Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 15

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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Military Offices

STALIN THREW ROCKS AT RETARDED CHILDREN WHEN HE WAS IN POWER! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.104.236.163 (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Apparently, Time's Person of the Year award is a military office? (see: Bottom of page) 66.168.40.202 (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Stalin's rule, reinforced by a cult of personality, fought real and alleged opponents mainly through the security apparatus, such as the NKVD. Millions of people were killed through famines, executions, deportations, and in the Gulag. Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin's eventual successor, denounced Stalin's rule and the cult of personality in 1956, initiating the process of "de-Stalinization" which later became part of the Sino-Soviet Split."Joseph Stalin rapped many people,including his mom. He was a sick a hole. I hate him.

-72.174.2.252 05:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicy

Joseph Stalin was an Ethnic Russian who lived in Georgia for some time. He was NOT an ethnic Georgian. It is a dispute, but I know a lot about Russia and the Reds (Soviets). It is simple, he was not an ethnic Georgian. Ok?

Two Articles

Could we possibly separate this article into two- One called "Stalin" and one called "Stalinist Russia"? One for the history period, one for the man himself. Obviously the two would crossover. But this article does not read like a biography but more a history account. If the history of the USSR under Stalin was told from his POV it might sound more biographical. There's a few solutions to this problem I think. Anyone for their thoughts?

yeah i pretty much agree... this article is wayyy too long 124.183.115.231 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This article should be removed from public edit

It is clear to me taht this article about Stalin is totally bias towards either interest groups at either time. I think it would be best for the article if it was cut off from public edit.

That is against the very principles of wikipedia SGGH ^speak! 16:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Joseph vs. Iosif

1. Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili...

2. Born Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili...

which one is right? In languages with normal Latin alphabet phonetics (that means "read as it is written" - English and French do not fall into that category) it is written as Iosif. — lim 13:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In English, the language in which this entry is written, it is almost always spelled Josef--that is not Joseph and certainly not Iosif. Because he changed his name (as dictator, he had the power to do that--who's permission would he need?) his birth name is not his name, but should only be noted. On a related point, his nationality is Russian or Soviet, not Georgian, which is his ethnicity or his birth nationality. If T.S. Eliot is/was English and Andrew Carnegie is/was American, the Stalin is most certainly Russian and or Soviet.

It is startling how ill-informed WP "editors" are on the most basic skills needed to edit history and or biography. The talk pages reveal that Wikipedia is a failure. On the other hand WP should be encouraging to history teachers, because it shows that although most people know absolutley nothing about history (see the discussion here on whether Stalin qualifies as a dictator, according to someone's dictionary definition), the ignorant are nonetheless interested enough to delete the work of others and replace it with their own ravings. RUReady2Testify 20:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the person asking which is correct Iosif or Josef is not "ill-informed" or anything like that as they are asking here a very sensible question backed up with facts. --81.107.39.205 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that it is entirely proper to characterize Stalin as having the Georgian nationality in that the Soviet Union was not a nation in the same sense that most Westerners conceive of it. Consider that if Napolean had conquered and held Europe, would people born later on in Germany have considered themselves French? Likewise, almost no one considers himself British by nationality. The passport says Great Britain, but if you ask someone wielding it his nationality, you'll hear English or Scottish, etc.

213.10.5.56 21:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalin was a Soviet citizen (a subject of Russian monarch before 1917) and ethnical Georgian. It is worth to mention that he was born in Russian Empire. What for are ambiguous terms like "nationality" in Wikipedia? As far as I know, in USA in legal aspect the term nationality means a second-class citizenship for habitants of USA colonies (like Puerto Rico). Murmillo (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Famine

Simply saying that 6 million died from famine isn't enough. Stalin and the soviet union were exporting food while people died. This wasn't a man-made famine...its man-made starvation. Not only that, when an adviser would tell Stalin of the famine, he would have them sent to the gulags for being a traitor to the state. It should be mentioned that yes, some of the famine was due to collectivization/other factors, but quite a bit of it was also due directly to Stalin's orders. For instance, the purges that attempted to exterminate the Kulaks (a kind of upper middle class). The KGB had quotas they had to fill from every village. I think it was something like 10% of all villagers had to be declared Kulaks and taken away. So not only was there famine due to collectivizations, but the best farmers were killed. This article needs some drastic rewriting. I've studied quite a bit of Russian history and it is...well, quite plainly...POV.

Cite your sources. I dont find anything you've said to be convincing.

Eddie hates Brooke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.109.0.195 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Which Parts are biased?

Of course the lemma is biased. Compare it with British politicians. They were responsible for the famins in British India. By the means of that time most famines could be avoided, but pivate enterprise was more importent as was collectivisation was more important to Stalin. And after the independence of India the famins suddenly could be avoided. In the lemma's of Britissh politicians it is never mentioned that they were responsible for lets say 10-30 million deaths in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn (talk • contribs) 11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Let us not forget that this so-called famine was NOT restricted to some forsaken part of the Ukraine, and was indeed widespread across that south-western region of the USSR, you do realize they have bad weather in the USSR like any other region of the world right?

"One of the first campaigns of the Hearst press against the Soviet Union revolved round the question of the millions alleged to have died as a result of the Ukraine famine. This campaign began on 18 February 1935 with a front-page headline in the Chicago American ‘6 million people die of hunger in the Soviet Union’. Using material supplied by Nazi Germany, William Hearst, the press baron and Nazi sympathiser, began to publish fabricated stories about a genocide which was supposed to have been deliberately perpetrated by the Bolsheviks and had caused several million to die of starvation in the Ukraine. The truth of the matter was altogether different. In fact what took place in the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1930s was a major class struggle in which poor landless peasants had risen up against the rich landowners, the kulaks, and had begun a struggle for collectivisation, a struggle to form kolkhozes.

This great class struggle, involving directly or indirectly some 120 million peasants, certainly gave rise to instability in agricultural production and food shortages in some regions. Lack of food did weaken people, which in turn led to an increase in the number falling victim to epidemic diseases. These diseases were at that time regrettably common throughout the world. Between 1918 and 1920 an epidemic of Spanish flu caused the death of 20 million people in the US and Europe, but nobody accused the governments of these countries of killing their own citizens. The fact is that there was nothing these government could do in the face of epidemics of this kind. It was only with the development of penicillin during the second world war, that it became possible for such epidemics to be effectively contained. This did not become generally available until towards the end of the 1940s.

The Hearst press articles asserting that millions were dying of famine in the Ukraine – a famine supposedly deliberately provoked by the communists – went into graphic and lurid detail. The Hearst press used every means possible to make their lies seem like the truth, and succeeded in causing public opinion in the capitalist countries to turn sharply against the Soviet Union. This was the origin of the first giant myth manufactured alleging millions were dying in the Soviet Union. In the wave of protests against the supposedly communist-provoked famine which the Western press unleashed, nobody was interested in listening to the Soviet Union’s denials and complete exposure of the Hearst press lies, a situation which prevailed from 1934 until 1987! For more than 50 years several generations of people the world over were brought up on a diet of these slanders to harbour a negative view of socialism in the Soviet Union. "

Link: http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/lies/node4.html http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/lies/lies.html

(24.64.86.167 (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Unfourtunatly, I have not read the entire article. I would like to know exactly which parts of the article are biased, I not saying that it isn't biased, I'm saying that I haven't seen them. Please tell me which parts are biased because I have not had the time to get to the parts that are.

Stalin's early interest in Esperanto?

According to Tom Reiss, in "The Orientalist", Stalin in his youth was a devoted fan of Esperanto. (page 20, ISBN 0-8129-7276-7 ) Can someone find another source for this? Should we mention it in the article? 66.81.17.104 (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 19:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

His nationality was not Georgian but Russian and Soviet. He was an ethnic Georgian, but was born in Russian Empire (Georgia was not independent at that time) and died in Soviet Union. This is an encyclopedia and you need to be consistent here, and put emotions aside. If you follow this logic, then you need to replace nationality with ethnicity in other bio articles (e.g. Churchill). The fact that Soviet Union does not exist anymore does make any difference. This should not be a reason for 'revising' the history. Any country can cease an existence and/or its borders can change. It should say ‘Russian until 1917, Soviet after that’ (e.g. the Hitler article). His Georgian ethnicity should be stated in the article, as it is now. Bjs (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so the Infobox on "Premiers of the Soviet Union" includes a category for "Nationalliity". If we're going to list "Soviet" as the nationality for every Soviet leader, I would propose that the category of "Nationality" should be eliminated from the Infobox. If on the other hand, you think that it is significant to say in the Infobox that not all the Soviet premiers were Russian - e.g. Stalin was Georgian, Malenkov was Macedonian - then I think it makes sense to list Stalin's nationality as Georgian. Maybe we should also consider changing "nationality" to "ethnicity" in the Infobox if we don't want to eliminate it altogether. At any rate, I don't think that listing Stalin's ethnicity as "Russian then Soviet" is helpful at all, so I'm going to revert it. Adam_sk (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but "Soviet Union" is not a nationality, despite what that link says. He was born in Georgia, so he is Georgian. But if you want to put "Russian/Georgian" as a nationality, that's ok. Actually, even "Russian" is more acceptable than the status quo (though incorrect). But “Soviet Union” isn’t a nationality.1.21 jigwatts 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I share you concerns. We should identify the nationality of the subject of a biographical article in the lead. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. In English, unlike Russian, the word nationality means exactly this. Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. There was no independent Georgian or Russian state during much of Stalin’s life.Colchicum 19:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Colchicum, Stalin was a native of Colchis, there's no denying it. He could hardly speak Russian. If you are uncomfortable with his ethnicity, better remove the line from the article entirely than claim him as "Russian" which is simply ridiculous. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he is certainly not Russian, his nationality is "Soviet Union". I don't care much about this particular detail (my username is derived from this flower, which was blooming when I created my account, and I have almost no relations to Georgia), but it would be better to use the term nationality consistently all over Wikipedia, preferably according to the meaning it has in English. Now the nationality categorization is a mess to the extent that it is not worth keeping in Wikipedia. In some articles it means citizenship, in some articles it means ethnicity, race, religion or native language, maybe even something else. But e.g. when one fill visa application forms, it means more or less citizenship. If the infobox had contained a field for ethnicity, it would be perfectly ok to characterize Stalin as Georgian. Colchicum 09:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I originally put Stalin's nationality as "Russian/Georgian" because the Soviet Union was "Russian" (if you know what I mean) and Stalin probably had a huge amount of Russian influence. Also, Brezhnev's nationality is "Russian/Ukrainian" (although unlike Stalin it seems Brezhnev called himself Russian although he was born in Ukraine). But I understand if "Russian" was taken out. Also, I believe I've read that Stalin spoke Russian just fine, although with a heavy Georgian accent.1.21 jigwatts 00:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I heard that Stalin could be a jew. Stalin's surname is strange- DJUGASHVILI. I heard that in georgian DJUGA or DJU means JEW. Then his surname translates like "Jew's son". Is it right? If it so he could be of mixed Georgian\Jewish nationality, since his mother was georgian. I'm not claiming anything, I'm just curious, since there was many rumours about his true nationality, one was about that he was ossetian.

no it's not, in Georgian Jew pronounced [ebraeli], there is no word [dju] in Georgian. And yes he was born in Georgia, but he was not a Georgian. He hated everything about Georgia and Georgians as well, and on top of it all he referred to himself always as Russian.

But i guess it is correct to put on wikipedia that he was Georgian. Soviet nationality didn't exist!! -psycho_NIX 12:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Transcaucasian SFSR maybe? (TariqAlSuave 03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

The article does not read like a biography

The article currently attempts to retell the entire history of the Soviet Union, instead of concentrating on Stalin's personality and career, as may be expected from a biography. I remove the following piece which strikes me as particularly irrelevant: --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union suffered the second highest number of civilian losses (20 million) yet the highest number of military losses (at least 8,668,400 Red Army personnel, including around 2 million dead in Nazi captivity) in World War II. The Nazis considered Slavs to be "sub-human", and many people believe the Nazis killed Slavs as an ethnically targeted genocide. This concept of Slavic inferiority was also the reason why Hitler did not accept into his army many Soviet citizens who wanted to fight the regime until 1944, when the war was lost for Germany.

In the Soviet Union, World War II left a huge deficit of men of the wartime fighting-age generation. To this day the war is remembered very vividly in Russia, Belarus, and other parts of the former Soviet Union as the Great Patriotic War, and May 9, "Victory Day", is one of Russia's biggest national holidays.

Yes, this has no place in the article. Colchicum 19:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Denial of his Georgian ethnicity

User:Kober inserts into the article patently bogus claims of Stalin's Russian ethnicity, deletes large chunks of text without bothering to provide any explanation. Now I can see who keeps the article in its sorry state and resists any attempts at improvement. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You might be amazed but the Soviets generally distinguished between "nationality" and "ethnicity". Your agenda is equally transparent and attempt to lay responsibility of Stalin's crimes on Georgians is simply dishonest. He was a high-ranking Russian official whereas the Georgian state outlawed him and the only way he managed to return to the Georgian soil was the Soviet invasion of Georgia. In addition, you are intentionally reverting my editions from Britannica which is a legitimate source. --Kober^Talk 20:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's your attempt to cast the Highlander as a Russian nationalist that is intellectually dishonest. Perhaps Beria was a Russian too? Seriously, both Georgians and Estonians should face their history instead of this staunch denial of inconvenient truths. "Under Stalin, very few nationalities except the Georgian nationality exercised very much of an input" (United States Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on Europe, United States Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on the Near East. 1977). If anything, he fought to root out the underpinnings of Russian national consciousness: all the Orthodox churches in my native town were disfigured and the oldest were blown up. It was Stalin who aggrandized his native country by inclusion of Abkhazia and half of Ossetia. Your government continues to deal with the consequences, promoting the nationalist view that both Abkhazia and Ossetia were parts of Georgia since before the Flood. That's the background for your expurgation of valid information, as I see it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

aggrandized his native country by inclusion of Abkhazia and half of Ossetia?? Hahaha... Be more serious, buddy. I remember you discussing things like the "Georgian occupation of Russia" and "forcible Georgianization of Russia." No, pal. He invaded and devided Georgia between his beloved Russia and Turkey. Some of the territories were also granted to Armenia and Azerbaijan. FYI, both Abkhazia and what would become South Ossetia were within the borders of the Democratic Republic of Georgia as recognized by Russia in the Treaty of Moscow (1920). I think you should gain some basic knowledge of the early Soviet history before posting intellectually dishonest and provocative comments here. Ciao, Kober^Talk 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what have the Estonians to do with all of this? --Kober^Talk 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Before he began to "fight to root out the underpinnings of Russian national consciousness" and disfigure the Orthodox churches in you native town, Stalin had eliminated the entire Georgian intellectual elite and disfigured even more Orthodox churches in my native town in the tragic year 1924 while the rest of the Soviet empire enjoyed a brief happiness of NEP.--Kober^Talk 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kober. You must be from Georgia to understand what he did to this nation. I think his museum shoud be open only on Haloween. But not only Stalin and Beria, but the whole toothless brainless bolsheviks who brainwashed and recruited these two and ambushed every prominent person to get points and promotions. Stalin and beria would not be able to walk from one door to another, find his oponents and kill them, people who believed in this system wrote anonimous letters to him requesting to take measures and he did what his people requested from him. He established a strong secret service which is causing problems in the world even to this day. The same thing was happening in other Soviet countries, smart ideas were not tolerated anywhere. And everything started the way before Stalin and beria, when Royalties were sloughtered by hungry local people. Georgians have nothig to do with Stalin's personality, he spoke not only Russian with heavy accent but his Geogian accent was not very Georgian either. - Belfast

One of the worst Stalinist repressions were probably in Georgia. But this is not relevant here. I would not write that Stalin was Russian, as Russian is not equivalent to Soviet, like British is not equivalent to English; compare David Lloyd George Tamokk 07:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC).

Not comfortable with the inclusion of "Number of victims"

I am no Soviet historian and no expert on Stalin. However I find it extraordinary that in discussing this particular person, there is an section entitled "Number of victims".

I contend that the entire section, and the assumptions on which it is based rely purely on a prejudicial view and are not defensible in terms of objectivity. I think the entire section should be removed, or placed elsewhere as part of the history of the Soviet Union.

What we find is a section called "Number of victims" which begins... "Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin's regime..." - so now we are factoring in those "killed by a regime"? What does this mean?

As you read the section, you learn, for example, "The number killed by Stailn's regime" apparently includes . "1.7 million died of privation or other causes in the Gulags" - The Gulags (not wishing to get bogged down in semantics) were a prison system, and the fact that people die in prison is a given the world over! But specifically in Stalin's case it appears to be especially relevant to count how many people are alleged to have died in these prisons, blame them all on "the regime" and then equate "the regime" with Stailn himself.

I also find the use of the work "victims" judgemental and emotive. We don't for example tally up how many people have died in UK prisons since 1952, including those executed by the state before the death penalty was abolished, and then include under "Queen Elziabeth II" a section called "number of victims". It seems that "victims" is used to pre-judge that Stalin is responsible for all those deaths, and imply that they were innocents under attack from him - although this is obvioulsy not substantiated (because it can't be).

The discussion also mentions "POWs and German civilians 1 million". If we were discussing how many German civilians were killed by the British army, would it not be extraordinary to include "Number of victims" in an article on Churchill or King George VI?

The piece also includes "about 9 million victims of repression". What is a "victim of repression"? Is this a dead person? How did they all die? What does it mean?

And so it continues, "Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime". So, it's 4 million by "repression"? And what exactly is a "surplus death"? Is anyone who died in a Gulag counted as a "surplus death", by whatever cause they died?

I find the whole section unfathomable, and the concept of counting "victims" frankly bizarre.

I completely agree. If anything, this section is simply a demonstration of tremendous Western (and most predominantly American) bias. I'm going to remove it. If anyone disagrees with the removal, go ahead and discuss it here/ do a restoral.

It is so written biasly. I really wonder whether it will ever be NPOV. --maxrspct ping me 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your objection is based on the fact that the gulag system was a prison system and that people ended up there as the result of apolitical, legal processes. This was not the case, which is why a great series of Russian literature sprung up as a direct result, including works by Solzhenitsyn. My feeling is that this has been well documented. Taubman's work on Khrushchev discusses extensively how the purges operated. It is clear that most of those who ended up in these camps did not violate a clear statute of law. Article 58 does not constitute such a statue, just as many modern, anti-terrorism laws do not. The reason why we can talk of victims is the extent to which people were sent to these camps because of political beliefs or simply because someone else gave their name under the duress of violent interrogation. Which is another matter in itself: many people were expelled from the party, sent to gulags, or shot based on forced confessions. This is a fact, and is another reason why we can speak of victims. However, that having been said, I agree that the title "number of victims" is inappropriate since it is a loaded phrase. If it were countered by a section detailing "number of accomplishments", perhaps it would appear less politically charged. For example, a section detailing how in a generation the Soviet Union was transformed from a backward feudal state into a modern superpower, the construction of the Moscow metro, etc. etc.

213.10.5.56 21:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that this section is entirely unnecessary and wholly inconsistent. Wikipedia does not list "number of victims" for all leaders and unless Stalin can be implicated in directly and individually murdering victims (as would hold true for serial killers), it's simply divisive and contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia.

For example, were we to implement consistency into this "number of victims" criteria, then I would certainly nominate many historic figures that I believe would claim many "victims"; such as how Native Americans felt towards Andrew Jackson or the uncountable dead as a result of the ongoing war in Iraq with George W. Bush.

Unless this section is removed I see no reason why we can't have a "number of victims" section in both of those leaders' biographies as well. Any objections? NoHitHair (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Historians are in agreement that Stalin murdered millions. He certainly deserves a victims section. You can discuss the format of other leaders' articles at their respective article talk pages. - Merzbow (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro needs changing.

The intro isn't right. This sentence about crash programmes doesn't make sense. Also it reads a bit like an apologia than a factual summary.

"Under Stalin's leadership, the Soviet Union played a decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War (1941-45) and went on to achieve the status of superpower. His crash programs of industrialization and collectivization in the 1930s, along with his ongoing campaigns of political repression, are estimated have varied widely. Scholars estimate deaths under his regime to be from between under 2[4] to over 20[5][6][7][8] million people."

I think there's a few things that need changing:

- separate WW2 from Stalin's domestic leadership. Also the phrasing implies Stalin's leadership was the reason for the Soviet victory. Not really supported by the evidence. The page on the Great Purge mentions the consequence of the military purge. Plus ignoring British warnings of German attack, ignoring Sorge's intelligence and his own disastrous attempts at generalship. More accurate to say SU won because Stalin by 1943 learned not to meddle. Yes, the Soviet Union beat Germany when he was in charge. The way it's structured at the moment implies Stalin should take the credit. You could have the same sentence I supporse for Churchill, but then Churchill didn't make as many disatrous decisions as Stalin.

- Separate lines for the deaths from the Ukranian famine, executions in the purges and deaths in the gulag. 2-20 million is a silly range. Never heard of 2 million in any source. Ukraine famine alone is estimated at 4-6 million. Having multiple sources doesn't make it OK. Even the SU's own census showed a major shortfall in the 1930s, those concerned were sent to the gulags.

- New para describing SU's transformation in superpower and industrialisation programme. By mixing it all up it reads a bit like one a balamce sheet. Need clear headlines for the main events and his best known policies.

Adamjamesbromley 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done on the re-write of the intro whoever that was, reads much better. Adamjamesbromley 08:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoever did this edit, they should flag it up in the discussion pages:

Under Stalin's leadership, the Soviet Union played a decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War (1941-45) and went on to achieve the status of superpower, and its territorial expanse to the levels of the Russian empire.

It's not grammatically correct. You can't achieve a terriotrial expanse, and to levels of the Russian Empire is incorrect. Can you clarify the point? Is it really worth mentioning that he expanded SU's boundaries.

Suggest it be reverted. Adamjamesbromley 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian famine+Deportations Koreans

Koreans have been moved for completely other reasons. I understand that here much ukrainian user but to put them on the first place incorrectly. Famine 33 years is written too badly. I suggest to remove it--Jaro.p 10:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bday

I think he was born on the 21st of December. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.51.229 (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected with no expiry date set..

{{editprotected}} Please add {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}. Thank you.--69.118.235.97 11:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia

Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

minor change in early childhood

"official biographies preferred to state that he was expelled.[8]. He was expelled by Georgy Dolganev (hieromonk Hermogen), the seminary rector[9]."

"expelled" once too often --Arne Heise 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone who knows how, please lock this article

I'm not very familiar with wikipedia, but there are two references to Stalin's name meaning "man of flaccid gelatin." This, according to my other knowledge, seems to be not right. I would just change it to "man of steel," but I don't have a cite for it. It seems like this is an article that is vandalized a great deal; is there a reasonable way to protect if from vandalisim without freezing it in time with no changes?

The other thing is that there is a simplistic statement about how he was raped, which led to his aggressive personality, which in turn led to his taking over the USSR. This seems, to say the least, almost comically simplistic. Can someone who has information on his personality as a contributing factor to his policies please fix this? If not, is it reasonable to delete something so simplistic as to appear funny to historians and social scientists? SandwichSandwich 23:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lenin's dates

In the intro section, it says that Lenin died in 1923. He died in January 1924. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.62.39 (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Death Battalion?

What the hell is "death battalion?" Why is it mainly made up of women? And what it has to do with Soviet democracy? I removed that sentence for now. --Zealander 00:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Left and Right Opposition

The following is a direct quote, from its own paragraph: "For more about Stalin's relationship with Lenin, a post Soviet extract of Lenin's sister." Seems like vandalism to me, back me up? FuSballmehralsfutbol 02:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove "are estimated to" from the description of Joseph Stalin

Replace ...are estimated to have cost the lives of millions of people...

with ..did cost the lives of tens of millions of people...

Be soberly aware today we are beyond estimates regarding this character. Xeu 12:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you would be wrong my ignorant friend. Because you have no credible sources supporting your belief.

-G

Orders for Trotsky's assassination

I've restored this, with a source. It is widely agreed that Trotsky's assassination was ordered by Stalin and carried out by the NKVD. The source I provided in the above edit is the New York Times, which reported in 1989 that even Soviet texts were beginning to acknowledge that the assassination was ordered by Moscow. I could of course supply more sources (e.g. Robert Conquest's The Great Terror), but I don't see the need to endlessly buttress this widely accepted point. I'd be willing to see the passage removed on grounds of lack of notability or simply being out of place, but removing it on grounds that "there's no proof" is untenable. As to the second removal, which claimed that it was unsourced, I assume that the editor simply didn't notice the source I provided. I apologize for my overly flippant edit summary the first time around, which probably didn't help. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Reverted again without comment by User:Mista-X. Fine: a brief list of sources confirming the common knowledge that Stalin did, in fact, order Trotsky's assassination:

The Sword and the Shield, by Andrew and Mitrokhin, p. 86 - Pavel Sudoplatov was "personally instructed by Stalin that his chief task was to send a task force to Mexico to assassinate Leon Trotsky."
The Great Terror, by Robert Conquest (don't have the page no. in front of me, but easily verified)
News report that the "ice ax used by a Spaniard to kill Trotsky in Mexico City in 1940 on the orders of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin" had possibly surfaced.
Article from The Guardian on Trotsky's grandson, mentions that Mercader was a "an NKVD agent of Spanish origin".
VENONA cables, as discussed on the website of the U.S. National Security Agency, describes Ramon Mercader as "a Spanish Communist recruited into KGB service by his mother", with a fake passport provided by the NKVD.
A PBS documentary, states succinctly that "In 1940, Trotsky was murdered with an ice-pick in Mexico on Stalin's orders by Ramon Mercader, a Spanish-born agent for the Soviet secret police."
TIME magazine states that "There was just one Old Bolshevik left [Trotsky]: Stalin sent out his new operatives after him." Mercader is named as one of said operatives.
Article in the Sydney Morning Herald: "It was an open secret that Stalin had given orders to liquidate his rival."

I could go on, but you get the point. Even by the standards of denialism that are prevalent on Wikipedia, I don't think we can argue that there are no reliable sources to back the claim that Stalin ordered Trotsky's assassination, or that Mercader was working for the NKVD. I invite discussion, and would discourage continued reverting without engagement on this talk page. MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

not a very good reference

From the BBC website: "At the KGB archive in Kiev, recently released files are piled up on an old-fashioned desk. These are said to demonstrate how the famine was artificially engineered.

One document is an order from Moscow to shoot people who steal food. It is signed by Stalin in red ink."

as far as the second sentence is concerned, during a famine one would think that food supplies would be defended?

the article is making a maybe statement referencing a news agency that is making a maybe statement. This seems questionable. They are "said to." Who is saying it? We know for sure that the BBC says that "kgb" documents are on an old fashioned desk. That's about it. The wikipedia article on the [KGB] says that the organization started in 1954. This is 21 years after the supposed engineering took place.

I think this bbc article is insufficient as far as a citation is concerned for a claim of this gravity. Humbabba 22:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Stalin giving a speech

Is this image really necessary? A few repeating images giving a speech? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.129.219 (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see Stalin in motion, but problem is that it really makes reading harder. If people want to keep it, then it could be wise to move it lower, for example under Stalin in the arts, where it can't interfere with reading.--Ukas 10:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

Could Hadjin please explain this edit? Removing 4000 words from an article ought to at least merit an edit summary. john k 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

fixed, banned user.--Andersmusician VOTE 03:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalin and his health issues

Does anyone know about if there was any notable mental disorders on Stalin , there's no mention on the article about it.--Andersmusician VOTE 03:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

None with any credible evidence... aren't you a little young to be an admin?

-G

OK, guys, the "alcoholism" section really needs to be either removed or completely rewritten. The source used seemed to be taken seriously pretty much only by the 'alcohol is a sin' crowd, and the only actual book review I could find (from "Alcohol and alcoholism") pretty much dismisses it completely. I will also mention that blaming everything he did on alcohol is pretty damn simplistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.48.29.219 (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalin never referred to his stay in London.

apparently he was beaten up by irish dockers in wapping while trying to procure a young irish prostitute. only saved by litvinov. i wish i could find a source--Mongreilf (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Only in your warped brain, can you find such as source.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

well anon i have a source. it's from stella rimmington's (former head of mi5) bbc documentary "watching the rusians". i meant a linkable source--Mongreilf (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is mentioned in Simon Sebag Montefiore's "Young Stalin", and I think in his later book "Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.208.138 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stalin church 1939.jpg

Image:Stalin church 1939.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Propose to add POV tag to the Number of Victims section

I think that this section is somewhat biased. To tell you the truth, I am kind of against having a "victims" section for any leader on Wikepedia. The reason for this is that I don't think there is any objective way to tell who is a victim of a certain leader's regime, how many of them there are. The section should be rewritten I think, so not to use such ambiguous terms as "surplus deaths".

One example of writing that is not clear that jumps out is:

The government archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin, while about 1.7 million died in the GULAG and some 389,000 perished during kulak forced resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims.

Now according to this, there is no clear distinction between people who were arrested and executed for criminal reasons and political. It does not make any sense to include criminal arrests/deaths in the number of victims. By that logic you could also claim that the people who get arrested/executed in the USA for crimes are "victims" of Bush's government. It just seems tome that if such section is included, then EVERY leader in the history of the world should have a "number of victims" section.

Let me know what you guys think. PolkovnikKGB (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, but the section clearly states that the figure for executions includes both criminal and political offences. It's probably true that the statement which follows is slightly misleading, but in the overall context of the numbers it's a minor quibble.

A more serious problem is that someone who is unaware of the previous consensus compromise final estimate of "between 15 and 20 million victims" has altered it to just "around 20 million victims" and added a bunch of estimates to support this statement. I've left it as is for now, but I may change it back to the consensus version when I can find time to get hold of some appropriate sources. Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This article does not "hold water"

while reading the article I have realized after first two lines that it is written by somebody rather westernized and with very limited access to facts about Stalin. Here is few examples how the article NEEDS to be amended:

1. "Under Stalin's tutelage, the Soviet Union played the most decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War (1939-45) more commonly known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia and post-Soviet republics". Please note that: a. Soviet Union, i.e. Stalin actively orchestrated the start of WW2 (Ribbentrop -Molotov Pact and active participation in IV division of Poland. Effectively, Soviet Union entered the WW2 on 17.09.1939, as a Hitler's ally. No denying of that. b. No person in "post-soviet republics" as the author is calling it, especially no ethnic Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Ukrainian, etc. person is likely to call WW2 "Great Patriotic War". This is not speaking of Polish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, etc citizens. Please make a big NOTE on that c. Stalin won with Hitler for two reasons - Soviet Russia acquired 17 billion USD woth of Lend-Lease supplies program (debt never acknowledged fully nor even partially remitted by SU), and - soon it appeared obvoius that while Stalin was a mass murderer and terrorist, Hitler was keen on 100% extermination of Slavonic nations (see i.e.: R.Overy "Blood on the Snow" and M. Solonin "June, 22 1941", not mentioning even eye-witness accounts")

2. "Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks (around 75% of the Wehrmacht's forces), the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (known in the USSR as the Great Patriotic War, 1941–1945)". Please note that i.e. the combined losses of Allies during 09.1944 - 04.1945 were approaching 0,5 million (dead, wounded and missing) (see: Liddel-Hart, "World War Two") while during Vistula-Oder operation (definitively the same time period) Soviet Union lost only 193 thousand of armed personnel. Please do not tell me that Normany, Market Garden, Hurtgen Forest, Ardennes, Rhine Crossing and Prague operation were walk in the sun!!!

3. "Following his trial, Stalin was transported to the katorga in Siberia. He soon escaped, however, and was back in Tiflis by the time of the Russian Revolution (1905). During this period, Stalin and Kamo engaged in a series of illegal fundraising activities, including kidnappings and bank robberies." This is understatement of the century. While in police academies worldwide, the Tiflis bank robbery by Koba and his "Wild Bunch" is still a case study, we have to note that this was primarily a crime gang working for profit (A.Bullock "Hitler & Stalin - Parallel Lives") and there's strong suspicion that Koba (not Stalin yet) was an Okhrana agent (1912 file on Koba seems to suggest that).

4. "With seed capital unavailable because of international reaction to Communist policies, little international trade, and virtually no modern infrastructure, Stalin's government financed industrialization both by restraining consumption on the part of ordinary Soviet citizens to ensure that capital went for re-investment into industry, and by ruthless extraction of wealth from the kulaks."' This is a part of more widespread problema. The main aim of commies (and Stalin) was to break down all the social ties within the society and melt it down into "a new man" (see i.e. Trotsky on "armies of labour"). What is further omitted int hte article is that "piatiletki" were aimed primarily on constructing a modern army and increasing the potentially military use of it's (5-y plans) results. The labour camps should be, under the circumstances, referred to as "slave labour".

5. "Many historians assert that the disruption caused by collectivization was largely responsible for major famines." There is only a Holodomor famine mentioned. Additionally, it should be added that the famines started in 1919 and "reappeared" every two-three years - mainly as a result of brutal extraction of wealth by commies.

6. "Under the Soviet government people benefited from some social liberalization. Girls were given an adequate, equal education and women had equal rights in employment[39], improving lives for women and families. Stalinist development also contributed to advances in health care, which significantly increased the lifespan and quality of life of the typical Soviet citizen[40]. Stalin's policies granted the Soviet people universal access to healthcare and education, effectively creating the first generation free from the fear of typhus, cholera, and malaria [41]. The occurrences of these diseases dropped to record low numbers, increasing life spans by decades". While starting from zero level it is easy to reach formidable successess. But author must note that during Stalin the workers (not only gulag's slave labour) were often sent in to the wilderness to build a city or a factory - and no hospitals or HC facilities were there. Note that these "women under Stalin were the first generation of women able to give birth in the safety of a hospital, with access to prenatal care" were allowed two months sick leave BEFORE birth and two months AFTER. Then back to your work young mother! And that applies only to the people in cities, not in the famined Ukrainian countryside or Svierdlovsk secret airplane or tank plant construction site. See literally WHOEVER for proof (but of course Solzenitshyn's "Gulag Archipelago" must go first).

7. "Shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, Stalin conducted a series of deportations on a huge scale which profoundly affected the ethnic map of the Soviet Union. It is estimated that between 1941 and 1949 nearly 3.3 million[61] were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics. Separatism, resistance to Soviet rule and collaboration with the invading Germans were cited as the official reasons for the deportations, rightly or wrongly". There should be noted that even earlier, starting November 1939, Stalin commenced the deportation of Polish nationals and citizens to Siberia (a total of up to 1,5 million Poles were deported - see: Rieber, Alfred Joseph (2000). Forced Migration in Central and Eastern Europe: 1939–1950)- both to villages as well as labour camps. Furthermore, extermination of "inteligentsyia" of "former Poland" started, culminating itself in execution of 15.750 of Polish Army, Navy, Air Arm and Police officers in Katyn, Starobiels, Kozielsk (including 2 generals and military school cadets as young as 16). Furthermore, deportation and execution of i.e. Lvov University professors started (see Wikipedia's own "Katyn Massacre" article). OTHER NATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE BALTIC PEOPLES SUFFERED VERY SIMILAR FATE. The rest of the faults were more or less covered by others.

Primary concern of mine: SOVIET UNION AND JOSIF STALIN WERE NOT "ARCHITECTS OF VICTORY OVER HITLER'S REICH". NO!!!

They were instrumental in rebuilding Wehrmacht and Luftwafee and especially tanks (they have allowed Germans free access to it's facilities, factories and poligons i.e. in Lisieck as early as 1925). Stalin was Hitler's ally for nearly two years and was supporting him actively with gas, oil, steel, etc. receiving Germany's most modern equipment and technology (probably SU financed also the whole Hitler's rise to power, but in the face of still closed archives I would not speculate further - some evidence of support exist - and why not Stalin should support Deutsche ARBEITSPARTEI?? Regards: Franky. Mail me at: krzysztof_rogalski@sigmacon.pl. 2007/12/06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.241.195 (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with all this is that it appears to by your analysis of the events. What would cause your arguments to actually hold water is if you provided clear citations to accessible references that back up your statements. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This editor has provuded no sources and indeed is his own analysis, which is strictly not permitted. It is almost prima facie that the USSR made by far the greatest contribution to WWII considering the number of soldiers, territory change, turning points (even the most Western of historians will write that the Battle of Stalingrad is the most decisive battle of the war), and the like. Verwoerd (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While I will admit to absolutely minimal knowledge of Stalin and the subjects discussed, I must point out how funny I find the tone in "your" and "his own analysis". I've found a lot of Wikipedia's content to be created by those who have no formal training, yet think when referencing another source, that source somehow ceases to be the "analysis" of the original author. I say this because I feel we all are quite influenced by the material we see as factual and can benefit from taking a long look at possible whys behind comments and not just the what of the comments themselves. Zibit (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove other people's comments, Verwoerd. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They are exactly identical. I suspect that the double identical post was made to attract increased attention from people who read the page. Verwoerd (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Verwoerd is correct in the sense that 83.26.241.195's long comment was duplicated. One version had a few additional edits though. I left the one with additional edits, removed the other. – Hillel (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To get back to the original topic...Your new analysis is incorrect, especially your point #2. The Vistula-Oder campaign was almost completely in Jan 1945, while the figures you are comparing it to are from June 1944 through May 1945, almost a year. I very seriously doubt that there was any single month after D-day that there were more allied casualties than Soviet casualties, with the possible exception of September (Operation Market Garden). Also, I have seen in many widely recognized works that the USSR played the main part in WWII. Borg Sphere (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of animated GIF movie (Stalin.gif)

I don't think the inclusion of a 592 KB animated GIF on this page is a good idea ([1] "Stalin giving a speech" currently displayed at the top of the introduction). WP:IUP#Displayed_image_size agrees with me: "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size". 592 KB can hardly be considered a very small file size; in this case it actually more than doubles the download time and can be an issue for people with slow internet connections (older modems, mobile devices, etc.) I don't think a static image with a link to the animation brings a lot to the article in this case, so I'm removing the GIF. – Hillel (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I strongly support this removal. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is something wrong with one of the sentences

I think that Stalinism should not be called described using the word "eponymous". Also Stalin came up with Stalinism and the idea of it before his rule, so the article should NOT say "During that time,...". Please either un-protect this page so I can edit it or can one of the editors please fix this, I dont want people getting the wrong information. Thanks.

24.192.168.230 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)dezzerayx3

Stalin's name in Georgian

Stalin's name in Georgian is rendered as: Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jughashvili Is this correct, why has his surname been separated into two words, Dze Jughashvili? Or is Dze (son) a part of the patronymic (Besarionisdze)? Do the Georgians use patronymics like Russians? Georgian surnames er usually patronymics in themselves (-dze. -sjvili). By the way, I think that Jugashvili is a more correct transcription than Dzjugashvili which suggests a two consonant cluster D+zh, which is incorrect in Russian, and, I believe, also in Georgian. In Russian D+Zh (used for foreign words) is pronounced just like J in English, as one consonant (the write Dzhin for gin). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.212.171.26 (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

you are absolutely right. in georgian his name would be just Ioseb Jugashvili. Besarionisdze is something that came from russian influence. 85.159.97.5 (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stalintime2.jpeg

Image:Stalintime2.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

".... Stalin was transported to the katorga in Siberia...."

"Following his trial, Stalin was transported to the katorga in Siberia. He soon escaped, however, and was back in Tiflis by the time of the Russian Revolution (1905).

Stalin was never sentenced to "Katorga", which is forced labour in Siberia (a very harsh punishment). He was sent to "administartive exile", which only was a constraint of the residence place. He was not forced to work anywhere and he got pocket money from the state. If you mean that he was on katorga, please quote the sources.

THE Johnny Cash?

"Assigned at the time to a U.S. Air Force Security Service unit at Landsberg, Germany as a morse code decoder on Russian Army transmissions, Johnny Cash was the first American to discover that Stalin had died.[100] "

Is this THE Johnny Cash (the musician?) The source does nothing to clarify this. 71.212.5.9 (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The one and only apparently, at least according to his autobiography. http://www.salon.com/music/feature/1997/12/cov_05feature.html. Scroll down about one screen. Gamaliel (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Birthday the 18th or the 21st?

I remeber reading that Stalin was born on the 21st of December in Alan Bullocks Book "Hitler and Stalin - Parallel lives" and the NY Times agree with me on that http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/20071221.html. It can't be the shift from the calendar in use because that is too short. Can someone verify?

Stalin's date of birth was thought for many years to have been 21/12/1879 but it since the opening up of the Russian (and Georgian) archives, it has been proved that it was actually 18/12/1878, a whole year earlier. Simon Sebag Montifiore in his book "Young Stalin" says the change occured in order that he could avoid military conscription in his youth.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

--Ebralph (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Lead

Hello,

In the lead, I think that undue weight is given to the millions of lives lost, while tacitly accepting that as the price for modernizing the Soviet Union and making it one of the two superpowers. I think that Stalin's legacy of terror should have at least equal weight with his accomplishments. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I second this. The numbers are heavily disputed and there has never been any thorough and adequate count of the number of deaths. It clearly is heavily biased to an anti-communist perspective that seeks to put Stalin down as a truly evil man comparable with Satan and the anti-Christ. Metallurgist (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalin and Okhrana

Marcel Ollivier in his book " Un espion nommé Staline" says that Stalin was an okhrana's member ( Marcel Ollivier, Un espion nommé Staline, France empire, 1974) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.20.4 (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

He is not alone:

Lev Lazarevitch Feldbine, alias Alexandre Orlov, The Secret History of Stalin's Crimes, New York, 1953, et « The Sensational Secret behind Damnation of Stalin » dans Life , 23 avril 1956; I. D. Levine, Stalin's Great Secret, New York, 1956; Edward Ellis Smith, The Young Stalin : the Early Years of an Elusive Revolutionary, Londres, 1968 (traduit en La jeunesse de Staline, les premières années d'un révolutionnaire insaisissable, Paris, Stock, 1968); Harford Montgomery-Hyde, Stalin : The History of a Dictator, New York, Royal National Institute for the Blind, 1971, 672 p.; Marcel Ollivier, Un espion nommé Staline, France Empire 1974 Roy Alexandrovitch Medvedev, Let History Judge : The Origines and Consequences of Stalinism (traduction par George Shriver), Londres, Columbia University Press, 1989 (ISBN 0231063512); B. I. Kaptielov et Z. I. Peregoudova, « Byl li Stalin agentom Okhranki ? » (Staline était-il un agent de l'Okhrana ?) dans Voprosy Istorii KPSS, avril 1989; Z. Serebriakova, « Stalin i tsarskaïa okhranka » dans Sovierchenno Sekretno, n° 7, 1990; F. D. Volkov, Vzliet i padienie Stalin a, Moscou, 1992; Edvard Radzinsky, Stalin, New York, Anchor Books, 1997, 624 p. (ISBN 0385479549); Roman Brackman, The secret File of Joseph Stalin, Londres, Franck Cass Publishers, 2001, 466 pages (ISBN 0714650501) (traduit en Staline, agent du tsar, Paris l'Archipel, 2003).

Inappropriate usage of "Russian" instead of "Soviet"

In some places there is an inappropriate usage of "Russian" instead of "Soviet". "Russian" and "Soviet" are not convertible terms! For example:

"According to recent figures, of an estimated four million POWs taken by the Russians, including Germans, Japanese, Hungarians, Romanians and others, some 580,000 never returned, presumably victims of privation or the Gulags, compared with 3.5 million Soviet POW that died in German camps out of the 5.6 million taken.[97]"

and

--- "By the end of the 1940s, Russian patriotism increased due to successful propaganda efforts. For instance, some inventions and scientific discoveries were claimed by Russian propaganda."

(Obviously it was "Soviet propaganda")

and

--- "Assigned at the time to a U.S. Air Force Security Service unit at Landsberg, Germany as a morse code decoder on Russian Army transmissions...

(I suggest to change "Russian" to "Red" or "Soviet") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostja1975 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

modern Stalin cult?

I have comments about the "Cult of personality" section.

It says:

"This is seen by some as a return of Stalin's cult. In Krasnoyarsk, it has been decided to rebuild a communist-era memorial complex dedicated to Josef Stalin.[117] Also, a new statue of Stalin is to be erected in Moscow, “returning his once-ubiquitous image to the streets after an absence of four decades, a top city official said yesterday”, as reported by The Scotsman.[118]"

The references are quite old. And since none of those things really happened, I suggest that those reports were simply untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostja1975 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's Ethnicity

Hey guys i have a question, Was stalin in any way jewish by ethnicity. I found this on the information while doing some research on stain. "In the Georgian language "shvili" means son of, or son, as in Johnson. "Djuga" means Jew. Therefore Djugashvili means Jewison. So Joe Stalin's real name, before he changed it, was Joe Jewison. his name was Joseph David Djugashvili, a typical Jewish name." Can anyone elaborate on this on wheter he truly was jewish from one side of his family or the other, or if this is dismissed by many scholars the he indeed was jewish but like karl marx's family later converted, etc Levi Seigel (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

TIME Man of the Year

As it is important to ensure accuracy, I urge that the administrators add this article, http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19400101,00.html, to the image as TIME Man of the Year, to ensure that it is accurate and for all to realize its accuracy.--Kevindkeogh (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

The name has escaped me for the moment - whose rule is it that if you bring in Stalin etc into a discussion you have automatically lost the argument? (A link to the appropriate article could be included).

This talk page needs archiving. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Godwin's law?—msh210℠ 20:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be what I was thinking of - the version I have come across mentioned Stalin as well as Hitler.

(Suggest next archive - using the "obvious" date). Jackiespeel (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Why is there no mention at all of Stalin's vegetarianism, which was well known among "Reds" during the 1940's?

There are sources that refer to Stalin blanching at table if meat were brought in.

72.211.153.47 (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

"moved to Saint Petersburg (which the revolutionaries renamed "Petrograd"

It was renamed 'Petrograd' before the revolution because St. Petersburg sounded too German - the revolutionaries would later rename it Leningrad. 86.133.120.92 (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's name

I think that the name should be changed to "By birth, his name is Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili but he is also know by Stalin(meaning "Man of Steel") Loniandamian (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Stalin" does not mean "Man of Steel", it means "Superman"....no, just kidding ;o), but really it has no real meaning other then the fact that it used the Stal' for a root.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's first name

It's not Joseph, it's Josef. JosephJames6 (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Its actaully Ee-osif phonetically. The more common transliteration would be Yosif, the J being a German transliteration...Ja?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)