this: [4]. To top it all, this article puts an Armenian Catholic (Eastern rite!) in the same school as Stalin, when that cardinal had not been born yet. Wikipedia is not the place to propagate Illuminati conspiracy theories. This reference must be eliminated forthwith.

If only because it is an insult to any family Stalin may still have, related to his mother. --Pan Gerwazy 15:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't thin then he was in a Roman Catholic seminary, he was born in Georgia, almost every one there are Georgian-Orthodox, so after he's "christian years" he joined some thing then he later called "socialfascits" and he got cought for it, and after that he joined the Communists and that was a smart move

- Mr. Communist

He was not in school for romancatholics jesuits , but in some ortodox copy of that kind of school .

Stalin's title

Stalin was not de facto leader. No law stipulated his position as an absolute leader. Stalin was one of five or six original members of the Politbureau in 1919. Stalin became part of the Central Committee in 1907 which at the time was the highest decision-making body of what became the most popular party in Russia. Stalin became chairman of council of people's commissars in 1941 equivalent to prime minister. Stalin had been a leading figure of the party since its earliest days. This page is defamatory to the successful legacy of one of Russia's most valuable political leaders. Jacob Peters

Stalin was "The great Comrade Stalin", the leader of Soviet, the dictator of Soviet and more, he didn't realy have a title, the leader of Soviet never had it untill the last years, the president of Soviet, and Soviet only had one presedent. By the way you can't relly say the dictator of Soviet, he was just a man with 100% power of Soviet, some times 95%

- MR. Communist

Sorry for lerning you the wrong thing, in the book about Soviet what i read, i read then Stalin gave himself the title of Generalissimo/Generalissimus, www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/generalissimus

- MR. Communist

Actually, the title of Generalissimus was proposed to him by his marshals (although, to be perfectly fair, it must be noted he did not refuse). While sometimes this is used to belittle Stalin, in my opinion he deserved this title, as he led the Red Army thru the greatest war in written history. As a matter of fact, I find it rather strange his rank is not included in the opening paragraph. With respect, Ko Soi IX 15:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Peters, check on the meaning of "de facto" - in this sense it means while he was not the sole "leader" _in law_ ("de jure"), he was in reality, or in fact, the highest authority in the USSR for some time. Because of the lack of legal recognition of his position, when exactly his primacy began is, of course, a matter of conjecture. (D.M.D.)

Khrushchev would laugh at this sentence

I find this sentence which appears at the bottom of the article to be extremely problematic. Actually, in my view, false.

"However, his immediate successors continued to follow the basic principles of Stalin's rule -- the political monopoly of the Communist Party presiding over a command economy and a security service able to suppress dissent. The large-scale purges of Stalin's era were never repeated, but the political repression continued."

Now, first of all who stated that those mentioned were the "basic principles of Stalin's rule"? Khrushchev, for one, would strongly disagree: he believed that perhaps the sole basic principle of Stalin's rule was the absolute power of the party secretary OVER the party itself, which Stalin patiently built by bureaucratic maneuvers which took place when Lenin was still alive, and mantained by building an immense cult of his own personality through propaganda. This allowed Stalin to purge or kill almost all the other old Bolshevik leaders, and any political figure who disagreed with him, or whom Stalin, for any reason, feared. Khrushchev re-estabilished internal "centralist" democracy in the CP and did not resort to estabilishing his own personality cult, making the USSR truly a "one party system" and not a "one man dictatorship", which in my book is a big difference. In fact, he himself payed the toll of his own reforms, by being voted out by the party central committee and peacefully removed from power, a decision he quietly accepted and which would have been unthinkable under Stalin.

Secondarily, there is in my view a POV issue with the second part of the above sentence, stating "The large-scale purges of Stalin's era were never repeated, but the political repression continued", which gives the false impression of a continuity between Stalin and Khrushchev, except for the scale of crimes committed. This, in my view, hides the fact that Khrushchev actually reversed, as far as he could, Stalin's crimes, by freeing most of the peolple held in prison and allowing them to return to their homes, and starting rehabilitation of the memory of most of those who had been unjustly sentenced to death or died in the camps. "political repression continued" is of course a somewhat true statement but as you probably can gather by reading the consequences of repression in the notable cases of the Anti-Party Group and Boris Pasternak, it was enacted through little or no use of violence. Now, if you take a political leader who mass-slaughters millions or tens of millions in most cases with no real reason, and then you take his successor, who forces some opponents or dissidents to retire from public life and live quietly as a pensioner, isn't it a bit ungenerous to write simply "political repression continued"?

Finally, one could very well argue that one of the "basic principles of Stalin's rule" was actually his strict alliance with the military leaders, which was carried on through enormous military expenses. Khrushchev tried to revert this situation as well, by cutting military expenses and employing more production power for consumer goods.

So i find the above sentence to be inaccurate, misleading and biased, and strongly believe it should be changed. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.31.212 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-01T06:51:47

Why don't you take a shot at changing it? We're all editors here, and you make a good case. - Merzbow 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected right now. You'll need to make an account and then wait four days (is that correct?) before you can edit it. If you do make the changes, please try to cite sources, as this article tends to be argument-prone. Citing sources will help to head off those disputes before they happen. --C33 19:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, is there a real need of this sentence in the first place? What it means to say is, basically, "the USSR remained a communist state, and this is bad". Everybody knows the first part of the sentence, and everybody has an opinion about the second part. What are described as the "basic principles of Stalin's rule" are actually the basic principles by which every real communist state has been ruled, there is nothing specific about Stalin, and what is specific about Stalin stretches to their limit such principles, perhaps contradicting them. Today China follows the same principles except that it can be described as a "mixed" economy. Is today China ruled by "most of the basic principles of Stalin's rule"? Seems like a dark night in which all cows look grey to me. 81.208.31.212 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I softened up the paragraph a bit by changing the wording. Not comfortable with removing it entirely (because I think it's essentially accurate now), but I won't object if somebody does because it's still unsourced. - Merzbow 23:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

This is silly. None of these authors ever examined the nature of Stalin's leadership in the party. Several authors like J.Arch Getty, Gabor Rittersporn, and others have actually challenged the myth of the USSR become a monolothic, tightly controlled society during Stalin. This fails to conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. A handful of editors are pushing their preferred fairy tales despite the presence of extensive debate above. Fox

Recent edits

User:Fox33 is making edits that are looking rather controversial to me, notably removing the term "dictator" against talk page consensus. I've already reverted him twice, so I don't want to do it anymore, in case this is a legit user. Does anyone else happen to think this might be a sock of User:Jacob Peters? The edits seem to fit his style well. (There was a false alarm yesterday, so I don't want to move to quickly on this; getting feedback here.) Heimstern Läufer 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This one is looking more like JP, the talk page comment is just like him. Need more evidence though for an RFCU. Either way, I have no problem reverting him since he's removing sourced material against consensus. - Merzbow 01:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Fox33, but it definitely looks like Jacob Peters was editing as 69.110.129.77 (same pattern of disparaging sources he disagrees with: [5], same Pro-Soviet POV: [6], same ISP/location as many of his other IP socks: [7] as recently as yesterday. --C33 02:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys frankly say pathetic nonesense because you are trying to obstruct others from using this encyclopedia. There is no proof to any of what you say. Fox

Checkuser filed on both the IP and Fox33 at WP:RFCU. Outcome pending. I just reverted another removal of reliably sourced material. Removing good stuff is little more than vandalism, so please do not continue to do so. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Those sources are misused because they do not actually evaluate the subject. There is a plentiful of biased media in the western press that refers to this and that unfavourable leader as a dictator. This is a violation of NPOV policy. Fox

BTW, your last edit was incomprehensible gibberish. What party? The one on Saturday night at the pub down the road? And please read WP:RS and WP:V. The standard for inclusion here is verifiability, not truth. And no, you can't verify stuff using party propaganda. That's why it's called propaganda. And quit with the reverts, or you'll get blocked for 3RR. Of course, I've no doubt that you know all this already. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are behaving in a deliberately moronic manner. The relevant sentence distinctly says Soviet state and party leader. The scholarly sources I've cited are easily verifiable.Fox

Leader of what party? Until you say which it is grammatical nonsense. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the relevant sentence clearly says Soviet state and party leader. Fox

If I may ... there were no such thing as a "Soviet Party" (even with capitalized "P"). What you're saying, Fox, is clear for those who had the pleasure to live in the USSR and are old enough to remember, but not for the majority of the intended audience.--Barbatus 21:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I never wrote Soviet Party. I instead wrote Soviet party. Fox

You didn't. But try to remove the "state" from the "Soviet state and party", and you'll get what? Again, you're writing here for people who do not know.--Barbatus 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Physics

"In the late 1940s there were also attempts to suppress special and general relativity, as well as quantum mechanics, on grounds of "idealism"[citation needed].; But the chief Soviet physicists made it clear that without using these theories, they would be unable to create a nuclear bomb"

I am a physicist (though not an historian of physics) and never heard of the above story. What I know is that there was, in the '50s and '60s, mostly in Europe, a small movement of marxist physicists who proposed to reinterpret quantum mechanics, and possibly special relativity also, on "realist" or "materialist" grounds; but none of them, as far as I know, ever proposed to abandon the mathematical methods which had proved to be tremendously successful, especially in the case of quantum mechanics (an issue related to Interpretation of quantum mechanics). What makes me suspicious about the above sentence is that it takes a fair deal of understanding of the theory to tell what could be termed "idealist" in Quantum Mechanics in its usual interpretation, and I don't see some substantial majority of soviet party bureaucrats trying to grasp quantum mechanics, dismissing it as idealist and trying to suppress it (rather than, which would have been more logical, trying to push for a different philosophical interpretation). Unless of course, the attempt came somehow from Stalin himself. I am not saying what the sentence says is impossible, just that it shouldn't stay there unsourced for long.Massimamanno 06:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I found some reference and changed the text Massimamanno 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Massimamanno, the final part of your contribution falls out of reference, is it a personal contribution? this process did not go as far as defining an "ideologically correct" version of physics and purging those scientists who refused to conform to it, because this was recognized as potentially too harmful to the Soviet nuclear program. Because this part seems all wrong to me: 1.the part with NOT defining an ideologically correct version of physics and 2. this was recognized as potentially too harmful to the Soviet nuclear program - because the nuclear program in question was strongly based upon American research and design fallen into Soviet hands with the help of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and other Atom Spies. by ExSovietBlockPhysicist

Grammar Fix

Small grammar error corrected in the Introduction, "Following the death of Vladimir Lenin in the 1924" changed to "Following the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924"

Cheddarbek 27 Januaray 2007

Sergei Prokofiev

From entry on the composer: He died at the age of 61 from a cerebral haemorrhage on 5 March 1953 (the same day and even hour and cause that Communist Party leader Joseph Stalin died). Surely worth mentioning. Rothorpe 18:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the trivia section, but we should avoid these useless informations in Wikipedia in favor of historical facts, don't you think? Necrotranson 20:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Robbing banks while in exile?

It is said that Stalin was in forced exile between 1902 until 1917. in the next paragraph it says that he spent time leading bank robberies from after the revolution of 1905. I find this contradictory, but perhaps it is because of my picture of spending time in exile is wrong? Wasn't the point of his exile to stop his revolutionary activities? added: it is also said that he attended to a meeting in London in 1907. It is also stated further down that he was in exile in 1918 while his and Lida's son was born.

Skogstokerier 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He was sent into a series of exiles between 1902 and 1917. He wasn't permanently exiled for that time period, he generally either escaped or was released not long after his arrival. The Tsarist police were actually quite incompetent.

Stalin was editor of Pravda, the official Communist newspaper, while Lenin and much of the Bolshevik leadership were in exile.

I was wondering, what is with lenin, while stalin was leader, lenin had already died, i think it might mean Nikolai burkharin, or another bolshevek communist.64.48.158.16 03:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalin's name?

Just as the dispute over Marylin Monroe's article. Is Stalin his legally changed name or just a name he took but never legally changed or accepted as his true name? Because if it is, then the article should start with Joseph Stalin and not his birth name.

He never legally changed it. His children were all born with that surname Dzhugashvili. Although recognized in the media as "Stalin" Dzhugashvili was their name, and also their children, grandchildren, etc.. all have followed with the same last name.

In most places in the world, there is no such thing as "legally" changing your name. In England and America, for example, to change your name you just start having people cal you by your new name. So if you parents named you Reginald Dwight, but you or your agent prefer Elton John, then you just start calling yourself Elton John. So long as there is no intent to defraud anyone, there is no requirement that you "legally" do anything. This follows naturally from the principles of freedom of expression, association, of thought, and so on. How can you consistently have freedom of speech and yet need government permission to change your name? Stalin's name was Stalin. It was also, prior to that, Dzhugashvili. So what. More important is that most everywhere in English, his first name is spelled Josef. Why is it not spelled that way here?????? RUReady2Testify 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Although not critical to this article, there is a common mechanism by which you legally change your name in the UK and other countries. See the article on Deed Poll. [8]

Anybody know of Svetlayna / Svetlana Alliluyeva, Stalin's daughter? http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9000508/Svetlana-Alliluyeva

PERHAPS the person who said "just start having people cal !SIC! you" was referring to how COMMON LAW MARRIAGE works. John Smith simply says that Mary Green is his wife and, in American States that support Common Law Marriage, then Mrs. Mary Green is John Smith's wife.

As of post 9/11, the idea of changing a name without documentation is less and less likely.

Stalin in the Arts: "Burnt by the sun (of revolution)"

The movie BURNT BY THE SUN (of revolution) is set in the Stalin era. Could this be added to the list of Stalin in the Arts? BURNT BY THE SUN Best Foreign Language Film, 67th Annual Academy Awards Winner-Grand Jury Prize, 1994 Cannes Film Festival Official Selection, 1994 Toronto Film Festival A FILM BY NIKITA MIKHALKOVVangildrjp 20:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree you should add that to the list Krishansood 16:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

mistaken estimate of ww russian deaths

in the stalin article, it says that 'russia had the second highest civilian deaths in wwII, 20 million." in the WWII article, it says total civilian allied deaths were 38 million, and russian civilian deaths were 11.7 million. could someone who understands how wikipedia works correct these inaccuracies? (it took me ten minutes to find this page. could someone who understands wikipedia make it easier to suggest changes?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.57.49 (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

--it is not accurate to say there was a mistaken estimate of russian WWII daeths. This is a highly disputed number. The estimates range from country to country and easily vary from 20-45 million (this being the usually range). The reason for this is because discrempencies to several cites of mass graves, most of which are located in the woods in Ukraine. It is not known which side (German/Russian) created these mass graves although most held to graves made by the Red Army/NKVD. Also, there are still documents being unclassified by multiple countries that keep revealing new information about the war. If one must pick one number the best estimation that is currently held to be most accurate is near 30 million. This number is sure to change dozens of times in the future.Carbonalrusphi 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)carbonalrusphi

This entry still perpetuates debunked lies and myths

Why is Robert Conquest the most bought and sold anti-communist propagandist listed as a valid source for various sections? Are you not aware of his various books paid for by nationalist ukrainian organizations? Bias to say the least.

The section on the amount of deaths during the famine (which was by NO means limited to the Ukraine region...) doesn't even take into account the methods by which the cited sources use to determine the death toll - To put it simply they used average birth/death rates and the 1926 census compared to the 1939 census. Of course they do not tell you that during that period the borders of the Ukraine SSR change and about 4-5 million people were renamed Russian instead of being counted as Ukrainian.

Here are a few links by a university professor, and another fellow who can help dispel myth.

http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam1.html http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/coplonrewriting88.pdf

As for the posts up above discussing whether or not J.V. Stalin was a dictator - I strongly suggest you check out the following 2 part essay this is no light peice of material either, the author clearly lays out the realities in sharp contrast to the myths which would have you believe the USSR was a monolithic nation controlled by one man. The essay goes on to detail the attempts Stalin had made to wedge the Party away and force democratic reform. (Obviously he failed which again would dispel the myth that he was all-powerfull)

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

Introduction

This article outlines Joseph Stalin's attempts, from the 1930s until his death, to democratize the government of the Soviet Union.

This statement, and the article, will astonish many, and outrage some. In fact my own amazement at the results of the research I'm reporting on led me to write this article. I had suspected for a long time that the Cold War version of Soviet history had serious flaws. Still, I was unprepared for the extent of the falsehoods I had been taught as fact.

This story is well known in Russia, where respect for, even admiration of, Stalin is common. Yuri Zhukov, the main Russian historian who sets forth the paradigm of "Stalin as Democrat" and whose works are the most important single source, though far from the only one, for this article, is a mainstream figure associated with the Academy of Sciences. His works are widely read.

As for the post above me - The Soviet Union had 26-27 million in casualties (on average, give or take a few million) and 9 million of which were military the rest civilian and that is certainly the highest.

This chart outlines the entire thing in much detail: http://www.magweb.com/sample/sgmbn/sgm80soj.htm

(Sissok Nagazi 11:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

LOLOL! Yeah, the so-called "Progressive Labor Party" and Grover Furr are excellent sources without a taint of bias whatsoever...--C.J. Griffin 04:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality in dispute?

Why is the neutrality of this article disputed? I can't see a disscussion on it. --Floormatster 23:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that! There is speak of refferential bias but not of neutrality. At least, not clearly.

Maybe because this is one huge piece of anti-communist propaganda that uses sources that are/were paid by some of the most hostile forces to the former Soviet Union and Ioseph Stalin? Redflagflying 05:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I'd like to know what info you think is wrong. Floormatster 02:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You can laugh all you want at Grover Furr, the fact is the piece is HEAVILY referenced, do you actually mean to say you argue with the first hand accounts of Marshal Zhukov or NKVD Beria? Facts speak louder then rhetoric and soon enough they will eclipse idiots like Robert Conquest who's for-pay propaganda is well known, I'd encourage you to do some research on this person he isn't credible in the least, not even for Wikipedia. Its also known that the images of the so-called "man-made" famine in the USSR were taken from a legitimate famine in the early 1920s. As I've said before the 1930s famine was by no means limited to the interior/west of the Ukraine and in fact spread up into the Volga area (Stalingrad).

Lets consider for example the fact that the only two official Census statistics to go by are from 1926 and 1939 which are before and after to so-called "Red Terror" a musing propaganda term to say the least. The fact is, and your free to verify this, is that millions of ethnic groups were re-assigned to different Soviet Republics - some were relisted as Russian while others simply found themselves in a different S.S.R. because the borders of some Soviet Republics changed during that time - a fact people are so eager to ignore when spouting the crap about how Stalin somehow managed to murder 20 million people? How does a country achieve a 325% increase in heavy industry in 4 years when its core workforce is somehow being killed off by the millions? I won't deny Stalin was harsh, his era demanded it, but some of this bullshit is bloody obvious. (Sissok Nagazi 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Guess what? Most people outside of your little Stalinist circles dismiss this useful idiot Furr as nothing but an extremist loser - a hate-filled ideologue. [9] [10] I don't care how "heavily referenced" his rubbish about "Stalin as a reformer democrat" is - it's propaganda, pure and simple. No one, absolutely no one, outside of Communist and Russian Nationalist circles believes this nonsense. Speaking of heavily referenced works on the history of Stalin, I'd recommend Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Sebag Montefiore, Stalin and His Hangmen by Donald Rayfield and A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia by Alexander Yakovlev, to name a few. These serious works of history use some of the most recent and reliable scholarship available (unlike Furr, who considerd hacks like Yuri Mukhin "credible" - the fool who attempted to pin the Katyn Massacre on the Nazis) on the Stalin era and archival materials. Montefiore in particular received praise nearly accross the board.[11] Sorry pal, Stalin has been judged by history not as a heroic democratic reformer, but as a homicidal tyrant responsible for the deaths of millions. The mass graves at Sandarmokh, Bykivnia, Kuropaty, Katyn, Butovo, etc. etc. etc. are irrefutable proof of this. You'll have to do alot better than besmirching Robert Conquest with your pathetic ad hominem (as he's one of many historians who write on the crimes of Stalin) and posting links to silly propaganda websites of the PLP and nonentities like Grover Furr to change that.

I recommend removing the neutrality tag, as it seems the only people who are disputing the article's neutrality are Communists and Stalinists. It would be like adding a neutrality tag to the Holocaust article because some Neo-Nazis don't like it. --C.J. Griffin 13:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And then renominate it as a Featured Article?—151.198.44.119 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the article can't simply state something paraphrased along the lines of "he is widely believed to have done A, B & C, etc." It is an irrefutable fact that most historians believe that Stalin was a brutal dictator who killed millions of his own people. Perhaps stating Stalin's murderous dictatorship as fact is arguable, however, stating that a majority believe so can hardly be considered bias. Were that type of minor rewrite to happen, could we all agree to remove the NPOV tag? NoHitHair

I'd agree to that. But only if it was made clear that that is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of credible sources. 68.239.209.131 14:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stalin and Georgia

Hi there. I think, a section or even an article on Stalin's relations with the country of his birth and on his personal identity would not be out of place here. Among the things to be discussed would probably be:

Stalin’s early years in Georgia;
Stalin’s Georgian vs. Russian identity (this article might be of some help on this, imo).
Stalin’s role in the Soviet conquest of Georgia (1921);
His extremely hardliner policy in early Soviet Georgia, and his uneasy relations with local Georgian Communist leadership ("Georgian Affair" of 1922; August Uprising of 1924);
Stalinism in Georgia and purges (1930s-50s);
Khrushchev’s De-Stalinization and Georgians’ reaction to it (March 9 1956 tragedy);
Public opinion about Stalin in post-Soviet Georgia (which, albeit largely negative, is still quite contradictory, btw).

The current article doesn't contain even a signle sentence on the above topics.

Any thoughts? Kober^Talk 07:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its a great idea and would be very interesting the the public. Thanks Kober. Ldingley 17:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How tall is Stalin?

Apparently he made statues of appear bigger than he realy was, so was he 5ft something?

He was 5' 6"[12]

He was a politician, they're all pipsqueaks with huge heads.83.70.28.138 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Being the beastly awesome guy he was" needs to be taken out of the article as a fatuous/comical comment on a complex historical figure. However, this should not lessen the fact that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of his own countrymen or that he played an important role in the defeat of the Nazis and also that Russia/the Russian people were central in the defeat of Nazi Germany. 82.21.223.197 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If a person could take the time - ie was a rich kid - to study Stalin in great detail ( trace down every story etc ) I wonder what percent we hear about him is true? I bet less than 10%. The number of deaths probqably include war deaths killed by Germans, Jews who moved to Israel, old people, bad weather - the guy couldn't be everywhere but he appears to have been , if you trust "historians". 159.105.80.141 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true. You would still find he killed many, many people. "Historians" are the ones who have time to study him, because they are the ones who get paid to do it. —68.239.209.131 14:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stalin reference archive

I just included a link in the aricle to archive of Stalin's letters: [13]. This is an interesting resource. See [14], for example. Biophys 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Nationality?

In the infobox it says he is Russian. The link leads to a disambiguation page. Should we redirect it to Russians? Yury Petrachenko 09:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

—Yes, but he is Georgian. So it should redirect to Georgians.—68.239.209.131 14:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And it already does. Curse the ever-vigilant editors! I wanted to do something.—68.239.209.131 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to redirect it to Georgian Russians because the guy identified himself as Russian. --Kober^Talk 13:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to assign his nationality to where he has, to date, spent the greatest amount of time. Does anyone have the Postal Delivery Code for H-E-L-L

HEY

stalin doesn't count as a dictator. A dictator is opinionated ;)

Maybe try to fix (resolve )that issue

Since he killed tens of millions of people, im sure "dictator" would fit the description :)

Wow alot of communist here

Just to clarify, it is not opinionated to say Stalin was a cruel dictator. The figures ( which im sure you all know) and credible hisotrians state that Stalin, INDEED, was a harsh dictator.

While I agree that most of the evidence supports this, as an encyclopedia we have to acknowledge that there is an opposing viewpoint and include it in the article (as well as citing the sources which illustrate his cruel nature, natch). --Bishop2 15:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

woah, does this work? =p XD

DO NOT GO ON RED WIKIPEDIA

It is completely skewed and has a completely communist bias. The developers are pro-socialism.

Wrong, seeing as to withhold the information would be as if saying that Stalin never existed. To share information about him does not necessarily mean one would share his beliefs. Does sharing information about Hitler make one a Nazi? No it definately doesnt, so why would talking about Joseph Stalin make one pro-socialism?69.118.106.221 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He is not talking about this site. 68.239.135.39 11:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gun-totin' gangsta straight outa Baku, yo

Simon Sebag Montefiore has discovered in an archive in Tbilisi that Stalin worked for the Rothchilds in Batumi. In his first day the family's refinery burned down, and a little later there was an assassination attempt on the director. "This was not the end of Stalin’s relations with the Rothschilds. In 1907 he moved to the lawless boom city Baku, home of super-rich oil barons who were much the same as today's oligarchs. To finance Lenin, Stalin's gangster outfit of hitmen and bank robbers used protection rackets, piracy, blackmail and kidnapping. The Rothschilds were hugely powerful in Baku, yet the Tsar's secret police and Bolshevik memoirists recorded how the Rothschilds contributed to Stalin's funds, even paying him off to stop a strike." [15]

Inaccuracy and Contradiction

This article is a shameful example of encyclopaedian knowledge. Many factoids presented here refer to Stalin responsibility for murders, purges, and ideological deviations, clearly biased towards his individuality's denigration — as proud western historians do. This is a product of inconsideration of the influence of Cult of Personality on the Soviet authorities — who, on the other hand, are responsible for many of the murders, and purges; due to please their leader. The Soviet penal system it self should be considered in those deaths — and that, of course, is a matter for a different article.

Yet details of Stalin's most important influence on Soviet Union's development are merely, and contradictorily, mentioned, such as Korenizatsiya:

Stalin's rule had a largely disruptive effect on the numerous indigenous cultures that made up the Soviet Union. The politics of the Korenization and forced development of "Cultures National by Form, Socialist by their substance" was arguably beneficial [my emphasis] to later generations of indigenous cultures in allowing them to integrate more easily into Russian society.

Korenizatsiya's arguable benefit is too a relative, and unprecise definition. Korenizatsiya was either beneficial or not — but if it is arguable, then it should be specified why. The current mention even contradicts the article dedicated to Korenizatsiya. Korenizatsiya is a part of Stalin's study, and, therefore, should be properly credited to him in his own article. In the same manner, Korenizatsiya's extinction should be attributed to the following Russification of USSR, lead by him. Only then we'll have succinctly mentioned two aspects of Stalin's influence without bias — the positive and its negative counterpart.

The whole article should be utterly rewritten through precise criteria. What should a personality's article consist of? What should it mention or detail? Should it, in Stalin's case, refer to detailed aspects of USSR industrialization? Lets take this paragraph as example:

In 1933, worker's real earnings sank to about one-tenth of the 1926 level. There was also use of the unpaid labor of both common and political prisoners in labor camps and the frequent "mobilization" of communists and Komsomol members for various construction projects. The Soviet Union also made use of foreign experts, e.g. British engineer Stephen Adams, to instruct their workers and improve their manufacturing processes.

Is it relevant to Stalin's definition as political figure? Shouldn't the article, instead, feature details of Stalin's influence on USSR Industrialization, and dedicate another whole article on the subject? Was Stalin the sole responsible for USSR industralization? Was he the sole responsible for all deaths attributed to him?

When we accurately answer these questions, we'll see how shameful¹ the article is.

¹ — As in “vague”, “unprecise” and “biased”.

--Atheos 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. No point commenting "the whole article should be re-written". Just get on and do it!! Pedro | Chat 13:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)