Jump to content

Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15


Vandalized passage

I would like to know why the intro is vandalized so often and replaced by inaccurate, weak language. It has already been discussed at length in Talk:Joseph_Stalin/archive_7#Awful and the following sections, and if someone wants to change it they ought to have some pretty good reasons. -- Simonides 23:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Truth is stranger than fiction

Where if anywhere do we incorporate this:

Stalin sought human-ape super warrior TDC 19:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I put it in Policies and accomplishments. Good to stick something in that he failed to accomplish, pretty ropy title (from an NPOV) as it makes him sound like a great man but there you go, SqueakBox 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you were a bit too speedy to delete the "super ape warrior". A reference to archival information has been given, why such strong objections. TDC 20:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see any "reference" only void talk. mikka (t)
I can understand your opinion that since this is not too terribly notable, it should not be in the article. But your continual adamant refusal to even entertain that this might be true !?! Strange people do strange things. Hitler’s monstrous obsession with the occult and early Christian relics might seem like tabloid material, had it not been for the fact that it was so well documented. Where is all the hostility coming from? TDC 20:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Please stop panicking, forget Hitler, just answer my question: what "references" abot Stalin's' case besides tabloids are you presenting? mikka (t) 22:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
So UPI and the Scotsman are tabloids? I thought this might be an interesting tidbit to include in the article in some form like “trivia”. What reason do you have to doubt the veracity of the source for this story? TDC 22:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
My friend, all I am asking is source. So far it was all hearsay. I understand it would be an interesting tidbit, for a change among all this morose topic, but newspapers are source of "news", which quite often quite differ from "facts". 02:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! I should have waited to see what others thought. It may be true but it may also be a bad interpretation of what the documents actually said, SqueakBox 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What documents? Until I see a word of an expert, I will not believe a single word. Get real, people. If you start addding each sensationalist rant from all over the globe, we will have bullshitopedia here. mikka (t) 20:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that until it becomes a nottable (ie generally accepted) fact that it shouldn't be in here, SqueakBox 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if it should be there at first, but the freaked-out UPI=bullshit response makes me think it's noteworthy after all. --Ajdz 02:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody really believe this wacky story? A loony-tune is a loony-tune no matter what paper it appears in. Come on - chimpanzee + man = super warrior? Methinks peeps have been watching to many B-horror movies. Camillustalk|contribs 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds very credible to me. The mad professor was obviously ahead of his time. Even B-horror movies have their bases in the society in which they exist, and it is whether this event actually happened or not and whether that makes it notable which count here. I don't doubt it could have happened, and more so in the twenties than in the fifties. If I hadn't thought that I wouldn't have put it in in the first place, SqueakBox 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Stalin, the account says, told Ivanov, "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat."
Are apes "insensitive to pain"? Are apes "resistant and indifferent about the...food they eat"?
Stalin undoubtedly forced thru some very radical policies, and was ruthless in their propogation. But this above "account" just doesn't ring true with Stalin at all. IMO, it just doesn't ring true with any major political mover at all. It's straight out of "Weird Tales", or something that Ming the Merciless from Flash Gordon might have said. I don't believe it for a nano-second. Camillustalk|contribs 00:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating first how people thought at that time and second the level of insanity that was the Russians under the ideology of communism during those years, SqueakBox 00:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, mikka, if you're bored with the discussion, don't continue with it - I'll slog it out with Squeezebox till I get bored (which won't be long, I think). As for Lysenkoism, well, that was just plain wrong, but not quite of the order of man-ape superwarriors. Camillustalk|contribs 01:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Right on topic! : Lysenko's talk page has an example of another bullshit delivered by a "reputable source", BBC: Talk:Trofim Lysenko/Archive 1#Nectarines.... mikka (t) 01:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Rise to power"

Can someone clean up this long rant added to the "Rise to power" section? mikka (t) 19:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, the addition is very verbose and repetitive, and could do without the "we conclude" etc. It should be pared down drastically, however, some of it should survive, as prior to its addition, there was no mention of Stalin's struggle against "Trotskyism" and the machinations of the "troika" of S, Z and K, and then the struggle against the "Rights", Bukharin and Rykov.
  • I have now pared down the "essay" (being kind, not calling it a "rant"). I guess it's debatable if it even needs to be in here at all, as most of the details are found in the other linked articles, but I don't like to shoot down new editors in flames :) Camillustalk|contribs 21:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I am not calling it "essay", because at first sight the text seemed quite encyclopedic to me, and the word "rant" refers to form, not content. mikka (t) 22:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Mikka. I see that someone is making an attempt to salvage portions of the essay. I don't think that that's necessary, since just about all the points brought up in it are already better covered in more specialized articles, particularly collectivisation in the USSR. 172 23:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I pared down the essay/rant in the "Rise to Power" section (Mikka removed the same editor's "essay" about Collectivization, quite rightly, as it's well covered in the relevant article). I also said that it's debatable if it needs to be there at all, even in the "pared-down" version. I'm reluctant to remove someone's whole contribution, especially when they are a new editor, as I don't want to discourage new editors; but if the consensus feeling is that it should all go, then so be it. Incidentally, regarding "form", when I looked at the mark-up behind the "essay" it showed that the editor had separated it into paragraphs by indenting the separate paras, rather than leaving blank-lines, so it was just a case of a new-editor not being familiar with the correct way to format paragraphs, and ending up with one long para, hence looking like a "rant". Also, new editors tend not to be familiar with the idea of keeping to the salient points and wiki-linking to in-depth articles. Camillustalk|contribs 00:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Unexplaind deletions

Mikkai, you have removed all my edits without any explanation except "See talk" where there is nothing. I will revert soon unless you give a good explanation.Ultramarine 08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you have removed images that were important to understanding Stalin's policies during his life and his influence after his death. You have also inserted an absurd rumor and gave a well-known tabloid newspaper as your source. This is unacceptable (particularly the use of tabloids as sources). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I have restored the deleted images removed in a fit of pique by User:Ultramarine. These images are very important for an understanding of Stalin, particularly the "cult of personality" surrounding him. The German poster is important because Stalin is described as the Leader (Führer) of Mankind, showing how his cult was exported to the Eastern European countries which came into the Soviet bloc. The Time cover is important because it shows how Stalin was held in high regard in the West at the end of the War, before the "Cold War" set in, and it illustrates the text. I don't agree that these are POV images - they are merely historical fact, and the German poster is the opposite of an endorsement of Stalin - in our modern eyes it shows the excesses of the cult around him. The image of the elderly Russians holding Stalin posters is merely factual, and illustrates the point made in the article - nostalgia for the Stalin period is real, whether we like it or not, just as modern fascists continue to glorify Hitler. Ultramarine has made 18 changes in the last 24 hours. I think this is excessive. Changes should be allowed a time for discussion. Camillustalk|contribs 15:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The article has numerous propagande pictures of Stalin, but not a single negative ones, for example of his victims. Instead of his victims it has a picure of people who wnat him back!!!
However, Mikkai revert were of much more than pictures. He deleted every other correction of the text I had made. I have restored these changes. Redgarding the pictures, how do you suggest that the opposing views of Stalin should be shown also in the pictures? Ultramarine 11:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The Adolf Hitler article does not contain any Holocaust pictures. If Hitler's victims don't need to be shown, neither do Stalin's. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I see no pictures of Neo-Nazis wanting Hitler back and only one or two propaganda pictures. Ultramarine 11:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I was not aware of any official policy requiring every article to have a balance of pictures considered to be pro and con the subject of the article. Besides, as pointed out above, the propaganda pictures incriminate Stalin by showing his cult of personality. And elderly Russians != politically active Neo-Nazis. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the second largest in the Duma. The German National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) is not in the Bundestag at all. There is a difference of magnitude here. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, despite the difference in magnitude explained above, I would not oppose adding a picture of Neo-Nazis in the Hitler article. It would show an aspect of his legacy. You should add one. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ilya Ivanov's half-human - half-monkey

I have removed the paragraph below. I am not sure the pittsburghlive.com is the best authority on the Soviet Union and anyway this is a minor story in the whole science during the Stalin era period, that in turn is a side note in the biography of Joseph Stalin. I think the paragraph should go either into the Ilya Ivanov or Lysenkoism or Science and technology in the Soviet Union articles. I would also like to see a confirmation of the story in another publication (better with the references to the original sources) abakharev 21:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In the 1920s, Stalin reportedly ordered the Soviet Union's top animal-breeding scientist Ilya Ivanov to produce a half-human and hal-ape creature. He wanted a "new invincible human being with immense strength who was insensitive to pain and indifferent to the quality of the food he ate -- and with an underdeveloped brain."Stalin's Apes This attempt by Stalin to toy with eugenics proved unsuccessful, and Ivanov was banished to internal exile for five years.

This has already been discussed above; see #Truth is stranger than fiction. mikka (t) 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have wrote anIlya Ivanovich Ivanov (biologist) article. I still do not think the fact deserve to be mentioned in the main Joseph Stalin article. abakharev 06:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Date of birth

There has been a lot of editing back and forth between the Dec. 18. 1878 and Dec. 21, 1879 date. The former should be the one used in the article, since it was obviously the day that he was really born on. [1] [2]. Even though he celebrated it and changed it in various legal documents to the latter date, that does not make it his valid birthday, as no one can change the date they were born.--Fallout boy 00:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

THE OFFICIAL DEATH CERTIFICATE BY RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT SAYS DEC 21 1879 AND YOUR OTHER LANGUAGE WIKIPEDIAS SAY SAME, GROW UP, WILL YOU! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vesa (talk • contribs) . STOP REMOVING KATYN, HISTORICAL PLACE, THIS IS VANDALISM!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Projects (talk • contribs) .
The Russian government issued the certificate in 1953, when it was still using the altered records.--Fallout boy 00:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Fallout boy, I don't have a dog in this this fight, but here's what I found:
  • Robert Conquest's "Stalin" (a standard work on Stalin) gives Stalin's birthdate as December 21, 1879. Conquest's book is not recent but not all that old.
  • My 1958 Encyclopedia Brittanica gives December 21 1879. Although if more recent material has come to light that may be obsolete.
  • But all six google results on "stalin birth date" also give December 21 1879:
For the earlier date your citations are one Russian web site which give the earlier date, but no reference for it, and one which references Radzinsky's new book "Stalin". However, reading reviews of Radzinsky leaves me a little leery: he's not a professional historian, and some seem to say he's a bit of a sensationlist. I would prefer to wait to see something from one of the accepted authorities on Stalin before changing from the commonly-used date. Does that seem reasonable? Unless you have other citations? Herostratus 03:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Oops. NEVERMIND. Just read the citations in the article Notes section. That convinces me (assuming those citations are valid). That raises the question of motive, though. WHY would he make this change so late in life? Does anyone have insight on this? Herostratus 03:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The other prevalent date is Dec. 6, 1878. Googling December 6, 1878 almost shows up as much as the Dec. 21, 1879 date, but that date is unadjusted for the Gregorian calendar.

As for why the Dec. 21, 1879 date is so prevalent, it appeared in most encyclopedias and almanacs before any verification on it was done (a similar case is the 1921/1923 conflict with Nancy Reagan) --Fallout boy 02:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent revert of "Genocides and Mass Killings"

The revert comment says, "there are already sections dealing with the purges, deportations, collectivization/famine, etc. Please follow the established organization of the article". The problem is that the established organization does not reflect the importance of some established historical facts. Killings of millions of civilians is by many reputed acounts was one of the main results of Stalin's rule. It doesn't do justice to the killed to include their "little genocides" into sections named after the names given by Stalin state weasels. These names are misleading and do not reflect what has happened. "Collectivization" wasn't just about getting rid of private property. "Deportations" weren't just about travel. In included death by millions. Of old, young, men, women, children, rich and poor. Why should this article follow the Stalinist traditions?--Andrew Alexander 07:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's quite an exaggeration. The Stalinist tradition would be not to devote a word to subject matter such as the 1932-1933 famine caused by collectivization, the purges, deportations, etc. Yes, the titles of the section headings were not chosen to induce an emotional effect, which is the right approach for an encyclopedic entry with a matter-of-fact tone following Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. Futher, if you read beyond just the headings, you'll find the relevant information with great detail. 172 08:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but using Stalinist names instead of real names isn't neutral. To use those names would mean following the Soviet propaganda. Many events are in plain contradiction with the heading names. To say that the famine was the result of mostly Collectivization is misleading. It would be equivalent to describing the death of Jews in Nazi Germany under the heading "Elimination of Genetecally Inferior Species". To call the process of killing of 40% or more of some nation "Deportation" is equally misleading. The name assumes that Stalin wanted to deport someone and not kill 40% of them. But this is biased and wrong. Stalin knew what the result of his orders are going to be based on many previous experiences.--Andrew Alexander 08:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No one is using "Stalinist names" but rather the names that happen to be the most common English-language terms, such as collectivisation in the USSR and the Great Purges, though just about every nationality in the USSR had its own set of names in its own language for certain Stalinist atrocities. The headings in this article are in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which state that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." 172 08:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
So following this convention the section "Genocides and Mass Killing of Civilian Population" must be left since it by far surpasses Collectivization in recognition by English speakers. The article doesn't follow the guideline. It follows the textbooks of the Soviet Union as far as the headings are concerned. But that isn't a guideline of Wikipedia. Not yet at least. So what's the reason that the mass slaughter of civilians is called some Soviet names? Besides the reason of assigning some noble causes to the mass killers. That's what Soviet textbooks tried to achieve.--Andrew Alexander 09:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No, it is not the established term, hence the fact that the subject matter is addressed in further detail in collectivisation in the USSR, as opposed to Genocides and Mass Killing of Civilian Population, 1932-1933. Further, nothing in this article can fairly be compared to Soviet textbooks. There is so much material in this article that would have been banned swiftly by Soviet censors had a similar article been published in the Soviet times, even well into the Gorbachev years. 172 09:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Section headings can be compared to Soviet textbooks. Please provide a valid argument why those headings have to be left instead of descriptions of genocides. Wikipedia has a clear policy to avoid weasel terms. "Collectivization" and "deportation" are clearly weasel terms for mass slaughters. At the very least many events deserve to be descripbed under separate headings. The problem of "neutrality" doesn't exist here since mass slaughter is a mass slaughter and any neutral human being will call it such. The problem of "common use" requires to use actual names instead of Soviet ones. So what policy of Wikipedia prevents proper heading names?--Andrew Alexander 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Start with the more particular entries and work your way up if you are trying to change the use of lanaguage on Wikipedia. If you think that "collectivization" is a "weasel term," go to the talk page of collectivisation in the USSR and propose a page move to (say) Mass slaughters called "collectivisation" in the USSR. For now the headings in the Stalin article conform to the article titles adopted in the titles of other Wikipedia articles. 172 21:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Collectivisation" and "deportation" are weasel terms in this article. They are also historical terms used by the Soviet authorities. It doesn't make sense to discuss events that went outside of the official "collectivisation" on the collectivisation in the USSR talk page. The term "mass killings" is widely accepted. Some may argue that killing 30% to 50% of some ethnic group is not a genocide. This can be discussed here. Overall, "more particular entries" were made and they were immediately deleted. Will reproduce these entries here for further discussion.--Andrew Alexander 22:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The United States 10th Grade World History Text book uses the term "Collectivisation". If this is what our country is teaching to our kids, why should it be change to mass killings on wiki?

Genocides and Mass Killings of Civilian Population

The Holodomor

Main article: Holodomor

Between 5 and 10 million people died as the result of the man-made famine in 1932-33 in Ukraine and the areas of Russia inhabited by ethnic Ukrainians. The Black Book of Communism claims that all grains were taken from areas that did not meet targets, including the next year's seed grain. It also documents that peasants were forced to remain in the starving areas, sales of train tickets were stopped, and the State Political Directorate set up barriers to prevent people from leaving the starving areas. The Soviet Union exported grain while millions of Soviet citizens were starving to death. The 1932-1933 famine is often referred to as "the Holodomor" (Ukrainian: Голодомор), or the "Ukrainian Genocide."

Kazakh Catastrophy

Main article: History of Kazakhstan

From 1929 to 1934, Kazakhstan endured repeated famines caused by the Soviet repressions against Kazakh peasants. During that period at least 1.5 million Kazakhs died. Nearly four fifth of republic's livestock was gone. Many Kazakhs tried to escape to China, although most starved to death on their way.

Crimean Tatars

Main article: Crimean Tatars

All Crimean Tatars were deported en masse, in a form of collective punishment, on 18 May 1944 as special settlers to Uzbek SSR and other distant parts of the Soviet Union. The decree "On Crimean Tatars" describes the resettlement as a very humane procedure. The reality described by the victims in their memoirs was different. 46.3% of the resettled population died of diseases and malnutrition. This event is called Surgun in the Crimean Tatar language.

Chechens

Main article: History of Chechnya

During World War II, despite the fact that about 40 thousand Chechens and Ingushes fought in the Red Army (fifty of them received the highest recognition of the Hero of the Soviet Union), the Soviet government accused them of cooperating with the Nazi invaders, who had controlled the western parts of Chechnya-Ingushetia for several months of the 1942/1943 winter. On orders from Stalin the entire population of the republic was exiled to Kazakhstan. Over a quarter died. The Chechens were allowed to return only in 1957, four years after Stalin's death in 1953.

Kalmyks

Main article: Kalmykia

During the Second World War, Stalin, suspicious of Kalmyk loyalty because of their dissatisfaction with economic conditions, deported the whole Kalmyk nation to Siberia in cattle trucks in midwinter. Half of their number perished during the journey and in the following years of exile, an ethnic cleansing mostly unknown to the outside world to this day.

KATYN

IS THIS SITE FOR STALIN FANS, ALL OTHER BIOS AND WIKIPEDIA IN ENGLISH STATE HIS BIRTH DATE AS DEC 21 1879 AND STATE KATYN AS A FACT BUT WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING, SHAME ON U ALL!

Woah there, we think some of the admins have temporarily lost their hearing ;). It's an enyclopedia, not a fan site Sceptre (Talk) 17:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Katyn must be included into the list of mass killings above. The list is not even close to complete. Only whenever Stalin managed to kill at least a million at a time. Why, you don't like Katyn mentioned under "Collectivisation" or "Deportations"??? Wait till they work out the exact birthday date of that great guy... Ridiculous...--Andrew Alexander 07:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Your irony is misplaced. You cannot put everything into one article about a single person. I strongly suggest you to browse thru the Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union. Do you want each and every fact described in these hundreds of articles (and more to come) to be listed in the single webpage?
You seem to totally ignore the difference between a book and internet. In a book you have chapters, for separate subjects. Here we have webpages, for separate subjects; and they are even better than chapters, for they are cross-linked and categrized and listed, whatever. mikka (t) 08:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mikka, is that some sort of joke? Just LOOK at this article. It spends pages (actual pages) describing "Childhood and early years", "Marriages and family", "Rise to power", "Struggle against the Left and Right Opposition" (what the hell?), then finally "Stalin and changes in Soviet society", which includes all the Soviet B.S. headings, then finally Soviet-approved "Purges and deportations". This article is a fan website, not an article about a piece-of-s..t dictator that killed millions. Yes, I take your own argument and ask, why can't all those long and unimportant chapters be separate web pages, while the important material describing STALIN ORDERS for genocides and crimes against humanity be here? Because you together with some Stalin fans don't like it?--Andrew Alexander 20:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Andrew Alexander, This is a page about his LIFE, not what he did with the Soviet Union. Of course you need "Childhood and early years", "Marriages and family", "Rise to power", "Struggle against the Left and Right Opposition" and "Stalin and changes in Soviet society" because this details of his life's stages. had he not struggled against the left and right opposition, he would not have had power. If he did not change soviet society, he cannot carry out mass killings. Hell, Hitler flipped German Society upside down before he can begin the holocaust. why should this page be devoted to the mass killings ,which only lasted 2 out 80 years of his LIFE? If you want to make a page called "Mass killings directed by stalin" Go ahead, but this page is not the place to do it.
What a load of bollocks. Stalin's mass killings lasted for over two decades, and talking about his life is pretty much inseparable from talking about his political career, which overall had a devastating effect on the Soviet people. His 'power' was only gained through accidents (Lenin's sudden decline and demise), arm-twisting, deceit and numerous manipulations that led to the expulsion and killing of Trotsky and the removal of various other 'obstacles' (people/laws), and he stayed in power by killing off successive political circles that got too close to or knew too much about him or his tactics. This is 2006, not 1946, a lot has emerged inbetween, and the only people buying this ignorant crap are Western extremists, or Russians that are neo-Nazis, neo-Stalinists or Rodina voters. -- Simonides 12:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I hardly think that this article is a "fan-site" - it's much more critical of Stalin than the articles in encarta or brittanica, for example, (which also use the terms "collectivization" and "deportations"). Some users have suggested the "glorification" of Stalin is an example of "praise" for him, while I for one added some details there as a condemnation of the Stalin cult. As for the suggested additions cited below, go ahead, add them. Camillustalk 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Mindless deletion of category about soviet repressions

By the way, while we are bickering here about details a handful of smartasses decided to delete the whole category:Soviet repression structures and people at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15. I reverted this vandalism and ask you to help to refill it, since I don't remember all articles that belonged to this category. mikka (t) 08:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I changed the picture with one more appropiate. Bonaparte talk 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

File:Stalin1.jpg

"also led to the Katyn massacre"?

What is the connection between January 17, 1940 execution list of 346 and the Katyn massacre? From what I know, such tragic lists were compiled daily, but I think Katyn is a separate tragedy. Unless some proof is presented, the caption should be fixed. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Katyn

OK, no, the 1940 date is important, on March 5th Stalin and Beria signed an order to kill everybody at Katyn, so where the hell is any connection to Katyn on your site? Shame on you...And his official birthday, according to his DEATH CERTIFICATE IS DEC 21 79, WHY ARE YOU MAKING THIS SITE THE WAY YOU LIKE IT, WHILE EVERYBODY ACCEPTS THE ABOVE CORRECT DATE?

Also how to post photos here?

Bogus 1937 Census reference

The calculations of the 1926 and 1939 censuses by Barbara Anderson and Eric Silver during the 1980s in "Slavic Review" showed excess deaths amounting to between 3.2mn - 5.5mn. If there was a 1937 census that was allegedly destroyed, then how and why would a forged 1939 census still show population defecits?

This person must be mad, human lives mean nothing , a mere 5.5 million dead. This communist fanatic should be forced to read out the names of just 5.5 million of Stalin's victims. --Berndd11222 20:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This Fascist creep ought to cease with injecting his delusional point of view.

Please can we be civil, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks, SqueakBox 21:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right.--Berndd11222 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Only on Pathetic Wikipedia

Will you ever find wrong dates of birth and death... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.0.198 (talk • contribs) .

Not true, it was present in Encyclopedia Britanica.Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia--Matt 09:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Communist dictatorships were imposed by terror- That's a fact you can't deny

I refer the readers to the Wikpedia articles on Poland and Czechoslovakia that clearly point out that communist dictatorships were imposed by the USSR in both countries after World War Two.--Berndd11222 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote: 

Three years later the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia seized power (1948–1989) following a
parliamentary election in which the Communists emerged as the winner and the country came
under the influence of the Soviet Union.

I too have had problems with the editor you are warring with, but there is an element of truth regarding the elections in Czechoslovakia. After the war, there was a general rise in support for socialism and communism, even in Britain, a left-wing Labour government had a landslide victory. Communists had been very active in the fight against the Nazis, and many people saw communism as the best way to stop a repeat of the fascist hell they'd been through. There wasn't as much knowledge of the brutality of Stalinism at the time. Camillus (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The communists never had a clear majority in the 1946 Czechoslovakian elections. In any case they imposed a one party communist dictatorship on the country that tolerated no dissent. The fact remains that Czechoslovakia ceased to be a free country in 1948.--Berndd11222 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest you find a citation and edit the section quoted above. Camillus (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

the terms 'dictatorship' and 'terror' are pov, so they have no place in the article. Bob A 01:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The following link makes it clear that Czechoslovakia from 1948-89 was a dictatorship ruled by terror[[3]]<
This is not POV, it was the brutal reality in Czechoslovakia for forty years. -unsigned


how do you define dictatorship? is it rule by a single person? most countries are ruled primarily by a single person. is it where that person isn't confined by a constitution? stalin was nominally confined by a constitution, but that didn't seem to stop him. is it tyrranical rule? all states are tyrranical. this is all subjective; the term is pejorative and pov.

how do you define terror? is it use of violence? all states use violence. is it unlawful violence? if so, no state rules by terror by definition, since states themselves dictate the laws. is it tyrranical rule? this is all subjective; the term is pejorative and pov. Bob A 02:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A government whose policies cannot be changed by its subjects without violence is tyranny. A government that answers non-violent political dissent with violence is a tyranny. The Soviet governments of Eastern Europe and the USSR were thus tyrannies, as their policies could not be changed by the governed without violent retribution from the government. The eventual end of these governments came about by actions of the government, not because the population wanted to change them. Soviet apologist hair-splitting is really uncalled for. Or, Mr. Bob A. would you also deny the terroristic and dictatorial nature of the Nazis? Dietwald 10:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This is your ooriginal research. The policy of the USSR could be changed by its citisens. I do not know about other countries.--Nixer 12:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, your ignorance is not my problem. Dietwald 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, that's correct. From 1941-45 1,000,000 Soviet citizens were in the German Armed Forces in order to change the government of the USSR. 215,000 were killed in action. My dad a US GI in 1944 was shocked when he heard the "German" POW's speaking Ukrainian. He said " Hitler had the Rusyn kids in his army"--Berndd11222 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This is another topic. Many people changed to Hitler because of Nazi's anti-semitic propaganda, which was a very powerful ideological weapon. Historically anti-semitism is very helpful in conquests.--Nixer 20:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In Aug 1968 I was a young man. At that time I was in a Czech pub in New York called the Praha. The Czech-Americans were crying when they heard that Soviet tanks were killing innocent civilians in the streets of their homeland. I will never forget that hot August night.--Berndd11222 03:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

quite sad, but how is this different in principle from the terror imposed by all states? Bob A 03:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Get real, in 1980 if you spoke out against the government in Czechoslovakia you would be fired from your job and forced to take another job cleaning toilets. It was not like "all states"--Berndd11222 11:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Czechoslovak Losses due to Communist Terror

A recently published source in Russia has given a details of Czechoslovak losses in the Communist era. Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071. Here is a recap of the losses according to Vadim Erlikman. He cites the following source for his data. Pacner, K. Osudove okamziky Ceskoslovenska- Praha 1997


Imprisoned 1948/68- 262,500
In forced labor 1948/68- 60,000
Executed 1948/68 -600
Died in forced labor 1948/68- 2,100
Shot while attempting to flee country 1948/60-295
Arrested after 1968 Soviet Invasion 10,000

--Berndd11222 01:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

So those imprisoned include criminals?--Nixer 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Erlikman does not go into detail on the nature of the charges against those imprisoned. Let us assume most are common criminals. We need to look at the dead. Executed 600; 2,100 dead in forced labor and 295 shot in the back while fleeing country. Communist Czechoslovakia was a brutal and repressive state that did not conform to the norms that exist in the EU today. Communism was a nightmare that most Czechs and Slovaks want to forget and Stalin was responsible for imposing this dictatorship on Czechoslovakia by means of terror. --Berndd11222 13:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you know how many people executed in the China annually? Do you know that Treblinka camp processed 2000 people/30 min? Without stop. Only 600 for 50 years? It means ~10 men a year. Those executed and who died of hard labour could also be criminals.--Nixer 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
That is your POV of view but I am against the death penalty and chain gangs. Also please read the text 2,700 dead in 20 years not 600 in 50 years--Berndd11222 16:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
How they counted dead of labor and how them to separate from those who dead of illness in a colony and so on? And still this number includes mostly criminals. Dont count any death as a "crime of communism". Now in Russia millions are imprisoned in labour colonias.--Nixer 20:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect - I'm finding this whole discussion pretty macabre. Are you trying to measure the evil of a dictatorship by its death toll? I cannot comment on the accuracy of the numbers presented Berndd11222. What I *can* tell you however, that the regime was definitely both evil and violent. I don't care to comment just *how* violent in contrast to other dictatorships. Many people were either deported to camps or deprived of educational or professional opportunities. Surveillance, threats and interrogation by special police forces were common and feared. Should you consider this as anecdotal evidence: my family and relatives were affected. Some of our neighbors were affected as well. I have heard of people who have disappeared in the 50s - never to be seen again.
Although this is more of an academic exchange, I really don't wish this kind of experience to anyone and believe that the discussion you were leading is quite pointless. With best wishes Jbetak 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

THE REALITY IN A COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP
Mr. Nixer, we could not be having this dialogue if were were in mainland China. Please take a peek at this Wikipedia article Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China.--Berndd11222 16:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think China a communist country?--Nixer 20:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
No comrade Nixer, China is a deformed workers state. A right wing bourgeois gang has taken control of the CCP. They have taken the capitalist road and turned China into a lacky of U.S. imperialism. The Chinese workers and peasants holding high the banner of Comrade Mao-Tse-Tung will defeat these fascist vipers. Long Live the Socialist Revolution and Mao-Tse-Tung thought!--Berndd11222 21:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Cant take your sarcasm. You really think there is socialism in China?--Nixer 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comrade,the Chinese bourgeoisie under the leadership of the renegade Deng Xiaoping staged a revisionist coup after the death of Chairman Mao. This counterrevolutionary gang has turned China onto the capitalist road. The toiling masses of Chinese workers and peasants are being brutally exploited by the new Chinese bourgeoisie. The peoples communes have been eliminated and the Chinese working class toils to enrich the new Chinese bourgeoise. China today is working hand and glove with the U.S. imperialists to suppress the struggle of oppressed peoples around the globe. This counterrevolutionary gang will have to answer to the Chinese people for their crimes.--Berndd11222 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
China uses communism to suppress internal dissent, a country as large as china cannot loosen their grip or the country will fall apart.

So what if the Chinese state falls apart? Maybe the Chinese would then enjoy their lives a little more.

After the USSR fell apart very few Russians "enjoyed their lives". And most of the Chinese approve of their goverment's policy. I'm Russian mylesf and I've lived in China for 2 years, so I know it for sure. This is not anti-Stalin-fan site either. 80.240.216.228 10:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Help needed on English Wikipedia

Re: I am confronted by pro-communists on the English Wikipedia page on Stalin. Please read the Stalin talk page comments on Czechoslovakia. Barney Dombrowski (Help needed on English Wikipedia 16:48, 8. 1. 2006 4.236.18.186)

Hi Barney, thanks for leaving your message.
Here some consolation, suggestions, perhaps even help of mine.
  1. No one knows, and ever will know, exactly how many more times the Stalin/soviet terror killed/murdered compared to the Hitler/nazi one (guesses are in the range of tenfold).
  2. I think, that on cs.wiki we are trying to find a NPOV to all the terrors of the past (e.g. nazi and communist concentration camps, I haven't checked now, but remember that over here, the articles are/were more or less ok/NPOV).
  3. I think/am sure, there is a great degree of thirst to overcome the post/communist propaganda's narrow mindnessnes. The (young) Czechs (Moravians, Silesians, Slovaks) seem to be eager to learn how the (a bit sooner) developed world thinks and works. The wiki community is a good think to do that.
  4. What I value over there, in cs.wiki community, is a surprisingly high degree of good will in cooperation and dispute resolution. Hope very much it is the same over here.
  5. A while ago in Zurich, I went by chance to a lecture Johan Galtung gave. I think his and his group's approach is what may move 21st century ahead.
All the best in fighting all the totalitarians!
wiki-vr 18:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. A while ago, I clashed with a commie user (SED/PDS/Die Linke) on the de.wiki, took distance, returned to that article later, but gave in for another while, will perhaps return later on.
P.S.2 As to the communist coup in February 1948 – The commies were clearly loosing their election success of 1945, so they used the terror to step into power. wiki-vr 18:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalinism-Were the accomplishments worth the toll in human lives?

The article points out that there were 11 million excess deaths in the USSR from 1927 to 1939. The purges and Gulag deaths were about 4 million and 1932-33 famine deaths 7 million.
Defenders of the socialist system point to the accomplishments of the USSR in the era, the fivefold increase in industrial production, improvements in education and health care. Shostakovich and Prokofiev composed in this era. The industries built in this era built the weapons to defeat Hitler Germany. The commanders of the Red Army were trained in the 1930's under Tuchchevsky. Churchill said "the Red Army tore the guts out of the German Army" The Soviet people had every right to be proud of the economic and cultural achievements of the Stalin era.
The toll in human lives was enormous, the USSR was a one party state that did not tolerate dissent. Millions toiled in the Gulag.
Were the accomplishments worth the toll in human lives and lack of freedom?--Berndd11222 18:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) The topic of the accomplishments in the Stalin era belongs on the discussion page. I referred to the Stalin years not the Breznhev era. The USSR under Stalin did make rapid economic growth that needs better coverage by this article. Overall this article is in a sorry shape and needs to be improved. The achievements and the shortcomings of the USSR in the Stalin era need better coverage. I am interested in facts not BS. BTW, I know what I am talking about or else I would not be posting this message. Wikipedia deserves a better article on Stalin than what we see here today.--Berndd11222 21:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Soviet people had to choose between communism, or playing second fiddles to the united states. They chose communism, and for a while they scared the crap out of the Americans.

Comrade Stalins birthday

Never a dull moment on this page. Has any source cited copy of his birth certificate as evidence of his birth? or is just by word of mouth in the local village inn?--Berndd11222 19:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV- Get real

After WW2 Harry Truman stood up to Stalin and saved the people of western Europe from Soviet enslavement. The editors at Wikipedia say my language is not “NPOV” but I think the younger generation today is not aware of the reality that existed in Europe in 1947. The nations of Europe were devastated by the war , people were unemployed and hungry. The US however had a strong economy and a great President Harry Truman who gave the west the leadership to stop Stalin from overrunning western Europe. The US created the Marshall Plan and gave NATO a nuclear deterrent to counter the Red Army. American planes airlifted the needed supplies to Berlin. American B-29s with Atomic weapons were in Europe on alert in 1948. The people of Paris were spared the terror of the NKVD that the people of Prague had to endure. This is the NPOV of my generation.--Berndd11222 15:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No doubt Harry Truman was a great president, but what has he got to do with Stalin? The Marshal plan was used to counteract the birth of communism resulted from war devastation, not communism spread by Stalin.

Stalin knew damed well that Harry Truman would give him hell if the USSR made a false move in Europe. Truman had Curtis LeMay ready with the big stick. Truman was from Missouri--Berndd11222 21:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


The USSR under Stalin was not a politically correct country.

A. The USSR in the Stalin era criminalized gay sex see Socialism and sexual orientation
B. Abortion was made a crime in the USSR in 1936 under Stalin see the History of abortion
C. That Politburo was an all male club with sessions held in a smoke filled room , Joe liked to puff on his pipe when he decided the fate of the toiling masses.
--Berndd11222 18:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No country can be truly politically correct, even america is still struggling with abortion and gay sex. The politburo being an all male club is the result of stalin's purges, not politically incorrectness.

Say, who were the women Stalin purged out of the Politburo?
Anyway the issues of gay rights, abortion and sexism in Stalin's USSR are topics that are relevent to the discussion of the articles content and composition. However ,I can imagine some comrades feeling rather uneasy when these topics discussed.--Berndd11222 03:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies

The intro contains gross inaccuracies regarding the victioms. At the same time, sourced material is constantly removed by POV-pushiers. Added temaplate. Ultramarine 08:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate. You cannot add such a template without getting more specific. --Irpen 08:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You insist on extremely low numbers for the victims in the intro without giving souces. At the same time you have removed the sourced material regarding this [4]. Gross violation of NPOV and factual accuracy. Ultramarine 08:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
" He was directly responsible for starting and enforcing waves of executions, which killed hundreds of thousands, and deportations to labor camps and labor colonies where approximately one million died from 1934-1954.". Compare the sourced material!!! Ultramarine 08:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I restored the pre-User:Zvesda@netscape.net version of the intro, which was the last fairly stable version. (Zvesda is the source for much of the content called into question.) I agree that by citing the numbers of deaths resulting from specific aspects of his rule, such as deaths in labor colonies following the Great Purges, rather than the estimates citing vastly higher death tolls focusing on a larger range of historical factors and a longer timeframe (i.e. the numbers that include the famine), we may generate unwarranted confusion. 172 21:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph I insert (and find myself having repeatedly to re-insert) that is as NPOV as can possibly be managed, reads thus:

Because Stalin's era fostered a strong cult of personality, a concentration of political power, and the view of some that he executed his policies without any consideration for their human toll, these factors and others have led to a near-global characerization of him as a dictator. A few scholars say he was directly responsible for starting and enforcing numerous waves of executions, killing hundreds of thousands, and deportations to labor camps and labor colonies where approximately one million died from 1934-1954. Stalin's defenders usually counter that the millions attributed to Stalin's policies actually died as a result of a combination of famine and war.

However, many anti-Stalinists (presumably Trotskyists, anarchists and capitalists foremost) insist on removing this comparatively neutral paragraph and re-replacing it with stuff definitively characterizing Stalin as a dictator and a mass murderer. Despite what many around the world, and in the United States especially, want to believe, it is by NO MEANS universally conceded that Stalin was a dictator, a mass murderer, or both. In a recent poll, FIFTY PERCENT of Russians view Stalin favorably; take that for what you will, but it's still the case. Around the world, Maoists still exist, and if you remember, Mao supported Stalin, at the very least insofar as he denounced Khruschev rather fiercely as a revisionist after the Secret Speech. So between the Russians, the anti-revisionists, the Maoists, and the people that know and accept the pro-Stalin version of the history of the Soviet Union, that's more people than just a few. It's certainly more than to call this stuff "gulag revisionism" or whatever it is they call it. Do the opinions and perspectives of Maoists, anti-revisionists, and half the Russian population simply not matter??? Is that what's being said by the repeated removal of the NPOV Stalin paragraph?? If not, just leave it! 71.255.205.175 00:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

71.255.205.175, you removed the following sentence from the intro: Stalin's cult of personality, his extreme concentration of power and the means of its execution characterized his rule. He was directly and indirectly responsible, via his policies, for tens of millions of deaths and unjust deportations to labour camps in the Soviet Union. This sentence is indisputable because it is taking into account 'indirect responsibility.' Though some historians disagree that the Ukrainian famine was genocide, no historian denies that Stalin was not at least 'indirectly responsible' for a famine killing millions in Ukraine alone between 1932-34. For a quick survey on the subject of Stalin's 'death toll' I recommend Michael Ellman "Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments" Europe-Asia Studies Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172, if anyone here has access to academic journals at a university library. 172 03:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
172, you're obviously reading things into that NPOV passage I wrote that simpy are not there. (I've restored the passage, though I expect it'll be deleted once again.) The passage does not counter, or attempt to counter, the "indisputable ... indirect responsibility" of Stalin in famine. But the point defenders of Stalin usually try to make is that to hold a leader "indirectly responsible" for things is akin to holding Abraham Lincoln responsible for all the deaths of the American Civil War, for example, or for that matter, holding Lenin responsible for all the deaths of the Russian Civil War, which most reasonable people do not do, not even capitalists. Therefore, the relatively NPOV statement I've inserted is vastly superior to yours, given that not only does it not dispute the mistakes of Stalin as regards unnecessary killings, but it also even gives more to the anti-Stalin side than I personally believe should be in there. 71.246.67.218 16:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense; 172 actually disagrees with me, and I'm the one has been reinstating the NPOV passage (not yours) to the intro. The fact he settles for 'indirectly responsible' is itself an improvement, see the last archive for details. Your intro consists of nothing but the weak conjecture of unknown and possibly unreliable scholars, and weasel language, neither of which is wanted at Wikipedia. Your attempt to dismiss all substantial refutation of Stalinist propaganda is laughable at best, disgusting at worst. You don't seem to know much about the horrors of Stalinism and I advise you to read more credible authors. -- Simonides 11:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Simonides, the issue is not POV. I agree with your POV. Your writing style, however, is wordy, essayistic, emotional, and moralistic. The tone of your writing is horribly unencyclopedic. Please keep the moral judgments out of the atricle, such as describing "a bureaucratic network of terror" that was "characterized by its immensity and absurdity." Readers can make their own moral judgments without you telling them what is "absurd." Another moral judgment is the comment that Stalin executed his policies "without consideration for their human toll." Of course I agree with you. Still, the style is more polemical than encyclopedic. 172 12:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is pure rhetoric meant to influence people into a certain POV. The 'absurdity and immensity' of the Stalinist terror are comprehensively documented aspects of the times, they refer to concrete events such as the complete fabrications of evidence, the various totally baseless charges, the arrests and prosecution of former stooges, vigilantes, prosecutors, etc etc etc, and the involvement of at least over half the adult population, and they are words repeatedly used by respectable scholars. Nothing could be more encyclopaedic than trying to condense the recorded and concrete experience of millions, and there is nothing moralistic about it. As for the policies, they were only succesful if ever at great cost. It's absolutely unencyclopaedic to launch into long explications of Soviet industry without any mention of the context. The latter is called propaganda. There was a great disparity between Soviet records and so-called achievements and what the Soviets went through; polemics occur when you ignore the latter and glorify the former, as most of this article does. -- Simonides 13:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interested in rants. I agree with your POV. Still, word choice like "absurdity" is inappropriate in encyclopedias. If you are not interested in critical feedback about your writing, don't edit Wikipedia. I'm logging off now, certain that other users will be giving you the same advise in working on style issues. 172 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The choice of the word 'absurdity' isn't inappropriate when it does, in fact, refer to what most normal people in normal circumstances would call absurdity, and not to one person's opinion. Let's quote the NPOV page: " a neutral description of the facts, including the fact that various points of view exist, rather than a single, objective point of view ". Without quoting numbers, which would make no sense here, or making the intro much longer than it is, there is no objective way of talking about immensity and absurdity in reference to Stalinist totalitarianism except by using those words; there aren't 'various points of view' on the subject either, because most almost anyone who knows about the nature of accusations, persecution and trials would agree they were absurd. -- Simonides 13:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the concept of absurd as applied to Stalin but "policies without consideration for their human toll. He commenced and encouraged a bureaucratic network of terror, characterized by its immensity and absurdity" is what is called "turgid" language and has no place here. Fred Bauder 14:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Please go on and suggest an alternative that mentions everything I do in fewer words. -- Simonides 14:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Economic growth

Nikodemos, why did remove the sourced material regarding the fabricated economic growth? The sources clearly states that much of figures given were fabricated. Ultramarine 08:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The article itself gives no figures, and other sources (e.g. Ofer, Gur. Soviet Economic Growth: 1928-1985, RAND/UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior) confirm that there was significant economic growth in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era. Your own source [5], says on the first page of the introduction: "Despite the obvious and ultimately fatal shortcomings of the Soviet system of central planning, the Soviet growth model nevertheless achieved impressive rates of economic growth and promoted the rapid industrialization of the USSR, particularly in the decades from the 1930s to the 1960s." -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
No one is disputing that there were economic growth, especially after Stalin. But the source you give shows the fabrication. Look at table 1. and compare the official Soviet (13.9%) with later estimates (2.9% or 5.8%). Ultramarine 08:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
And from my other source "Official Soviet estimates proclaimed high annual growth rates, exceeding 10 percent in the 1950’s, and remaining above 3.5 percent through 1985. In fact, these figures are believed to be largely fabrications.11 In the late 1980’s, Soviet economists Khanin and Selyunin re-estimated growth rates, and found them much lower. Their work suggests that overall growth averaged at most perhaps 3.5 percent.12 They also detected a sharp decline in growth rates beginning in about 1960, falling below 1 percent after 1975. It is likely that the Soviet economy was actually shrinking in the last years of the union; one estimate for Russia gives a growth rate of minus 4 percent for 1990.13" Ultramarine 08:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • sigh* Once again, you try to make a valid point, but then you formulate it in such a POV manner within the article itself that significant discussion is required in order to NPOV it. A NPOV way to make your point would have been: "While there is general agreement among historians that the Soviet Union achieved high levels of economic growth under Stalin, the precise rate of this growth is disputed. Official Soviet estimates placed it at 13.9%, but later Western estimates gave lower figures of 5.8% and even 2.9%." I'll add that text in. Wouldn't it have been so much easier if you wrote it that way from the start? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, why did you delete the corrections? They are all supported by the references. Ultramarine 09:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Purges

Has anyone even read through this section? The beginning is just a hodge-podge; the assassination of Kirov is mentioned nowhere, and it was THE turning point for Stalin's consolidation of power and the commencement of the Purges! Would appreciate a clean-up or some suggestions. -- Simonides 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point Fred Bauder 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I have listed this page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography due to the large mix of pro-Stalin editors working on this article. -- Simonides 12:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. No established editor here is "pro-Stalin." Actual pro-Stalin editors tend to get marginalized and reverted quickly. Frankly, such a listing will look like an act of trolling. Your "anti-Stalin" edits get reveted because your writing style is horrible in an encyclopedia, not because any of us are "pro-Stalin." 172 12:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Gee, I didn't think some of the 'established editors' here would consider it a personal attack to be called pro-Stalin! As Andrew Alexander and some other frustrated editors have pointed out, the slant of this article is not very different from official Soviet histories published well into the perestroika era and continuing into marginal circles later; the repeated emphasis on the glories of Soviet achievement with the token para or two on vague Stalinist 'crimes', with no clear explication of their exact nature or extent, runs along the same lines. If you don't consider yourself a pro-Stalinist, well and good, and I don't meant to simplify this debate as a matter of taking sides - however, whether out of ignorance, prejudice, or unintentional error, the article frequently glosses over context and goes for the Party line. -- Simonides 13:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, this article is much more critical of Stalin than the articles in Encarta or Brittanica, as another editor has pointed out already. Now, I will no longer reply to you if you are just going to make broad brush accusations. Deal with the other editors now. I'm logging off. 172 13:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Double Standards, Stalin & Hitler

On the Wikipedia page on Adolf Hitler there is a section more or less devoted to how he has become "synonymous with 'evil'" in Western minds, and how he has become a reviled figure in history. All quite true, but why is there no similar section for Stalin? The deaths directly attributable to Stalin and his policies are monstrously high, higher than Hitler's, and though this is touched upon in the article it is not given anywhere near the attention or the directness that have been given to Hitler's genocides. The argument that such attention would be NPOV falls down, since if that were so, much of the article on Hitler needs to be toned down. Stalin was one of the most ruthless and evil men who ever lived, when will this article reflect that?

Hitler lost a major war; killed himself; his supporters were outlawed; he killed Jews, who are very vocal. Stalin won a major war; died in bed; his supporters numbered in the tens of millions; he killed folks most people have never heard of. Stalin and his supporters and those of the Soviet Union were able to conduct a public relations campaign of denial and apology that continues to this day. Mostly its a case of shoveling shit against the tide. Fred Bauder 15:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Killed people most folk had never heard of!! What kind of incendiary statement is that? Actually most people have never heard of the victims of Genghis Khan, Hitler, Saddam, the Guatemalan military or any other political butchers. This is an international encyclopedia not a first-world based one. There are Russians and other Eastern Europeans editing this and other wikipedia articles who may well have known (as their own and their friends ancestors if not personally) some of the victims of Stalin's butchery. I agree with the rest of Fred's statement (and this is not a personal attack against the respected wikipedia editor that is Fred) but I think in this one statement he is a demonstarting a frighteningly US and first-world centric vision. The world is much smaller than it used to be making the statemnet absurd whereas maybe it wouldn't have been 10 years ago, but it is with statements like this that the political butchers generally justify their actions (people from other countries aren't really human etc), SqueakBox 15:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin has rascist associations but nothing of the full on rascist ranting of Hitler. Hitler turned the world against rascism and in that way he is very different. But do remeber Wikipedia has problems with politics in the way it doesn't say with computer articles, and for the obvious reason that people themselves disagree so passionately about politics. it has been said that Stalin inspired the world outside his rule in a positive way and there is clearly a valid argument that this was so whereas hitler was hated for the most part outside his country post 41, SqueakBox 15:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the comparison should be between Lenin and Hitler. Many people have heard of Stalin, and even communist supporters often try to blame every evil in every Communist states on him. In contrast, the atrocities done by Lenin is much less known and many communist supporters honestly thinks that he was creating the communist paradise, before his death and Stalin's regime. Ultramarine 15:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the atrocities commited during the americans "manifest destiny". Indians forced from their native lands and into "reservations" to be starved to death and cut off from neighboring indian nations. Why is there nothing mentioned about the slaughter and rape of innocent mexican civilians as they pushed the established mexican border further south. Atrocities committed in the name of the anglo-saxon race and maniacle "manifest destiny"---Grifter
You forgot to mention all the civilians killed by American Bombs in Indochina, we started the ball rolling and Pol Pot finished the job, its a real mean world, not all bunnies and flowers pal.

NPOV

This article is pisspoor. it is a disgrace to wikipedia. The most prolific murderer in history comes over as a thinker and a just ruler. The tone of this article is beyond belief. It is an apologia for Stalin not an article.

This article should be scraped and rewritten by some uninvolved people to give a decent base. There is about as mush reference to his brutal crimes (which are amazingly presented as being disputed and controversial and then couched in layers am ambiguity and then hidden at the bottom in a sub-sub-heading) as there is about him twice being Time man of the year.

Who the hell is responsible for this Eric Hobsbawm or something? Ridiculous. This was the most negative statement I could find: "While Stalin's social and economic policies laid the foundations for the USSR's emergence as a superpower, the harshness in which he conducted Soviet affairs was subsequently repudiated by his successors " Wow. "Stalin's social policies" - oh, like the death quotas? BLOODY HELL!!

Fix this article. And to the people responsible for maintaining it in this shape, I say to you this: you are moral vacuums and slaves to ideology. Get some perspective by reading the article on the evil one Richard Perle, and then reread this article. Who seems more evil? Is this right? jucifer 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything.Ultramarine 16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether I agree with any of this: WP:NPA. You've reduced what credibility your statement might otherwise had with the name calling. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Civility

It's irritating to come across all this genteel preaching against incivility when some much more important issue is at hand, and curiously it always happens on an article where people are out of their depth. It's like with all the Iraq War debates - almost inevitably the supporter of war and violence will bow out because s/he feels the other is not being 'polite', whereas his or her own politeness apparently compensates for their bloodlust and is a sign of their being right! The analogy with this article being that all the reactionaries want their views up front no matter what, whereas the facts must take a backbench because the people bringing it forward aren't being "respectful" enough of the "seniority". There is something wrong with this article. The problem is more than the sum of its parts - ie it's not so much this or that fact being out of place, but the attitude of the predominant posters here. Many of the same points are being discussed at Talk:Adolf Hitler, the editors here might be able to take a cue or two from the debates there. -- Simonides 04:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Simonides

Simonides said: 

Nixer, why not take your incomprehensible edit to the Talk page and clarify what you want to say

What edit? I only corrected predecessor and successor of Stalin.--Nixer 13:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impresion you removed the note about Kirov and re-inserted the incomprehensible bit about fears of Nazi elements propelling the purges. I still haven't cleared up the section by the way, but of course everyone else ought to work on it too. -- Simonides 12:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Delirium

60 million deaths in 150-million country? This is delirium. In WWII there about 26 million killed - and nearly every family had a person who dead on the war. I know NOBODY who had a relative who was shot or died in prison.--Nixer 13:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read about anecdotal evidence. The most quoted figure is 20 million deaths.Ultramarine 13:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, including criminals, war-time crimes (deserters etc), all deths in prisons and camps (including natural) and famine that allegedly inspired by Stalin.--Nixer 13:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
That is your opinion. However, Wikipedia is not the place for homegrown opinons. Please give sources showing that my soruces are false. Please also read about Wikipedia:Cite sources. Ultramarine 13:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
They are not false, but include things such as famine, giving all responsibility to Stalin. Also they postulate that all criminals in the USSR were victims of Stalin.--Nixer 14:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, probably some criminals. But not even nations with death penalty kills millions. Regarding the Holodomor, read that article. Ultramarine 14:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
These numbers include not only shot, but also dead in camps and prisons. Famines of such scale were regular in Tsarist Russia. The famine of 1930s was the last famine in that sequence.--Nixer 14:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The worst famine of lates Tsarist Russia caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths in 1892. [6] Compare to the 5-10 million killed in the Holodomor. Ultramarine 14:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
60 million may be an inflated figure, but the general consensus on 20 million is often held to be as accurate as one will ever get. You're talking as if the population figures are static - the 20 million died over a period of more than 20 years. -- Simonides 12:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't too bad

The tone of the article, especially the bits on the whole colectivization policy of Stalin appear to be written by some Communist sympathizer sitting comfortably in a chair made by the beautiful efficiency of the free market, not someone who had relatives experience the degradations that come when private land is beaten out of them and then left fallow because a centrally planned economy is a great and horrible joke. This article needs serious and unbaised revision by someone will admit to the fact that many more people died under "strict but just" Joe Steel than under any other dictator in human history (in absolute numbers) except maybe Mao.

This comment is written by someone smoking pot. The "Collectivization" section is nowhere near to praise of Stalin. And death toll is pretty impressive, too. mikka (t) 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay, but what is this "Many historians agree that the disruption caused by collectivization was largely responsible for major famines?" At least some elaboration would help.

I am also surprised that no mention is made of his bank robbing career. I am however reluctant to put in the edit before a discussion and some decent sources on the issue.

Be bold, don't just blow whistle. mikka (t) 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Black Book

The Black Book of Communism, while it may have a lumpsum of facts extracted from various sources, is not really a scholarly book but just a long right-wing rant with the usual extrapolations and misrepresentations. I don't think this book ought to be cited in the article - comments please. -- Simonides 12:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is scholarly enough, but as a catalog of the crimes of Communism is POV. Fred Bauder 20:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is very little scholarly integrity in the book, given that it quotes selectively, has little to no understanding of politics/ political history, and as the authors themselves state, is an attempt to equate Communism with Nazism by attributing almost any kind of death under any state vaguely regarded as Communist to Communist theory. Please look up some objective reviews of the book and critiques of the mass of errors that riddle the book. There are plenty of substantial sources for Stalinist crimes - no need to fall back on some tabloid version of history. -- Simonides 22:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you actually read the book? It has thousands of references for all statements. Here are some mainstream reviews [7] Ultramarine 22:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You link to the publisher of the book, which has no reason to let you in on anything that will stop you from buying the book. -- Simonides 22:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is POV, that it is a point of view I agree with and you don't would seem to be the problem. Selective quoting, the equating of Stalinism with Nazism is what point of view writing is all about. I am aware that Stalin was a lot more than a totalitarian dictator, I find his writings quite engaging, for example, but Hitler seems kind of wimpy and sentimental compared to Stalin. Fred Bauder 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If brute force could usher in communism, he would have got the job done. Fred Bauder 22:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly agree that it is one POV. However, I would argue that it is an extremely well-referenced POV. Most of the book reads like an accounting ledger. Do you have an reference for selective quoting? The brief comparison by one of the authors to Nazism is a common comparison in the literature on mass killings and democide. As is the crimes of colonisalism. Ultramarine 22:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Black Book is not only POV, as any scholarly work in the humanities is, but it falls far short of scholarly standards, which is my point. Stalinism and Nazism don't have all that much in common except for being mass systems of terror that resulted in the deaths of millions; of course, they are the two most devastating ones of the 20th century and they overlapped, hence the constant comparison, but that doesn't mean one can equate them. See, this is one the major problems with Wikipedia - people keep quoting fringe sources and trying to give them equal weight to reach NPOV, when there are enough reputed sources and scholarly consensus on some issues - the Stalinist defenders want to attribute estimations of his crimes to "detractors", which is nonsense, and the reporters of his crimes fall back on silly works with more shock value than sense. It's simple - let's not quote works that are only selectively useful. Once you do you lose credibility, or to make a weak analogy, it's like citing Fox News when it's convenient and then calling Fox News trashy when it's not. There are other, much better news sources.-- Simonides 22:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, read the mainstream reviewers [8]. Published by Harvard University Press. The authors are six leading historians, including several former communists. Cite sources for your claims regarding inferior quality, your own opinion is not very interesting. Ultramarine 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again, quoting the publisher of a book on the merits of a book is hardly an argument. The "mainstream" sources are nothing more than that - a collection of uncritical quotes, from the same papers that presented you with every piece of Republican propaganda - besides, if there were other reviews in the same paper the very next day you wouldn't expect to find them on the publisher's page now would you? The "authors" themselves admitted to a variety of mistakes such as exaggerating figures by 10 times due to typesetter errors which, curiously enough, HUP has never corrected in later printings - here is the letter; in addition to attributing various deaths caused by imperialist (US) agitation and vague political plans, when instead capitalism could be blamed for precisely the same things - see Chomsky's review; there are other pages as well. Furthermore, it is not a matter of opinion. The book is simply based on flawed premises and doesn't adhere to the same historiographical standards that a proper scholarly work should. -- Simonides 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Eh, you are arguing that "Maoist Internationalist Movement" is a neutral source? The link you give only states that the translator, not the authors, made an error for some unknown number. I see no evidence that this number is the global death toll presented. The book did not list the crimes of capitalism and not the crimes of Nazism. That is not evidence that the research is regarding communism is incorrect.Ultramarine 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you skipped the page, so let me put this in bold.
The points you raise in No. 1 and No. 2 are certainly correct. My original translation of these passages used the European symbol for "per thousand" (as the French edition did), but evidently the typesetter wasn't accustomed to the symbol and read it as "percent" rather than "per thousand. -- Mark Kramer, Director, Harvard Project on Cold War Studies"
In other words, both the English and French edition carry the same mistakes. It is a reply to this letter which only points numerical facts and not methodological errors. Further, the research regarding Communism is incorrect not because it doesn't mention Capitalism, but because it attributes non-Communist casualties to Communism. -- Simonides 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong, the French version stated thousands, the English per cent.Ultramarine 23:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Here are the parts that was mistated in the translation. It is not the global death toll number: 1. p. 492 "This last province [Anhui], in north-central China, was the worst affected of all. In 1960 the death rate soared to 68 percent from its normal level at around 15 percent, while the birth rate fell to 11 percent from its previous average of 30 percent. As a result the population fell by around 2 million people (6 percent of the total) in a single year." 2. p. 495 More of the same errors by a factor of ten occur here: "For the entire country, the death rate rose from 11 percent in 1957 to 15 percent in 1959 and 1961, peaking at 29 percent in 1960. Birth rates fell from 33 percent in 1957 to 18 percent in 1961." Ultramarine 23:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, just in the translation. There's more in the letter. -- Simonides 23:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Chomsky's comparison between China and India, it is flawed. A better comparison is between China and Taiwan/Hong Kong.Ultramarine 23:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Chomsky is making a reference to Nobel laureate Amartya Sen's comparative study of China and India, so you're welcome to take up the matter with either of the two. -- Simonides 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Even if this argument is correct, that is still no evidence that any of the numbers in the book are incorrect. The book is a list of human rights violations, it has never claimed to be a list of achievements of the communist states. Nor has is stated that capitalism is a superior system or made any direct comparison between capitalism and communism. Ultramarine 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again, the numbers are based on methodological errors such as attributing casualties of either non-Communist states or policy failures with little relation to Communism itself, to "Communist states". It doesn't even bother to explain what is meant by Communism and dismisses the distinction between real-world policies and Communist theory at the outset. Chomsky's review is just one example.
As for the superiority of systems - the book equates Communism with Nazism. Try to figure out what that means. -- Simonides
Again, the book is an accounting ledger. You are correct that there is very little discussion of ideology. As far as I rememeber, the book does not state that Marxism was the cause. It is simply a list of the human rights violation that occured in the Communist states. Whether these states were in fact communist (lowercase) is another discussion.Ultramarine 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
How can it be "another discussion" when the book is titled The Black Book of Communism and argues at the beginning that Communism was responsible for as much if not more killing than Nazism?
Look, I think we've established enough problems to make this book an unsuitable scholarly source. All I'm saying is that more reliable books can be used to reference Stalinist crimes which are the main issue and which are indisputable. -- Simonides 00:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, it only lists human rights violations of the Communis states ruled by parties calling themselves Communist. The discussion whether these states followed Marxism is hardly mentioned at all and no claim was made regarding this.Ultramarine 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh, you have only stated two problems. 1. There were some errors in the translation. 2. It does not list the achievements of the Communist states. Ultramarine 00:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Methinks you are having comprehension problems. I never mentioned or requested acknowledgement of Communist achievement. There are 1) numerical errors 2) serious methodological errors. Either one of two is often enough to cause dispute over credibility, but it matters little when most of the book can be considered accurate for the most part and well-intentioned. However, that cannot be said of this work. It is not a reputable source. -- Simonides 00:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You have given no evidence for either 1 or 2. Again, published by Harvard University Press. Six authors, several former communists, leading historians. Extensive praise in mainstream press. Publish your own academic work.Ultramarine 00:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Harvard University Press also has Dershowitz as a Law Professor and defends his plagiaristic work. Says nothing. Six authors with a clearly stated agenda and no real understanding of Communist history or theory. Selected praise from a dumbed down press. Countered by serious academics such as Chomsky with numerous intellectual achievements and an extensive publishing history. I provided proof - you don't want to accept it. The numbers are erroneous. The book attributes various non-Communist crimes to Communism. To quote
'The introduction written by Stéphane Courtois, a former Maoist, adds up all of the dead killed "in the name of communism." In this way, he arbitrarily throws together completely different historical phenomena such as the civil war of 1918-21, the forced collectivisation and the Great Terror in the Soviet Union, the rule of Mao in China and Pol Pot in Cambodia, the military government of Ethiopia as well as various Latin American political movements, from the Sandinistas in Nicaragua to the "Shining Path" in Peru. The figure of 100 million dead he arrives at is then juxtaposed to the numbers of victims of fascism, calculated much less rigorously to give a figure of 25 million. His conclusion is that communism was just as bad as fascism, if not worse. As a serious historical work the book is totally worthless. It superficially disregards the different class foundations, programmes and social interests of a whole number of movements which are simply described as "communist." [9]
I am not in academia, but I'm grateful some editors here will never be either. -- Simonides 01:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Spare me the ad hominem. Chomsky is one view, here are many others more mainstream [10]. Chomsky does not attack the accuracy of the reseach, he inaccurately attacks the classification. He misquotes one brief statement by one of the authors. Note that they state "Communism", not "communism" Ultramarine 01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep repeating the publisher's page like it adds anything to the credibility of the book? Chomsky attacks the raison d'etre of the book. The other pages quoted also attack specific methodology - give it up. -- Simonides 01:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No new arguments, see previous comments.Ultramarine 01:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, read them. -- Simonides 01:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some other estimates of the total number of people killed by Communist states: 60 million by Zbigniew Brzezinski, 110 million by R. J. Rummel, and 92 million by Matthew White.[11]Ultramarine 00:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please. You don't seem to have the slightest capacity for identifying credible information. -- Simonides 01:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, give academic sources, not ad hominem. Ultramarine 01:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The web page you quoted is not an academic source. -- Simonides 01:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The web page lists academic sources.Ultramarine 01:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not hard. Compiling them into useful and reliable information is. -- Simonides 01:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia [12]. 30-35 killed in the Soviet Union alone.

These recent books give much higher estimates for numbers killed than the Black Book of Communism.Ultramarine 01:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant. I'm all for quoting any number so long as it comes from a reliable source. The latter is not a reliable source, that's all. -- Simonides 01:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion. Publish an academic work supporting your statement. I see no use for further discussion unless you give some new arguments. Ultramarine 01:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No new arguments are necessary. You have none! All you do is refer the publisher of a book to vaunt the merits of the book. -- Simonides 03:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC

This article needs better citations. I was surprised to find that the only line citation for Stalin's death count is somebody's personal user page. Surely Stalin merits more than nine footnotes. The editors ought to reference influential works such as Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipeligo and Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism. Durova 20:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but don't just blank the article. Fred Bauder 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes Durova, just what I'm writing about above though I settled on a book rather than a web page. -- Simonides 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The History Channel has a new show called Declassified, which will be airing an episode on Stalin on Thursday Feb. 2, 2006. It has quite a few original interviews (meaning done for this show exclusively) including Madeleine Albright; Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, U.S. National Security Advisor, 1977-81; and Dr. Sergei Khrshchev, yes, son of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. Along with these "big names" are many interviews with authors and experts on Stalin: Dr. Robert Service, author "Stalin: A Biography"; Dr. Jeffrey Brooks, "Thank You, Comrade Stalin!"; Dr. Ruzena Berler, "Cattle Car to Kazakhstan"; Dr Jonathan Brent, Co-Author, "Stalin's Last Crime." There are also quite a few juicy tidbits and declassified documents from Russian and German Archives in the program such as, "During negotiations, a 'completely drunk' Stalin says: 'Bring the machine guns. Let's liquidate the diplomats.' Stalin to Marshal Nikolai Bulganin, December 1944" and "After signing the non-aggression treaty with Germany, Stalin gloats: “Hitler wants to trick us, but I think we’ve got the best of him.” Joseph Stalin to Nikita Khrushchev, August 24, 1939." It's a very interesting show, with quite a bit of information and sources that can be used for this article. For a "trailer" of sorts for this Declassified episode check out the external links of this article. After writing this, I think I'll make a wiki article for Declassified. J.budisantoso 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Time out!!Contemporary Russian sources that are based on official data from the archives cite 8 million deaths due to Stalinist repression plus 7 million famine deaths in 1933. You guys are wasting your time to rehash the English language sources on the subject.
Solzhenitsyn didn't write in English, did he? Durova 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
russian sources circa 1992-2004 have clarified the issue of the number of stalins victims.
  • Having just read a substantial bio on Stalin it seems unlikely to me that Stalin's victims can be limited to 8+7 mio. It stands to reason that you can get a number of results based on how you do the math and what you contribute to Stalin. This part of the article alone should take several sources into account.
    Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 13:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Joseph or Josef?

AP Stylebook says, "Stalin, Josef Not Joseph." Shouldn't this be how the article is named? Or, at the very least, be included as an alternate spelling in the opening paragraph? Please forgive me if this topic has already been hashed out on these talk pages. -- D.M. (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is like a big playground with kids running around running around, don't you guys ever do your homework and wash the dishes for mom.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.236.161.237 (talk • contribs) .
Keep it civil, please. Durova 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
(To the original question by Monack) either way Joseph or Josef sounds the same in English, and as it is a translation from a Russian translation of his Georgian name it doesn't make a difference either way. It does indicate at the beginning of the article that his name is properly pronounced Iosif in the Russian version or Ioseb in the original Georgian.--Konstable 11:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Nonetheless Why is the article named "Joseph," should it not be "Josef"?

Konstable is correct (except it is transliteration, not translation). "Joseph" is a common English spelling of this name. The Google test shows that the current English title is by far the most common. I'm back to washing the dishes. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo with Yezhov

It seems that the two photographs differ not only in Yezhov presence. For example, the distance to the tower in the far is different.--Nixer 18:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Deliberate famine

As I already said there were regular famines with millions dead in tsarist era. Why do you not call them "deliberate"? There was famine in 1920s which you also cannot say as to be Stalin's deed. In 1930s there was epidemy of malaria along with the famine. Some historians view it been hardened by local Ukrainian party authorities with their personal reasons.--Nixer 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The question regarding whether other famines were deliberate are irrelevant for whether the Holodmor was deliberate. I suggest that you read the Holdomor article and join the lively discussions there.Ultramarine 21:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please dont send me to another article. I know this is a contraveral topic. But now we're discussing this article, not Holodomor.--Nixer 21:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Historians agree that is was deliberate. The Holodomor was caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities. Take the food, people die. At the same time grain was exported.Ultramarine 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Not all historians agree. Furthermore, as I said, even of those who agree this was deliberately hardened, not all blame Stalin for it. By the way. You may be did not know, but grain production plan for 1932 was significantly shortened before the famine.--Nixer 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, discuss on the Holodmor article, not here. Please also use citations for any claims. Your own opinons do not count.Ultramarine 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not people blame Stalin seems rather irrelevant, as the edit you've been making to the article does not equivocate on that point. siafu 22:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that there is no consensus that the act was deliberate. Some historians maintain that the famine was an unintentional consequence of collectivization, and that the associated resistance to it by the Ukrainian peasantry exacerbated an already-poor harvest. See, James Mace, "The Man-Made Famine of 1933 in Soviet Ukraine" in "Famine in Ukraine 1932-1933", p. 1-14, Edmonton 1986. So, we can not say its deliberate as matter of fact. All we can say is that it has been argued by some to be deliberate. Giovanni33 08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Saying it was "argued by some" is a rather bad use of weasel words. It might be better to say that it's contested by some historians, and cite Mace and Edmonton. siafu 17:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that there were 35 Politburo and Sovnarkom decisions authorising the allocation of grain to famine-stricken regions proves that this "Holodomor" fairy tale of your's was not deliberate. It was not artificial either. The famine was caused by the 1931 and 1932 harvests that were 12 million tons below the 1930 level. Zvesda

NPOV Again

Let's discuss this and come to a consensus. I would suggest that those who currently dispute POV list themselves here and we can intelligently talk about those issues.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-11 09:16Z

lasting over a period of nearly twenty-three years.

Twenty-three years of Holodomor? What years?--Nixer 12:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I figure that the person refers to the twenty-three years ending with Stalin's death in 1953--66.231.41.57 20:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Language tweak

I have changed the reference to the Stalinist economic system as exploiting "almost free" labor to exploiting "unpaid" labor in the camps. The words "almost free" suggest privileges among slaves, and there was clearly no privilege in being an exploited worker in one of Stalin's camps where consigned persons were sweated for their labors on near-starvation rations in dangerous places.

The word "free" when applied to labor ordinarily applies to workers who have choices in jobs and have the right to seek higher wages and better conditions from their employers. Workers during the Stalinist era in the Soviet Union, especially in labor camps, had no freedom to choose employers; they were in fact prisoners under a harsh system of exploitation. They did not even get the right to a pittance in cash wages as do prisoners in some penal systems, pittances that might buy such luxuries as soft drinks or playing cards or be saved for necessities upon release from prison at the end of their terms.

To call the meager rations "pay" is to ignore that those rations usually proved insufficient for survival. Just as one would not consider the rough food, castoff clothes, or poor shelter of slaves in the (American) pre-Civil War South as "pay", one cannot consider such things "pay" in the deadlier environment of Soviet gulags of Soviet times. The slavemaster of the ante-bellum American South had an economic incentive to keep his slaves from starving and cold due to economic realities; the Stalinist system of gulags was intended, as was the nazi system of concentration camps, to exploit the labor of people that the political system intended to destroy.

To call the Stalinist penal system "slavery" itself both eupemizes the condition and introduces the inflamatory word "slavery". "Unpaid" describes the economic reality and avoids the word "slave". Context already suggests that prisoners in the Stalinist gulag system had no choice in becoming victms of the system. --66.231.41.57 20:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Twenteenth century Atlas

Twenteenth century Atlas seems to be strictly POV. For example it states military losses of Germany as 3,5 vmillion, which is far from true. Losses among military pernsonnel of the USSR were about 11 million and German military losses were about 10 million, not 3,5 which is nonsence.--Nixer 12:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources, as the Atlas does.Ultramarine 14:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
3,5 million losses of Wehrmacht is evident delirium. Nothing to discuss.--Nixer 15:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It gives many different sources that have given different estimates. 3.5 was the median from many different sources. Again, cite your own sources.Ultramarine 15:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It is evident delirium. For example, V.F.Krivosheev:"So, non-returning human losses of Wehrmacht constitutes 11 million and 844 thousand (see the table). Non-returning human losses of Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS and other German forces in the Eastern front acting against USSR was 7,184.1 thousand. Losses of German allies constitutes 1 468 thousand."--Nixer 15:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
That is one source. The Atlas lists many and states that 3.5 is the median estimate. No inaccuracy.Ultramarine 15:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
And you should state the name of the book or give a link, otherwise one cannot identify the source.Ultramarine 15:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not a scientific method as you can see. Most English-speaking works are the products of the Cold War. Besides, the authors of this atlas confuse non-returning losses with number of killed. They compare the non-returning losses of the USSR military with number of killed in German military. Here is the another source (Andrey Kolganov): "Thus military losses of German coalition in the East front is slightly smaller then those of the USSR: 8 649,3 thousand - Germany and its allies against 11 444,1 thousand - USSR). [13]--Nixer 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an English-speaking encyclopedia and sources should primarily be in Enligsh in order to be verifiable.Ultramarine 16:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources should be in English where possible. If editors are unable to speak Russian (I don't) that is not wikipedia's fault. Wikipedia intends to create a knowledgeable encyclopedia about everything, doing it in English, it is not creating a knowledgeable encyclopedia about everything that has been documented in English (thast would make for a very different, second rate predominantly US centred encyclopedia) so if there are no English sources Russian sources are fine. If you can't verify something because it is in Russian you should find someone who can or learn the language. Giving wikipedia an English speaking bias destroys the whole point of the project, and priority should not be given to English sources, mie they are not more important than Russian sources, indeed less so, but when available they should be used, SqueakBox 16:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read the appropriate section in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.Ultramarine 16:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
In short, there should be a translation, even if only by a wikipedian in wikipedia, and of course full details like publishing year, title, author, and so on.Ultramarine 16:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this is not a problem to find a users, who speaks Russian:[14]. By the way here is another more source: [15]. It says full non-returning losses of the Red Army and Red Fleet during 1941-1945 constitutes 11,273 thousand. All losses of German military (including mibilized from Austria) is 13,448 thousand. Losses of Germany and its allies in the Eastern front against USSR is 8.6 million.--Nixer 16:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, you or someone else must do a translation of the text your use as a source. And of course provide full detail like date of publication, authors, title and so on.Ultramarine 16:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Reliable sources only confirms what I was saying. Either noone can understand Russian and the source is useless or at least one person can and they can translate it for the rest of us. It is fair to say if you can't translate something into English it is because you don't undersdtand it and sources noone understand are obviously useless, SqueakBox 17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Readers may not be able to read source materials in other languages, and therefore require translations into English so that they can read them. Editors need this too, so they can check that the source has been used correctly." So Nixer needs to provide a translation. And of course state authors, year published, title, and so on clearly.Ultramarine 17:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, SqueakBox 17:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

German population 78 million

Killed/Missing 3.5 million

Wounded 4.6 million

Total (Military) 8.1 million

Civilian (deaths) 2 million [16]

--Scaife 22:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

--Stalin was 5 ft 6 inches tall. Not that that matters or anything.

Executed and died in the camp

Why the secret archive estimate of 786.098 executions in Soviet Union 1931-53 is considered undercount and some historian proposing the estimate of 5 milions of executions? Francesco

Stalin's father

"Rarely seeing his family and drinking heavily, Vissarion often beat his wife and small son." If he rarely saw them, how could he beat them often? Tex 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Finland retained formal independence, but..."

I am just curious that where is this "fact" from?

I couldn't find a single source claiming this, and it certainly was not true. So I removed the sententence. Finland had full independence (not "formal") and it wasn't economically dependant on a single country. It was pretty self-sufficient on basic products (ie food), in fact. Maybe other parts of that section should be revised as well. Like the strong communist influence on France, etc.--HJV 22:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

How tall was Stalin?

I've heard plenty of different estimations about his height ranging from 5'0" (150 cm) to an absolutely huge 6'6" (200 cm), yet I've never heard any actually confirmed information about this.

I'd say around 170-180. Looking at photos, of for example him with Kirov and Kalinin, he's slightly taller than them. Also in group photos he seems to be of around average height or slightly above. He wasn't a midget, nor was he a giant. --HJV 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying he was average?--shtove 23:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Most sources say slightly below average - 5' 4" (163cm) to 5' 6". Tough to rely on photos because he often wore boots.DMorpheus 03:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

involving over half the adult population

Is there any evidence that "over half the adult population" were involved in the "network of terror"?

I quit reading article at the first paragraph

This sentence stopped me: Scholarly estimates of the death toll under Stalin's leadership vary widely, with the average numbers about 20 million [17] over a period of some twenty-three years.

I looked at the source page and at the bonafides of the blogger Matthew White [18] who says he has attended a couple of years of college and is a librarian. That would make him an exaggerator. Librarians have advanced degrees and special training. He is a library clerk. He uses the word hemoclysm in headlines. Too bad it is not in any dictionary. Another made-up word he features prominently is atrocitologist. I need not read his pages any further. He has a nice hobby compiling what he interprets of a grim topic. Who knows, who cares if he gets the data right? For Wikipedia to put forward an untrained person as a purveyor of "scholarly estimates" on statistical matters undermines credibility of this article.skywriter 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Who knows, who cares? The sources on that page are excellent, better than we have on most of Wikipedia's articles. --19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC) This unsigned comment was added by User: Jpgordon

It matters a lot, Jpgordon. The library clerk Matthew White is untrained in statistical analysis. This article cites him for statistical analysis, not his sources. That makes Wikipedia look foolish. skywriter 18:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Error about Stalin's Daughter

Stalin's daughter only emigrated in 1967 AFTER her father's death in 1953. How she her disaffection for him have caused that emigration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janrpeters (talk • contribs)

Yeah, looks questionable indeed. I've changed it now. Shanes 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Stalin's possible father

I found a section on the page saying:

"Provide sources supporting this theory then uncomment There are a number of rumors about Stalin's ancestry, none of which are confirmed. One of the rumors is that he was the son of his godfather, a wealthy Georgian noble Egnatashvili, whose family were hereditary clerics. Several facts support this case: Stalin's mother worked for Egnatashvili; he attended seminary; it was a prestigious seminary, which was not possible for a child from a poor family; and he kept in contact with Egnatashvili throughout his life, including the war period. On the other hand, it would not have been unusual for a godfather to help his godson out."

I've got a source for this: Edvard Radzinski's biography of Stalin (titled "Stalin"). Radzinski does not say in his book that this is 100% true, but provides the theory there. These same pieces of evidence were given. Should it be added to the article now that there's a source? --HJV 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Soviet Civilian Casualties in WWII

The number of Soviet civilian deaths attributed to WWII is quite high. This number is also cited in various wikipedia articles. My question is, how many "Soviet civilian deaths in WWII" are due to the fighting, and how many are due to Stalin? Drogo Underburrow 02:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information

The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million and in 1937 another census found a population of between 162 and 163 million. This was 14 million less than the projected population value and was suppressed as a "wrecker's census" with the census takers severely punished.

This is false information. "The Years of Hunger" by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davis shows the following on page 413: "The [1937] census gave teh total population of 162 million, compared with 147 million in the previous census of 1926. However, if the net increase in population (that is, births minus deaths) shown by the official registrations is added to the 1926 population, the 1937 total becomes not 162 but 168 million.

This data derived from the archives confirms that there were a mere 2 million deaths from famine that was caused by several natural factors including wheather and a decline in livestock that obstructed cultivation. You can't possibly add such preposterous statements to the effect of "The Soviet economy improved after Stalin" while neglecting to add the above information which consists of irrefutable facts.

Since "the margin of error" with regard to the number of Stalin's victims is virtually impossible to narrow down to a universally accepted figure, various historians have come up with extremely varying estimates of the number of victims, from under 10 to over 50 million deaths.

Many of these "estimates" are outdated and politically motivated. The amateurish web site by Matthew White (users.erols) incessantly cited on this encyclopedia is not worthy of scholarly consideration. He is nobody important. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an outlet for Cold War propaganda. Documents from Russian archives have confirmed the following: 2 million deaths from famine in 1932-1933, 682,000 executions during 1937-1938, and 1 million deaths in the GULAG from 1934-1954. The actual "death toll" is under 5 million.

From 1946-1948 communist governments were imposed in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria and home-grown communist dictatorships rose to power in Yugoslavia and Albania. These nations became known as the "Communist Bloc". Britain and the United States supported the anti-communists in the Greek Civil War and suspected the Soviets of supporting the Greek communists although Stalin ended his support while Yugolsavia's Josip Broz Tito continued his support of the Greek communists.

Actually, even America's mainstream outlets e.g MSN Encarta assert that in 1989-1990, countries like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and others had their first "free elections" since 1945-1947. Communist governments were not as you say "imposed" in these countries during the 1945-1947 period. The Communists of these countries were amongst the largest parties during the 1945-1947 period. [This here] shows the results of historical elections throughout Europe.

Even four years before Black Tuesday, Klement Gottwald's Communists in Czechoslovakia garnered 13% of votes cast in the legislative elections of 1925. In 1946, they received 38%.

Over in Hungary, Matyas Rakosi's Communists garnered 22% in the legislative elections of 1947.

In Poland, Wladyslaw Gomulka's Communists occupied 26% of the seats in the country's legislature in 1947

In Romania, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej's Communists occupied 18% of the legislature's seats. Their allies, Petru Groza's Plougman's Front, occupied another 18% of the legislature's seats.

In Bulgaria, Georgri Dimitrov's Communists occupied 59% of the legislature's seats in 1946.

Therefore, Communists in many of these country's would have been justified to seize power. Even in western Europe, the Communists gathered 27% in elections in France, 25% in Finland, 20% in Italy, 11% in all of Scandinavia, and 11% in the Low Countries. However, the Communists in eastern Europe during 1948 formed coalitions with opposition parties. USSR's so-called "satellite states" were governed by multi-party coalitions. Plus, it must be mentioned that these coercive establishments of coalitions were a reaction to America's subjugation of western Europe through the Marshall Plan.

Both communist states provided military support to a new communist state in North Korea, which invaded U.S.-allied South Korea in 1950 to start the Korean War.

It must be added that there were several border clashes between northern and southern Korea.

Zvesda

Jugashvili not Dzhugashvili

I changed the English spelling of Stalin's Georgian family name from Dzhugashvili to Jugashvili. Jugashvili is the correct English form when translated directly form Georgian. While Dzhugashvili is obtained when the Georgian name is first translated to Russian and then to English.

Order № 227

I changed this phrase:

Stalin's Order No. 227 of 27 July, 1942, illustrates the ruthlessness with which he sought to stiffen army resolve: all those who retreated or otherwise left their positions without orders to do so were to be summarily shot.

to this

According to Stalin's Order No. 227 of 27 July, 1942, any commander or comissar of regiment, batallion or army, who allowed retreatment without permission from above was subject to military tribunal.

as it is more factually accurate. The order was not intended to presecute private soldiers, but only commanders who allow retreatment without permission. And they mostly were not shot but sent to penal batallions. More details see in Order № 227 article. Also POV phrasing removed.--Nixer 15:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Death toll

Can anibody describe what is "death toll"? Is it not born children? Is it decrease in population? Is it too high war casualities? Could anibody describe?--Nixer 10:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

People killed in Stalin's terror, Gulags, or man-made famine. Ultramarine 10:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Those who killed - all without exception or excepitg criminals? --Nixer 10:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
There were also some criminals killed in the Gulags. But no even nations that today have capital punishment kills millions. Ultramarine 10:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
So we count all of them? There were only 600000 shot during Stalin's rule. And number of imprisoned was about the same as now.--Nixer 10:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Many sources give much larger number. But you are right that most died in the Gulags or due to man-made famine. If you do not want the read the books, here is something on the internet.[19] Ultramarine 10:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we estimate this mysterious number for any leader or only for Stalin? Can we estimate for example, death toll of Mikhail Gorbachev? Only count: Chernobyl, many wars begun (Karabakh, Abkhasia, Osetia, Transnistria), death rate skyrocketed, medicine destructed, illnesses spread, narcotics and crime spread, number of inprisoned growed above Stalin's times! And even some were shot! ;-)--Nixer 10:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
These were not deliberate murders, like under Stalin's regime.Ultramarine 10:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
So you want to say Stalin killed 20 million? So death toll - is a number of killed? Lets name things with their proper names. Who is deliberate murderer? Is Nicholas II the Bloody murderer? Is Putin murderer? Is George W. Bush murderer? Can we estimate their death toll? Why Chernobyl is worser than famine? It was no doubt man made. Why Gorbachev's acceleration that led to Chernobyl is worser than Stalin's collectivization that led to famine? Is Chernobyl a genocide of Ukrainian people?--[[--Nixer 12:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This isn't an article about Putin or Bush. Its an article about Stalin, and he is responsible for a lot more than 20 million deaths, and the article should quote the historians who say this. Drogo Underburrow 12:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the complete absence of evidence for the sensational 20 million death toll. Zvesda

Sensational Death Toll

How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million and in 1937 another census found a population of between 162 and 163 million. This was 14 million less than the projected population value and was suppressed as a "wrecker's census" with the census takers severely punished.

This is completely untrue. According to the net increase (births minus deaths) of the 1926-1928 period, the USSR population would have risen to 168 million by 1937, not a bloated 176 million. This is a stark exaggeration. Source

Since "the margin of error" with regard to the number of Stalin's victims is virtually impossible to narrow down to a universally accepted figure, various historians have come up with extremely varying (15) estimates of the number of victims, from under 10 million to over 50 million deaths.

Mattthew White whose work is cited above is nobody important and his gathering of dubious sources including American imperialist Zbigniew Brzesinski is not worthy of consideration. If famine, executions, and the GULAG are taken into account, then Stalin killed about 3 million. All this data is gathered from Russian archives. The documents in concern are RGAE 1562/329/108, GARF 9401/1/4157, 201-205; and GARF 9414/1/1155, 2-3

Faminesource by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies:

Purge and GULAG sourceby J. Arch Getty:

None of the above consist of estimates. They are all recorded facts.

Zvesda

In Wikipedia, we are supposed to create articles that tell what the sides of an issue are, not what is true and false in controversial disputed issues. Therefore, space should be given in the article for the historians who say that Stalin is the greatest mass murderer in history; simply because we have to report that side of the issue.Drogo Underburrow 08:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that data from Russia's archives have proved these flatulent estimations of 50 million dead to be utterly false. This must immediately be changed. If I were to ask you to break down these 50 million dead per category, you'd be unable to do so. The three carefully scrutinised parts of Stalin's rule was the famine of 1932-1933 that claimed a documented 2.5 million lives, the GULAG that during peace time had 380,000 deaths of which the vast majority were non-political prisones, and the Yezhovschina during which there were 680,000 executions. Now, tell me how these figures accumulate to 50 million or even to 20 million. I've listed sources above. Zvesda

For example the Black Book of Communism uses archive data and shows 20 millions. Ultramarine 23:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Black Book" alleges that 6 million died from famine, which is an exaggeration as exposed by Wheatcroft and Davies in "Years of Hunger" [Source]. Additionally, the "Black Book" (correctly) stated that 680,000 were executed during the Purge. It also correctly states that 1 million died in the GULAG. The final result of 20 million dead does not remotely correspond to the sum of these categories. Zvesda

I have read the book and agrees with it and its extensive sources. And J. Arch Getty notes that Alec Nove estmates 9,5 million deaths only in 30s.[20] Ultramarine 23:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, the person with the best access to archieves, estimated at least 30-35 million deaths in the Soviet Union. See his book A century of violence in Soviet Russia. Ultramarine 23:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Those estimates have long been discredited. They have proven to have been extremely exaggerative. Zvesda

Your opinion. I disagree. See also this, for another estimate with detailed sources: [21] Ultramarine 00:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it is a fact that these "estimates" do not correspond even remotely to figures from the archives. They have proven to be exaggerative. Zvesda

Again, your opinion. As noted, both the Black Book of Communism and Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev uses archive material. And no one has had better access than Yakovlev, who had access also to the archives still denied other researchers, so his estimate is probably the best. Ultramarine 00:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yakovlev had political motives to eaggerate the numbers.--Nixer 07:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You still don't understand In Wikipedia, editors arn't supposed to decide what is true, then delete the "false" views. In Wikipedia, we simply report what others say on an issue. It doesn't matter if what they say is true or false, its not our job to judge them. Its only our job to report what the views are. Its a fact that Western historians SAY that Stalin killed people, and its our job to report what they SAY in the article. That's all. Argueing if its "true" is beside the point. Understand? This is not negotiable...its the law of Wikipedia, called NPOV. When you delete material that reports what valid historians SAY, you are being obstructive. Arguing about what is "true" here on this talk page is a waste of time, because that's not the job of Wikipedia editors.Drogo Underburrow 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that Stalin did not kill people. Rather, I submitted a plausable death toll. With questionable statements like, "Western historians generally believe", YOU ARE TAKING A POV. The thoughts of western historians connoted to be infallable are given more emphasis than others. When you use "valid historians", you are taking a POV. According to many conventional historians including J.Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, Stephen Wheatcroft, R.W Davies, Gabor Rittersporn, Mark Tauger, and Viktor Zemskov, these so-called historians' material has been discredited. Yet, the views of these have been omitted from this article.

Famine Source : RGAE 1562/329/108 . This is reported by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies in 2004's "Years of Hunger"

Purge and GULAG source GARF 9401/1/4157, 201-205 for the Purge; GARF 9414/1/1155, 2-3 for GULAG. This was reported by J.Arch Getty in an article that appeared in "Slavic Review" in 1993.

For the famine, there were about 2.5 million deaths. For the purge, there were 680,000 executions. For the GULAG, there were 380,000 deaths during peace time of which at least 75% were common criminals. The death toll can be summed up as roughly 4 million. Therefore, these estimations of tens of millions are INFLATED. They do not correspond to documented material. That is a fact. If any of this is wrong, show facts that are preferrably derived from the archives that say why.

Zvesda

And there are many sources which disagree, as noted previously. I agree with Drogo Underburrow. Ultramarine 01:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, prove it. Show documents from the archives that are contrary to what I presented. Spare me of this "so and so estimates" nonesense as material like this is politically-motivated.

Zvesda

See the references in for example the Black Book of Communism. Ultramarine 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the "Black Book" presents figures for the Purge and GULAG that correspond to what J.Arch Getty and Viktor Zemskov reported in their 1993 article for "Slavic Review". For the famine, the "Black Book" exaggerates the total death toll as shown by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies. So then do 1 million GULAG deaths and 680,000 Purge executions come to a figure of 20 million?

Zvesda

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. Wikipedia should not present a particular view advocated by some. Ultramarine 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Note also that your table only mentions registered deaths. The authors estimate the true number to be about 6 million deaths, a number similar to the usual ones.[22] Ultramarine 01:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it agreed here that our job is not to decide what is true and what is false, but to accurately represent in the article the views of historians, regardless of wether we feel that those views are true or false? Drogo Underburrow 01:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ultramarine 01:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not representing the views of historians manifested by your constant obstruction of my rectifications. This needs to be balanced out by posting an apolitically low death toll and a mainstream western anti-Communist death toll.

In regard to your attempt in trying to prove me wrong about Wheatcroft and Davies's death toll, there was not a registration system in Kazakhstan where an *estimated* 1.5 million died in a SEPARATE famine during 1931-1933. An additional 300,000 died died in the labour camps during the famine which of course irrelevant to the standard population.

Zvesda

Clean up the article, please

I have tried to make some minor cleanup changes to this article, but they keep being reverted. For example, this sentence in the introduction has a number of ambiguities, as well as some awkward phrasing, grammar problems, and syntax mistakes: "Western and other non-Soviet scholarly estimations of number of dead due to Stalin's mistakes, improper and cruel policy, based primarily on demographic dynamics, sometimes vary by 40-50 million with the highest numbers more than 60 million and 20 million claimed by some to be "average" number. Some argue that if not for Stalin, then the USSR could have lost WWII with the Soviet peoples destroyed."

The article is like this everywhere. I would like to make edits, but I don't want to waste my time if people are going to keep reverting to the current version.

Chart123 


    UPDATE:  Thanks for the cleanup, the intro is much better!

Chart123

==Possible mistake in 8 Death ==.

In the death section the article states that Stalin was embalmed over the objection of his wife, but wasn’t she already dead?

“Stalin allowed a cult of personality to be created in the Soviet Union around both himself and Lenin. The embalming of the Soviet founder in Lenin's Mausoleum was performed over the objection of Lenin's widow, Nadezhda Krupskaya. Stalin became the focus of massive adoration and even worship.”


Thank you

rjkbytes@yahoo.com 216.141.228.112 17:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed publications vs. Books and websites

I put up the POV label today

because the claims of tens of millions of deaths are unsupported by hard data. If the claimant can cite a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, then please give your source and your claims will be accepted as valid. Books and websites are not reliable sources of information, EVEN when an author claims to be a historian or is really a historian. You can publish any kind of nonsense in a book or on a website very easily and as someone who works in academia I can tell you that people with valid academic credentials, such as full professors, make questionable claims all the time, the problem is those questionable views most of the time cannot be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and until those claims survive the peer review process they should be ignored.

For those who are not familiar with how peer review works: when someone wants to publish a study in an accredited journal, they submit their manuscript to the editorial board and the editorial board sends the manuscript for review to at least three other unrelated researchers in the field and all three reviewers have to agree with the methods and conclusions in the study. The reviewers usually request the authors to redo some studies or use a different method or modify conclusions and when all reviewers approve the text of the manuscript, then and only then it will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

On a different note, the other two encyclopedias, Britannica and Encarta, are more careful about the death toll from Stalin's rule. Encarta lists millions from famine and executions, Britannica lists millions from famine, millions from executions and "tens of millions of victims" which appears to be an allusion to those imprisoned by Stalin.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Stalin was a bad guy, yet exaggerations and fiction are unacceptable. How would you like it if somebody started claiming that Osama bin Laden killed 3 million Americans? Bublick439 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439


In the introduction I changed "tens of millions of deaths" to "millions of deaths". If whoever wrote this has a reliable source (see above about which sources are reliable) feel free to give a reference and to change the sentence back Bublick439 21:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Childhood and early adult crime?

To my opinion, some headings do not meet NPOV criteria. For instance, "Childhood and early adult crime" is quite far from neutrality. The section describes Stalins early revolutionary activity. Obviously, it was a crime according to Tzarist Russia laws. However, that was equally valid for other revolutionaries, e.g. George Washington.
My conclusion is that the headings should be made more neutral. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

grammatical error

hi

If you click the israel tab in the grey box, it should say war material not materiel

Possible factual errors

In the section of the article related to the beginning of the "Great Purge" and the possible beginning of this era in Stalin's fear of his possible rival, Kirov, there is a statement that at the 1934 Party Congress Stalin received 1,108 negative votes to 3 negative votes for Kirov. In a related article about the Great Purge, the figure for negative votes against Stalin is 292. While many of the issues regarding Stalin are matters of historical interpretation, this figure should be a matter of historical record and the incorrect article should be changed to reflect the accurate vote at the 34 Party Congress.

Also in the section titled "Religious beliefs and practices" there is a sentence which reads "On his orders many priests were brought back to the camps." Read in context, this sentence clearly means to say "On his orders many priests were brought back FROM the camps." The meanings are opposite and the preposition should be changed if I am correct in my contextual reading.

Rjciardo (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 rehabilitiation of Stalin's image

In relation to the recent libel case launched in Russia relating to Stalin, the BBC has commented: "It is the latest bizarre twist in what many see as a Kremlin-backed campaign to rehabilitate Stalin's reputation" and goes on to say "The Kremlin has professed no opinion about the case. But in other ways Russia's leadership has been quietly moving to rehabilitate the great dictator, adds our correspondent. Last month a brass plaque praising Stalin suddenly reappeared in a Moscow metro station. And last year a history textbook for Russian schoolchildren was published which referred to Stalin as an "effective manager" who led Russia to victory in World War II - not, as has been widely claimed, a brutal dictator responsible for sending millions to their deaths." [23] I am not sufficiently expert on Stalin to comment, but does this merit comment under the section Views on Stalin in Russian Federation? --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Stalin/Archive_8&oldid=1136855818"