Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 7

Archives:

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

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

←

I'm no expert on Stalin, but I was surprised to read that there was any doubt about Nadezhda Alliluyeva Stalin's suicide in 1932. According to the description related by Svetlana Alliluyeva in "Twenty Letters to a Friend" (1967), Stalin remained at the dinner party until after his wife's death, and was very shocked by the news the next morning.

Sca 18:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Execution Phrasing

I'm far from being a stickler for political correctness or sensitivity, but I do think the article sounds quite odd, since everyone who dies is "shot," as opposed to killed, executed, assassinated, etc. It becomes annoying and somewhat amusing even once you realize it's not actually conveying any information, just being used as a generic word for "killed".

One could almost see it as a form of bias, since it may lead the reader to think more violently of Stalin's purges.

Ntvecho 04:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Truly a Great Man

Sadly, due to Western propaganda, Stalin will be labelled as an "evil man". The very thought is ludicrous. The man was involved with everything in his country. The army, the buildings of schools, hospitals, what have you. But because of his high status and the amount of his power, his enemies were large. Within his own country and abroad. It is "they" who were sinister and eliminating "oppposition" or handing over entire Soviet army divisions into Nazi hands for profit, status or land. I hope his legacies and achievements of building the worlds greatest superpower, lives on for centuries to come. Although stalin was not a perfect man, he did do some cruel things. -G

A MASS-MURDERER

STALIN IS A PSYCHOPATH, REPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF MORE THAN 20 MILLION PEOPLE. During Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and the Soviet Republics his regime killed or starved an estimated 15 million peasants, 5 million Ukrainians, 200,000 Jews; and as many as 3 million enemies of the state. AND THAT NUMBER DOES NOT EVEN INCLUDE THE WAR DEATHS OF WHICH HE DIRECTLY CAUSED MORE THAN A THIRD OF THE TOTAL CASUALTIES (THE SOVIET WAR DEATHS WERE NOT ALL DUE TO THE GERMANS).[1]

Stalin was undoubtedly responsible for the deaths of many millions of people, but where does the "60 million" come from? Fresh-air? Of the top of your head? Not even The Black Book of Communism claims such a figure. If you're going to contribute, even on talk pages, you have to state your sources.

Camillus

^{talk|contribs} 12:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment to last comment: "60" refers to the text that existed before the anon corrected HIS SHOUTING TEXT. mikka (t) 03:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these: Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s. Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin. Gold, John.: 50-60 million. Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939. Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into: 1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths) 1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine) 1939-45: 18,157,000 1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine) TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+ Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38) Cited by Wallechinsky: Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million. Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million. MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s. [2]

I find it somewhat ammusing that people who have never lived under communism sit under the comfort and warmth of capitalism and call Stalin a Great Man. Whatever he may or may not have tried to accomplish, two things are obvious. One, that he is directly or indirectly responsible for a death toll around 10 million of his own people(See Gulags, The Great Purge). 10 MILLION! People call Truman a murder for the bombing of Hiroshiam and Nagasaki were estimates are around 200,000 deaths (including the deaths that occured after the actual bombing) but Stalin is a great man. Can you possibly understand what 10 million people means. Can you possibly wrap your pea brain around a concept like Gulags. He inslaved his own people and forced them to work for nothing in these camps. If that's o.k than why is the slavery of African American in American any worst? Also, I want to point out that each commune had a certain amount of grain to produce. Those that didn't meet their target that all of their grain taken and forced to remain in said communes to starve to death.

Second, he is responsible for that fact that Eastern Europe is 50 years behind Western Europe. Stalin not only stripped all power from these countries but outright stole from them by installing fake companies. Also, for the priveledge of becoming a slave to Stalin, these countries had to pay repartition. I was born in Romania and my family lived under communism. Political and religious freedoms were non-existant. Education was indeed free but it was free before communism took hold. As for free healthcare, that's a myth, you had to be part of the communist party and if you weren't you had to pay a bribe. The rural population was stripped of everything they owned and forced to work on communal farms for meager wages. My grandfather had a small vegetable plot and a few chickens which he shared with of all his friend and family. His jealous neighbor turned him in to the secret police and he was sent to a work farm for almost 5 years. Food and consumer goods were rationed to the point that people would wait in lines for 5 hours for a loaf of bread because they weren't sure when the next shipment was coming. Luxury items like butter or coffee were rationed as if gold. Electronics were out of the question.

Stalin was a paranoid sociopath who I consider directly responsible for the 10 million deaths in his own country and the ruined economic and socio-political spectrum of Eastern Europe. Read statements made by his own family who consider him a tyrant. He left his only son to die in Germand because he refused to trade him for some prisoners. Maybe I come from a biased point of view but I consider the opinion of those that lived under communism and under Stalin to be more important than someone who has no knowledge of either. I also want to point out to those that hold communism in high regard one simple undisputed fact. At a point in time around 60% of the world functioned under a communist economic/political platform. Of those countries NOT ONE escaped without going bankrupt and it's leader becoming a dictator. This includes the communist regimes in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. So before you say that just because it didn't work in Russia or China doesn't mean it can't work, I want to point out that it didn't work ANYWHERE.

- Maria

Look past your emotional outburst, and notice that the article does what it is supposed to to perfectly- explore the historical significance of Stalin. We all agree that Stalin murdered millions, but his accomplishments are far greater. Stalin murdering millions didnt influence history nearly as much as his acomplishments. He transformed the Soviet Union faster than any other country in history- period. A testament to that is found by the fact that just now, over 25% of Russians want Stalin back. Straight from the horse's mouth guys, about whether it's more important to have economic growth and stability, creating a world power, or having democaracy, but economic development only for the rich, while the masses are ignored. AuNO3

Stalin's only lasting legacy will be the Oder-Neisse Line.

Sca 18:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, its a fact that English is the universal language, movies for example... most movies that we see are made by Americans... most history has been written by americans, most news that we see on tv, etc... Its a shame that they are always the good guys of the show. I feel that Stalin image is a rather obscure one, basicly because all information ive get from him is based on american sayings (unsigned).

The language that you speak is American. Movies that you see are made by Americans. History that you believe in is written by Americans etc. Do not asume that everyone is you.--Ezeu 23:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you are oput of date. English was the main language but it's getting well superseded by the sheer diversity of language. Time was when 90% of the net was in English, SqueakBox 00:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

82.139.160.143 15:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Stalin a Great Man? ROFTL, I must say. You say, that we are only the slaves of western propaganda, but theory aobut "Stalin's Greatness" is under the support of current Russian goverment with president Putin on the head of it. Stalin is responsible for many acts of mass murders on civilians. For example, he is the one who, himself, order to kill almost 4000 of Polish soldiers (wich have been captured in 1939, when Stalin broken a non-agression pact with Poland) in Katyn (see also Katyn massacre). So, after all, it's hard to believe that he was a truly "great man" - maybe in neggative sense, as Hitler was. I want to apologize for my english. It's not great, I know, but I learning this language only for 2 years.

Many allegedly great men from the past were nothing but power hungry butchers: Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, etc. It is only this modern era that sees strong murderous types as not being great but examples of the worst type of human being. Thank God for progress, SqueakBox 15:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Russians refer to Alexander the 'great' simply as Alexander the Macedon. I like that better. Dietwald 20:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Really, though the question is - was he better than the Tzar? 70.71.138.158 19:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Stalin was hardly a great man, and this is not simply American opinion. Check out the Black Book of Communism. It was written by French Communists. Read any testimony of those who survived. Sure, Stalin might have been trying to accomplish something good, but when you kill the peasants for not producing enough grain, and you're supposed to be a society for the peasants. . .something's not right. Killing 10 million people? That's not right. Declaring a constant state of war with your own people? That's not right. And even if it were, if you're in a constant state of revolution how on earth are you going to fight external enemies?

". . . its a fact that English is the universal language, movies for example... most movies that we see are made by Americans... most history has been written by americans, most news that we see on tv, etc . . . "

Is it really a fact that most history has been written by Americans? Is it because only Americans are literate? Have American enforcers prowled the libraries of all the Western democracies purging histories that don't conform to the single viewpoint rubber-stamped by the U.S. Congress and American academia?

I say emphatically that it cannot be the case, because there is no ONE American Version of History that is uniformly cited even within the United States. The reason that you detect a uniform appearance to most 20th century histories is that the basic facts and events are NOT IN DISPUTE. It is essentially the interpretation of the facts that are malleable and the general version of events to which most people hold is an aggregate based upon the general understanding of a vast spectrum of Western historians.

You're free to accept the Soviet orthodox version if you like, but in contrast to the literally tens of thousands of voices that assemble as the Western version, the Soviet version is indisputably that of a single man, or at best, a single political party. It is also indisputable that the term "airbrushing history" stems from the Bolshevik practice of literally altering history by eliminating images of party leaders and personages who fell from Joseph Stalin's grace.

So, you don't have to accept the "Western" version, but I'd advise caution in choosing an alternative.

"Its a shame that [the Americans] are always the good guys of the show."

Why a shame? I'm assuming you mean that in the "story of history" Americans are always "cast" as the "good guys." Is it not possible that, by and large, America and her allies have been on the right side of history more often than not? Compile a list of America's historical enemies as an illuminating exercise.

DrZin

"America" is in the "right side of the history"??? How many versions of the human history have you, Mr. DrZin, read??? Let me tell you: it´s a FACT that the Human History told by a western democracy differs enormously of that told by a person who THINKS DIFFERENTLY (AND RIGHT) of the STABLISHED ORDER (any person with a minimum of common sense can tell you that). It is also a FACT that MOST of the history YOU and ME read is WESTERN BASED...if you don´t agree in that, please tell me, in which planet do you live in??? Remember that the political repression also has been one of the favorite methods to keep in control the entire population of a country (i.e. brazilian "favelas", chilean political division at the 70´s, african internal conflicts, african-american conflicts in the so loved "America"...and a huge etc.) Just remember the destruction of the indian tribes during the "Western expantion" of the original "13 British colonies"...A world superpower has a BLOODY BACKGROUND...

Remember: Historically, Europe was the main vessel of the western thinking, including the science (as we know it today), art (in any of its forms), philosophy, engineering, etc. But it was in Europe that the TWO MAJOR WARS (and not to mention other bloody conflicts over the centuries) have been fought. And those wars have been produced by the CONTRADICTIONS OF THE CAPITALISM...If you claim that the socialsts countries had a MASSED MURDERER in the person of Stalin, then the CAPITALISM had it in the person of HITLER... Or do you think Hitler was alone in his material efforts to wage war??? No, he had behind a huge economic capital belonging to the UPPER ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL CLASSES of Germany...

The WESTERN DEMOCRACIES are very negligent about the needs of the masses (or if you like to call them, "people") because the ONLY thing they are taking into account is the individual capital. YOU EXIST IN TERMS OF THE CAPITAL YOU HAVE...AND YOU ARE MEASURED BY IT, AS A PERSON, AS A PROFESSIONAL, ETC. The poverty is increasing at huge rates in the rest of the world. AND REMEMBER THE WORLD IS NOT ONLY FORMED BY THE WESTERN DEMOCRACIES. These democracies have to destroy (IN SUBTLE WAYS) any single effort of the masses to search OTHER FORMS to GOVERN THEMSELVES.

Are you arguing that the US does not have historical enemies??? Or too few??? Are you blind??? That is an excellent proof that you are VERY INFLUENCED by AMERICAN PROPAGANDA....

Iaqui, Vale 16-12-2005

Before I get into this, I'd like to remind you that you didn't take issue with any of the more substantial points of my previous post.

"America" is in the "right side of the history"???How many versions of the human history have you, Mr. DrZin, read???

Well, I did say "more often than not" but as indicated by your heavy reliance on the SHIFT KEY, subtlety doesn't seem to be much of a concern to you.

Anyway, every historical text, article, or essay that I read is ultimately the product of hundreds if not thousands of independent historians. There are many things in every thing that I read with which I disagree. But there is absolutely no way that you can tell me that there's a superior source for accurate, objective hagiography than the many, many scholars that make up Western academia, even with all of its problems. If I'm missing something, please fill me in.

Let me tell you: it´s a FACT that the Human History told by a western democracy differs enormously of that told by a person who THINKS DIFFERENTLY (AND RIGHT) of the STABLISHED ORDER . . .

I'm assuming, because of your unsolicited attack on "capitalism," that you mean people who think along Marxist lines. Well, my friend, a very significant portion of Western academics do just that. But I can tell you this: no honest Marxist (to the extent that they actually exist) would ever accept the Soviet version of history, nor that of any of the other historically fascist regimes that label themselves "worker's paradise."

So, to summarize your position, nations that lack a history of free democratic principles and independent academic inquiry have permitted only historical accounts that differ from that of the hundreds of thousands of free Western scholars working from all available sources? And this surprises you . . . why?

The fact still remains that history isn't told by "western democracies" if you mean some kind of national entity, but by millions of historians, journalists, eyewitnesses, and others, working therein, almost totally without government interference or fear of any kind of reprisal or censorship. And they do it using all available sources, including anything that's available in any non-Western nation.

It is also a FACT that MOST of the history YOU and ME read is WESTERN BASED...

My whole previous argument was predicated on the fact that we read superior history precisely because it was documented under the auspices of Western academic freedom. I don't deny but embrace that fact. Like I said before: it's not perfect, but it's basically completely free to go where it wants and is constantly being revised and updated by a massive academic research organism.

I don't really understand the point of your digging hundreds of years into America's past to prove that she's not a perfect nation. No one has ever said that she was, and certainly not I.

Remember: Historically, Europe was the main vessel of the western thinking . . . But it was in Europe that the TWO MAJOR WARS (and not to mention other bloody conflicts over the centuries) have been fought.

Certainly. I never said that Europe was perfect either. But I should also probably point out that war is not a uniquely Western phenomenon, as you seem to suggest. It may also interest you that fascism and communism, the two greatest philosophical atrocities of the 20th century, are specific rejections of Western enlightenment principles.

If you claim that the socialsts countries had a MASSED MURDERER in the person of Stalin, then the CAPITALISM had it in the person of HITLER...

Perhaps I should also point out, that the United States opposed both genocidal savages. Also, to assert that Hitler was somehow representative of "capitalism" is one of the most absurdly simplistic ideas I've ever heard; my 4 year old son could provide a more accurate, or at least competing assessment. Just because Hitler, not repeating the stupid mistakes of the Bolsheviks, recognized that preserving capitalist mechanisms would generate capital (duh!), doesn't make him a representative of capitalism.

Or do you think Hitler was alone in his material efforts to wage war??? No, he had behind a huge economic capital belonging to the UPPER ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL CLASSES of Germany...

This hardly represents the free market, democratic capitalism that rules the successful nations of the world.

The WESTERN DEMOCRACIES are very negligent about the needs of the masses (or if you like to call them, "people") . . .

Yes, I like to call them "people." "Masses" is a nauseating and disgustingly condescending term. Not to mention that the whole concept is a Marxist figment.

Anyway, that's the whole point. When the government understands that when the needs of its citizens are ignored, citizens will provide what they need for themselves, more efficiently and more exactingly, then nations thrive. Get the damned system off of people's backs and they'll know what to do. Certainly Marx has no blueprint to offer, which he himself admitted.

But anyway, can you give me some examples of nations that are more beneficial for their poor than the Western democracies? And please don't mention any of the Eurosocialist suicide jobs that are going to be out of business after another generation. The fact remains that the poorest of citizens of Western democracies live higher than the "citizens" produced by every single communist experiment to date, even the ones that their governments didn't imprison or murder.

. . . because the ONLY thing they are taking into account is the individual capital. YOU EXIST IN TERMS OF THE CAPITAL YOU HAVE...AND YOU ARE MEASURED BY IT, AS A PERSON, AS A PROFESSIONAL, ETC.

What nihilistic baloney. There are many, many measures of a man in all societies, except in fact those societies that you seem to believe in, in which you are not measured at all, but simply dissolved into “the masses.” But, the extent to which a man can produce “capital,” without which, society degrades precipitously, is a very, very important measure. If a man isn’t measured by his level of success in the field he chooses, how do you measure him?

The poverty are increasing at huge rates in the rest of the world.

Actually, since the fall of the Soviet Union, poverty is decreasing across the global board, in spite of the efforts of the anti-trade fanatics. Your statement is completely and utterly false. The scope of the definition of "poverty" changes in order to support anti-trade collectivist rhetoric.

AND REMEMBER THE WORLD IS NOT ONLY FORMED BY THE WESTERN DEMOCRACIES.

Yes, unfortunately that is true.

These democracies have to destroy (IN SUBTLE WAYS) any single effort of the masses to search OTHER FORMS to GOVERN THEMSELVES.

I believe that we only destroy efforts of “the masses” to destroy themselves. And how are "the masses" to determine anything without democratic utilities?

Are you arguing that the US doesn´t have historical enemies??? Or too few??? Are you blind???

No, I'm not blind, though I might be rendered so if you continue your eye-assaulting, overuse of question marks.

That is an excelent proof that you are VERY INFLUENCED by AMERICAN PROPAGANDA....

Yeah, the entire canon of Western historical documentation is "American propaganda"; it's a good thing you're not prone to hyperbole or anything.

Anyway, my suggestion--which you did not follow--was to “make a list” of America’s historical enemies. I will do it for you here:

The German Kaiser, Adolf Hitler, Hideki Tojo, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il-Sung, Nikita Khrushchev, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Leonid Brezhnev, Fidel Castro, The Ayatollah Khomeini, Daniel Ortega, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hugo Chavez

Savages all, with the possible exception of the Kaiser. The United States has made the right enemies throughout history.

DrZin

(I thank, in advance, whomever for NOT deleting other people's work)

Oh boy!!!

After reading your long response, I MUST say to you: OPEN YOUR MIND...

You state that there are "hundreds or thousands" of independent historians that think in similar ways about the topic you mentioned. Oh man!!! So, the "hundreds or thousands" of authors that have analyzed HISTORY within a MORE OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW and CONTRARY to your own preferences, are, then, mistaken??? I really think (despite your own opinion about the matter)that the point of view of a COMMUNIST OR SOCIALIST is not a "savage" or "barbaric" one, because in many times their historical analysis are very accurate (for example, description of WWII historical causes, just to mention one single subject). Of course you WILL NOT SEE THIS because you are VERY INFLUENCED by the AMERICAN WAY OF THINKING. Man, check your sources...there is a whole world outside...

You didn´t read well, Dr. Zin, but I have to tell you that I´m NO MARXIST OR COMMUNIST. I am DEFENDING an objective point of view, which is shared, by the way, by millions...

Ok. You think in the way you like. That is your deal. I don´t mind if you think diferently than myself, but don´t insult. You are taking this too far from the discussion subject (and apparently, too personal). Obviously you are very annoyed from people that is trying to think in other ways. THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO DO SO BY THE PRACTICAL RESULTS OF THE CAPITALISM.

And for some analysis, here you have a quotation from your own response:

"Actually, since the fall of the Soviet Union, poverty is decreasing across the global board, in spite of the efforts of the anti-trade fanatics. Your statement is completely and utterly false. The scope of the definition of "poverty" changes in order to support anti-trade collectivist rhetoric." Please, be serious, Dr. Zin.

End of discussion.

Iaqui, 3-10-2006, Vale

I try very faithfully to respond to each and every point that you make in your posts; I would really appreciate and enjoy the same courtesy from you. You have not yet addressed the single, nuclear point of my argument:

“Is it not possible that, by and large, America and her allies have been on the right side of history more often than not?

The idea is that, certainly some national players in world history have acted to the greater benefit of humanity than have others. This fact would account for that player’s appearance as the “good guy” in the historical record.

It’s certainly impossible to argue that the sum of historical actions of all the major nations have contributed equally to the benefit/detriment ratio. There has to be a best.

After reading your long response, I MUST say to you: OPEN YOUR MIND...

Open my mind to what? To your strange little world in which every single cultural perspective is equally valid? No thanks, partner. There are things which I believe are just plain wrong: clitorectomies or forced collectivization and the mass murder of successful farmers, for example. Points of view in which these things are considered legitimate, i.e. savage points of view, don’t deserve my consideration, or even yours.

You state that there are "hundreds or thousands" of independent historians that think in similar ways about the topic you mentioned.

Not that “think in similar ways,” but have recorded the historical events of the 20th century in a manner consistent among 98% of Western scholars. Interpretations vary wildly, but there is an agreed-upon general sequence of events.

Oh man!!! So, the "hundreds or thousands" of authors that have analyzed HISTORY within a MORE OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW and CONTRARY to your own preferences, are, then, mistaken??? . . . I am DEFENDING an objective point of view, which is shared, by the way, by millions...

Your definition of objective is specious. I don’t know why I have to keep coming back to the same thing over and over, but a point of view that grants equal deference to both the Western version of events and the Soviet or Chi-Com version of events is NOT objective; given the nature of the respective sources, it is explicitly anti-objective. You can’t just distribute credibility equally and indiscriminantly among all players and call that “objective.”

I really think (despite your own opinion about the matter) that the point of view of a COMMUNIST OR SOCIALIST is not a "savage" or "barbaric" one, because in many times their historical analysis are very accurate (for example, description of WWII historical causes, just to mention one single subject).

I’m not saying that one can completely dismiss an argument based upon the background of the arguer, but historically, communist and socialist historians have proven to be extraordinarily disreputable and untrustworthy; one reason for this, is that those that dared to disagree with the approved, state-sponsored version of events disappeared into a hole or some other less pleasant earthly place. That fact has a unifying effect on the collective historical scholarship of a society which is not friendly to your beloved “objectivity.” This is a very important consideration when weighing a body of historical accounts.

I am a bit curious as to your point about "WWII historical causes." I'd like you to expound a bit on that if you have a chance.

Of course you WILL NOT SEE THIS because you are VERY INFLUENCED by the AMERICAN WAY OF THINKING.

I suppose that you’re not at all influenced by the ANTI-AMERICAN WAY OF THINKING . . .

I don´t mind if you think diferently than myself, but don´t insult. You are taking this too far from the discussion subject (and apparently, too personal). Obviously you are very annoyed . . .

I’m not at all annoyed; I enjoy this kind of discussion very much (I do wish that you would respond more carefully to the actual points that I’ve made, however). And I apologize if I’ve insulted you, but I’m trying to encourage you to be a little more subtle in your typing, which actually makes you appear very agitated.

I’d appreciate a response, if you have the time, to the enemies list that I made. I don’t think that there’s any choice but to concede that in fact, “by and large, America and her allies have been on the right side of history more often than not.”

Stalin's Georgian name

The current transcription of Stalin's (original) Georgian name seems to be rather incorrect. The transcription of "იოსებ ჯუღაშვილი" is presented as Iosif Dzhugashvilli, which actually appears to be a more correct transcription of the Russian spelling of his birth name (Иосиф Джугашвили). The correct transcription should probably be "Ioseb Jughashvili".

I don't understand

why did you block me? what does this mean? caught doing what?--Archive13 23:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The above message relates to a misunderstanding caused by a vandal. See here for more information. Thanks. --Canderson7 00:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Red Army raping German females...

deleted entire BS paragraph about mass abuse, rapes and "genocide" against Germans in 45, I.Erenburg calls for hatred (Gobbels lies), etc, etc. Some atrocities, however, happened, on much lower rating, mostly stealing and looting, but not mass murders and rapes. If you have detailed info, please add it. Took confirmation of this from "Battle of Berlin" article. Good info about Soviet attitude to Germans are present at www.iremember.ru (only Russian-language).

I have not seen the paragraph. However, while Ehrenburg most likely did NOT write the "kill" leaflet, rape WAS common during the advace of the Soviet army. Interestingly enough, you did not sign your 'contribution'. IF anybody knows about this paragraph, please be so kind and put it at least into the talk-pages so it can be discussed. It may NOT be erlevant to the topic of Stalin, but it's pretty revisionist (meanig: denial-istic) to claim those things did not happen. The Soviet Army was pretty rough, which was partially in response to the atrocities committed by the Germans in Russia, but also because the Soviet Army was a draft army, with pretty bad discipline, and a high tolerance for excess towards it's own people, not to mention others. Dietwald 19:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a well-known fact (if we're normal sane people who believe what the history books say at least) that mass rape accompanied the advance of the Red Army from East Prussia all the way to Berlin. To say anything else is intolerable revisionism. The fact that Germany was responsible for the war's worst horrors (Holocaust) can not lead an impartial historiographer to simply ignore the suffering of the German (female) population. One should also point out that some of the atrocities committed by German soldiers on the Eastern Front were commited in response to atrocities first commited by the Red Army (mutilation of corpses, for instance) - read Laurence Rees on the escalation of atrocities committed by both Russians and Germans on the Eastern Front.

Although it has been adequately supported by historical evidence that the Red Army committed mass rape, among other atrocities, such as execution of civilians, during its advance towards Berlin, it has also been quite conclusively shown that the Nazis, when advancing into the USSR, in the initial phase of their East campaign, committed mass slaughter on a much higher scale (and rape on a lesser scale). The Nazis started the ball rolling in the theatre of death and destruction. It has never been suggested that "the Russians started it first", as you seem to be implying. (You're invoking "mutilation of corpses". But this would never be excuse enough for destroying a village for it. See the Kandanos incident in occupied Crete, Greece, for instance.) Historians seem to agree that the Nazis behaved much more criminally towards the civilian population when they entered into the USSR, than the Russians when they entered Germany. It is only that the Russians' own atrocities have not been acknowledged enough until relatively recently, on account of the prevalent anti-Nazi sentiment. The Gnome 06:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If you read my above contribution carefully you will discover that there is no implication of the Russians having "started it first" - not quite sure what you mean by "it" here. I merely said (and this is only information I have taken from Laurence Rees, as already mentioned) that "SOME of the atrocities committed by German soldiers on the Eastern Front were committed in response to atrocities first commited by the Red Army (mutilation of corpses for instance)." We all know that the Germans started the war and that they entered Russia with a "Vernichtungsfeldzug" in mind - in other words they regarded the Russians (or Slavs more generally) as sub-human and were intending to systematically enslave or slaughter local populations. The annihilation of European Jews was meant to be part of an even more grandiose programme of extermination in which some 30 million Slavs were to be killed. I'm sorry if anyone thought I was saying that the Russians were the cause of the war and systematic slaughter. BUT I did want to say that German aggression can not excuse the mass rape of German women! I also agree with your observation that Russian atrocities have to some extent been ignored in the face of the epic horror of National Socialist war crimes - which I suppose is understandable in some way, but wrong from a moral point of view.

Question- Shouldn't the above be placed in the WWII article, or the Red Army article, seeing as it has nothing to do with Stalin himself? - The Red Baron

R.Conquest as a source of information. Why not Goebbels?

Hm... you seem to think that being critical of one of the most murderous dictators of all times puts one on par with Goebbels? Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Well, I am greatly surprised to see his (R.C.) name on the top of literature list. He is no more than falsification and propagandist (and, afair, former CIA agent, so he cannot have an unbiased point of view), and it is proven by both western and eastern researchers' data.

Actually, R. Conquest is widely considered to be one of the BEST historians of the Soviet era. He was NOT a CIA agent, though he DID work for the British during the Cold War. However, so far, this affiliation has not been proven to have tainted his scholarship. He was definitely hostile to Stalin, but so were most decent human beings at the time and today. After all, most decent human beings would be disgusted by Hitler and Goebbels, and the fact that, for example. Raul Hilberg, for example, was never anything but hostile to the Nazis, and yet he produced excellent scholarship on the Nazis. His bias has not tainted his scholarship in the least.

These are (*) -

Douglas Tottle "The Ukrainian Genocide Myth, From Hitler To Harvard", published in Toronto, 1987.

Tottle has no credibility whatsoever. In fact, outside the circles of Stalin apologists, he is almost entirely ignored by historians of all colours, including many revisionist authors, such as Getty. He's a crack-pot and a Stalin apologist of the vilest kind. On par with Ernst Zuendel.

V.N.Zemskov, author of many gulag-concerned articles based on archives opened in late 80's.

Never heard of him, provide some sources, please.

Rittersporn G. "Stalinist Simplifications and Soviet Complications. Social Tensions and Political Conflicts in the USSR 1933-1953.", Harwood Academic Publishers, 1991.

ditto.

J. Arch Getty, Gabor T. Rittersporn, and Viktor N. Zemskov "Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence", American Historical Review 98/4 (October 1993).

legitimate source, indeed. Conquest and he may be at odds with each other, but Getty strikes me as a reasonable scholar.

Short summary of these books: ~4M "political prisoners" during 1921-1953 (mind it, both banditism and attempt to escape from prison were counted as political crime), no more that 800K executed, no more than 1M died in prison (~700K during hungry 1933,1942-1943). No more than 2.5M were in the prisons/labor camps at one time (this maximum is reached in 1950, not in late 30s). Approximately 9.5M of personal prisoner data files (both "political prisoners" and criminals).

Which book are you referring to? Provide citations. In addition, you seem to feel that 1,000,000 dead is 'only'... Cool. I can see why criticism of Stalin irks you the wrong way. I guess you feel Hitler was not that bad, either. After all, there were still enough Jews left to create the state of Israel.

Also, I've found a good site with deconstruction of some cold war myths concerning Stalin-era and USSR. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/7213/index.html It will be nice to put a link to it to the bottom, along with referring mentioned books (*).

For now, the page still looks like propaganda. (For example, page concerning Harry Truman doesn't contain number of Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims. These numbers are put on separate page, along with well-detailed pro- and contra-s.) Negative sides are exaggerated, and most positive sides are presented with doubting and "what if" speculations. Wonder if any of authors ever read an original book of "executed genius" Tukhachevsky, an original detailed officer purge statistics, etc. History is a science based on documents, but not on biased testimonies and literature.

Well, I did read the original book of the "genius" Tukhachevsky. You seem to base your opinion on it on the book of Viktor Suvorov. May be tukhachevsky was not a genius, but he was not an idiot either, contrary to what Suvorov writes about him. But please stick to the topic: this page is for discussion of artile about Stalin. Both Tukhachevsky and Sorge have their own ones. YOu may express your opinion there. mikka (t) 18:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and something more. Richard Sorge is also a myth. There were a lot of intelligence reports, with drops of truth and tons of bluff. Don't you think German counter-intelligence work were ineffective? Information supplied by Sorge and real German plans and real army size were completely different. Find his original information and compare it with reality before writing bold phrases about "advanced and detailed warnings". Unfortunately, I don't know anything about translation of these documents into English.

Seems you don't know a lot of things.

WBR, Stanislav, Moscow, 22yrs.

I think Stanislav has discredited himself sufficiently with his title to the 'contribution'. Dietwald 12:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

IT's a REALLY bad idea to delete entries on talk pages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mikkalai, you should not have done that. I know the comments were crap, but, don't do that. It's against etiquettes.Dietwald 04:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to encourage trolls and vandals. Please read the rules what talk pages are for. Also etiquettes are not applicable to vandals: they are dealt mercilessly. It was not, like, part of clash of POVs, when people may get their speech oout of control. It would be understandable. mikka (t) 22:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

fair enough. Dietwald 15:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the job

So don't think you're going to be pulling any fast ones on me--Here I come to save the world 19:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're on the job, why don't you give some reasons for your drive-by {{NPOV}} tagging, rather than stapling them up all over the place?--Scimitar ^parley 21:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Awful

Huge sections of this article sound practically like a whitewash. I'm not sure which misinformed nutjobs are mitigating the horrific crimes of Stalin, the numbers quoted here are very low, but if you are not familiar with the immense body of memoirs of survivors of the Purges and other excesses of the Stalin era (which only amount to a miniscule amount of what could have been known or recounted, given the nation-wide system of repression, propaganda, intimidation etc.), I suggest you start by reading authors like Nadezhda Mandelstam, Evgenia Ginzburg, Varlam Shalamov to name only a few, and additionally some historical works of merit, such as Fitzpatricks "Everyday Stalinism". It's one thing to give a well-rounded account of a totalitarian monster, listing his vaguely beneficial activities along with his crimes, it's quite another to go on at length about the former without offering any background into the latter. -- Simonides 23:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Just as I thought, some uninformed baboon wants to revert the facts by calling them 'POV'. Look, I don't know and don't care how ignorant you really are, just do the more knowledgeable people a favour and don't insist on rubbish when you don't know anything about the topic you're discussing. There is no question that Stalin was a dictator - NOBODY, not even the Stalin apologists deny it and there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary. Saying that it is a "common characterization" is like saying "a molecule of water is commonly characterized as being made up of hydrogen and oxygen." Similarly the rest of the insertions into the articles are UNDISPUTED FACTS - as a whole they insert some balance and perspective where there is very little. POV would be saying that Stalin's legacy was entirely detrimental to the country. Nobody is saying just that. What IS being said is that despite any economic and social gains in certain sectors of the country, the human toll was incredible and amounted to a lot more than the Holocaust took (over 20 million, not including casualties in WW2), the totalitarian conditions were appalling, and Stalin himself was guilty of sustaining and spreading these systematic horrors. -- Simonides 20:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please follow the Wikipedia civility policies and refrain from referring to other editors as 'uninformed baboons' and 'misinformed nutjobs'. No one here is not very well aware that Stalin was a dictator personally responsible for millions of deaths. However, the language in the intro was better before your edit in that it made reference to Stalin's legacy and the world's collective memories surrounding Stalin. That he is commonly regarded as a dictator responsible for millions of deaths by the Western world is a much more powerful statement than having a Wikipedia article itself assert that Stalin was a 'dictator responsible for millions of deaths.' 172 | Talk 23:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, I think there are some basic errors of English being perpetuated here and I don't care how NPOV an editor assumes s/he is being, but to substitute a nonsensical circumlocution for a fact leads to obfuscation and inaccuracy, which is worse than 'appearing' POV. Stalin was a dictator and responsible for tens of millions of deaths, NO SERIOUS HISTORIAN (alleging whatever politics) DISPUTES IT and there is ZERO EVIDENCE to the contrary - so how is apologist and inaccurate language like (current article) "a common characterization of him as a dictator ... an opinion that he was personally responsible... for millions or tens of millions of deaths" BETTER than (my words) "Stalin's cult of personality, his extreme concentration of power and the means of its execution defines him as a dictator." Look at my reply above - either water is 2H+O, or it isn't - where's the room for "an opinion" or "a characterization"? Is it merely a theory? This is so silly so as not to merit discussion, yet you insist on reversion. Please either reinstate my words or use some other direct phrases. It is not "a characterization" that Hitler was a dictator and "an opinion" that he was responsible for the Holocaust, no matter how shrill freakish supporters get or how much the extent of his responsibility is debated, to use a more consistent analogy.

Historians disagee on the exact nature of his personal responsibility and the exact impact, so it is important to speak with a mesure of qualification when making a general and unattributed one such as the one in question. Further, please refrain from shouting. (Using caps in online discussions implies shouting.) Further, I don't understand your point on these matters not being "just a theory." There are no facts independent of theory. Gravity is "just a theory"; that being said, the said comment was no challenge to its validity at all. 172 | Talk 05:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's not run in circles, shall we. Stalin was a dictator and personally responsible for tens of millions of deaths - I don't see why we're squeamish about something so terrible and so well-documented, outside of propaganda and revisionist nonsense. The extent is debated only above and beyond the general acceptance of his overall culpability, and the fact that Soviet society experienced extremes of totalitarianism unmatched elsewhere and previously - due to Stalin. Again, an analogy can be made to Hitler. We can be rather philosophical about this and talk about those 'average people', members of the population who help to sustain totalitarian regimes, but that does not diminish the responsibility of the person originating and directing the crimes, ideologies, propaganda etc. Again, don't confuse NPOV for apologia. -- Simonides 06:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Secondly - there is where more reading would help - there is a distinct difference between saying "Famous figures were not only repressed, but often persecuted, tortured and executed" (my words) and saying "Famous figures were often imprisoned or executed" (current version.) My sentence is already an extremely condensed version of the cycle of slander, unemployment, ostracism, depression, persecution, interrogation and, often, torture over a period of months and sometimes YEARS that significant sections of the population went through; this, of course, was almost inevitably followed by death, or deportation and death, and in the minority of cases, deportation followed by a painful survival. It didn't merely consist of a picnic at the Lubyanka followed by a jaunt to the local firing squad. That's what I mean by offering perspective and removing apologist language. Again, please either reinstate my words or write some that reflect the unimaginably vast scale of suffering and trauma that the country went through. I say all this KNOWING that there continue to be certain segments of the Russian population and various misguided non-Russian historians etc who still defend Stalin and deny the facts - however, no genuine academic takes them seriously. Parallels can again be made to neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, etc. -- Simonides 05:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am well aware that many writers endured a cycle of slander, unemployment, ostracism, depression, persecution, interrogation and, often, torture under Stalin. However, in an encyclopedia, the virtue is concision, not expressing our outrage. "Repression" and "execution" encompass all the other terms you are using. 172 | Talk 05:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, concision is important, but not at the expense of perspective, proportion, etc. This article is rather verbose where industrial or certain political 'achievements' are concerned and rather meek when it comes to delineating the nature of totalitarianism under Stalin; there is also very little mention of Stalin's colonial legacy; in fact it falls far short of the standards you are defending (NPOV, cautious language, etc.) The point of mentioning that string of words is that they are not synonymous, and they are not at all encompassed by the word "repression" which, in this case, is extremely vague and could connote something as trivial as censorship, which of course was an everyday element of Soviet society. That's why a distinction is important. It is important that readers understand shades of meaning and experience instead of generalised lumpsums of good and evil like what the media dishes out everyday. -- Simonides 06:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I doubt that the scope of a biographical entry here can capsize all the facets of the historical assessments of Stalin that you are pointing out as fully as they out to be detailed. The best solution may be to allow this article to develop on its own momentum, with of course a necessary round of future copyedits and word choice changes, and focus on the Historiography on Stalin article once an editor gets around to drafting the first version. Further, all the links related to this article, such as collectivisation in the USSR, Gulag, History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953), Great Purges, etc. leave little to the imagination as to the horrors of Stalin's rule both in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. 172 | Talk 07:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That's all very well, but it's still absurd to choose incorrect phrases such as "a common characterization", "an opinion that", "Famous figures were often imprisoned or executed" over my words or any other direct language. You haven't justified or even remotely offered any substantial evidence for your choices, and there is no factual reason to keep them, so I shall reinstate my words as you seem loathe to do so. -- Simonides 00:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ruy-man, that Stalin ordered his political opponents killed during the Great Purge is not an "opinion." And the previous wording regarding the "dictator" part was poor, but this ain't much better. Dr. Trey 04:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I am the person who originally posted a link to the article that said Stalin was an ethnic Jew but I later found out that was incorrect and retracted it but someone else has reposted it but not signed their name I would like to clarify that I was not the person who did that. FDR 2:08 PM December 2, 2005 (UTC)

"Further, I don't understand your point on these matters not being "just a theory." There are no facts independent of theory. Gravity is 'just a theory'" This statement is nonsense. If this is the case, then everything in Wikipedia should be preceeded with words like theoretically, it is widely believed, most would agree, etc. Talk172's defense of this article being NPOV because "some historians" don't regard Stalin as a totalitarian dictator doesn't mean that he wasn't a totalitarian dictator

NPOV

I have to agree I'm afraid. Historians do disagree on the extent of his responsibilty, however there is a vast mainstream of opinion that he was responsible (directly/indirectly). Those who say that he was entirly oblivious are a tiny minority. As such according to NPOV, the mainstream view must be stated first, and the minority views stated subsequently and with sources. Reading the hebrew article on this I was greatly impressed. I have put on a NPOV tag, as this is NPOV beyond doubt.

Things like "most historians agree" requires stating the minority view with sources.
The disputed death toll (10-40million); which permeates so much of the discussion on his life is not discussed in a NPOV fashion.
His responsibility for the crimes (which is universally described as either direct or indirect; it must have been indirect at least since he was in ultimate control) is described here "an opinion that he was personally responsible, directly or indirectly, via his policies" and that this opinion is derived from "Stalin's cult of personality, his concentration of power and the means of its use" Oh dear.

jucifer 17:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the people who want to emphasize the fact that Stalin was such a terrible dictator are blinded by their own sentimentality. Stalin was a terrible dictator, but this article does what it's supposed to do: explore the historical significance of the Stalin. Stalin did kill a lot of people. So did the Americans when they killed all the native americans (40 million at least). That's not the point. Stalin killing a lot of people is important, but it didnt influence the world as much as his accomplishments. The point is that Stalin transformed the Soviet Union faster than any other country ever in history between his rise to power and the late 1930's. He was able to defeat a much better equipped German army. The Czar lost to the Germans in WWI. Stalin was in a much worse position and he won. Go to any history book, and the tone of it will be the same. For all of you complainers, just get past your sentimentality. AuNO3

"Further, I don't understand your point on these matters not being "just a theory." There are no facts independent of theory. Gravity is 'just a theory'" This statement is nonsense. If this is the case, then everything in Wikipedia should be preceeded with words like theoretically, it is widely believed, most would agree, etc. Talk172's defense of this article being NPOV because "some historians" don't regard Stalin as a totalitarian dictator doesn't mean that he wasn't a totalitarian dictator.

The name "Stalin"

It has been said that, originally, "Stalin" was a conspiratorial nickname which stuck with him. Who said this? This sounds like weasel wording. Rhesusman 06:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This is true, it is a conspiracy nickname, and the same is true for Lenin (real name is Ulyanov), Trotsky (real name is Bronstein), Kamenev (real name is Rosenfeld) or Zinoviev (real name Ovsel Gershon Aronov Radomyslsky). Lots of the bolsheviks were Jewish, and they were hiding their real names because of the national antisemitism in Tsar's Russia and for conspiracy reasons.

Excessive Wikification

The other day, someone went through this article and practically wiki-linked every second word. Can we please stop this? For example, the word "bar", the word "books"...I could go on and on...

Do we really think that someone would look up Stalin, and then while reading the article, have the urge to link to the article on "bar" with its myriad meanings, or the generic "books"?

I do hope that this is not gonna become a trend...it adds nothing to any article.

Camillus^{talk|contribs} 10:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

tactical retreats?

I'll probably be accused of being a Stalin-apologist for saying this (which I'm evidently not - see my user page for my contributions), but I don't know if it's accurate to describe Stalin's answer to the excesses of the first wave of collectivisation as a "tactical retreat". To quote from his "Reply to Collective Farm Comrades" (cited in article):

"Is not the fight against the distortions of the Party line a step backward, a retreat?

Of course not! Only those who regard the continuation of mistakes and distortions as an offensive, and the fight against errors as a retreat, can think of this as a retreat. To wage an offensive by piling up mistakes and distortions - that would be a fine "offensive" indeed."

Camillus^{talk|contribs} 10:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed piece

The following piece removed. A chaotic collection of trivia under a ridiculous title. His last phrase suggests that he was rather sane: if he would have said "everybody love me", then he would have been a psycho. mikka (t) 02:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

== Paranoia ==

According to Khrushchev's autobiography, Stalin frequently engaged in all-night partying, making the members of the Politburo dance while he watched, after which he would sleep all day and expect them to stay up and run the country.

He was responsible, indirectly, for the death of his son. It was not unusual for him to sign sentence lists for hundreds of executions during the day and watch a movie during the night. His particular favorite was "Tarzan". His behaviour suggests paranoia, and in lucid moments towards the end of his life he was once heard to remark, "I trust no one, not even myself."

Ruy Lopez's vandalism

Can we please stop this vandal who refuses to use the Talk page, from re-inserting a passage that has already been thoroughly debunked here, in the section titled "Awful"?

Your help is much appreciated. -- Simonides 00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Stalin's Birthdate

the birthdate shown in the separate frame in the first title block says december 18, 1878, when it is factually december 21, 1878, i tried editing that myself, however could not, due to separate framing

We have found the burden of proof of his birthday to be December 18, 1878. The other possible date is December 21, 1879, which has been discredited.--Fallout boy 03:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon editing. Sneaky-lies or correction?

"Stalin became general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party in 1922"

An anon added the word 'vice' here. True or false? I don't know enough on the subject to know which is right. 23:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Skittle

No,it's an error, or a deliberate lie.

Camillus

^{talk|contribs} 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili

Can someone tell me the meaning of the name Besarionis? And also what's the "dze" for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.253.131 (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Besarionis is derived from his father's name, Besarion. "dze" means "son of", ie "son of Jughashvili".

Marriages and family

The Marriages and family section starts with the son of his second wife. It should start at least with his first wife, who seems to be not mentioned except in an image. McKay (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ekaterina Svanidze and Yakov are already both mentioned at the top of the non-Lead portion of the article in the Stalin before the Revolution section.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but a brief summary should be here too. McKay (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for repetition, but I changed the first part of the first sentence to "Stalin's son Yakov, whom he had with his first wife Ekaterina Svanidze, . . . " Mosedschurte (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Questionable tactics

The section "Questionable tactics" should be renamed to "War crimes" or "Possible war crimes" if that's more NPOV because in context of the surrounding WWII sections, a discussion of tactics during battlefield operation would be expected under a section titled "Questionable tactics". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.205.147 (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey i'm sorry I know this isn't the appropiate page for this, but I just noticed that in the first paragraph of the article it says that Russia and Germany went to war in ww2 because germany 'violated the pact'. Could someone change this to 'because Germany invaded Russia', because saying they 'violated the pact' seems to imply that it was some sort of technical disagreement, or an imperial confrontation, rather than the life and death struggle it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelliv (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Josef or Joseph?

which one is it?Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

uh i think it's both, Joseph is like the Anglo version you know?--69.229.109.122 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Soviet Relations

The section on Sino-Soviet relations is not very good. The article should point out that Stalin originally supported Chiang Kai-Shek as a bulwark against Japan. And it should also point that Stalin was less than enthusiastic in supporting the Chinese Communists Revolution against Chiang and originally instructed Mao to cooperate with Chiang. Even after Mao controlled the government of China and Stalin and Mao became allies they neve never did get along. --192.251.163.201 (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OUOUOUOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.63.65.100 (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true, he supported the Nationalists since he wanted a "stable southern neighbor" and only later did he switch to Mao's Communists seeing them as a potential ally when the Cold War was heating up. And it's true personally Mao and Stalin didn't like each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.109.122 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

{{editprotected}} According to Falsifiers of History, Stalin was a major proponent of existence of an anti-Soviet (or anti-Communist) conspiracy which, according to Stalin, contributed to outbreak of WWII. Accordingly, please add Category:Conspiracy theorists. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Stalin actually believed (and spoke regarding) a wide number -- probably incalculable -- number of conspiracies regarding plots against him, including by Jews (Doctor's Plot), innumerable ones during the Great Purge, that endless numbers of his own generals were actually against him (many were sent to the gulag), that Hitler had somehow really escaped, etc.

I'm not sure if that falls within the category of conspiracy theorists or not. Hitler also shared similar beliefs regarding Jewish plots to manipulate Slavs, Jews secretly controlling Bolshevism, and Hitler's own generals being out to get him (some turned out to be true, such as the July 20 plot).

But, to take a step back from the issue for a moment, this was fairly common for megalomaniacal communist and fascist dictators, and I'm not sure whether or not they should be in the category. Without democracies, their enemies couldn't oppose them in conventional elections or the press, so they saw them turning to more desperate means everywhere. Similarly, they saw world plots everywhere out to get them. This is bolstered by idealogies -- both fascists and communists made up a tiny percentage of the world, and viewed the rest of the mostly free market word with extreme distrust. E.g., Hitler viewed free market capitalists that made up most of the world as greedy narrow-minded short-sighted actors controlled by Jews while Stalin viewed them as bourgeois imperialists plotting to destroy the proletariat "revolution". Thus, they saw people acting on behalf of their perception of those numerous world interests in every part of their own organizations and countries secretly conspiring to kill them. This rose with the expansions of massive oppressive police state organizations that similarly saw plots everywhere (e.g., Gestapo, NKVD, Stasi, etc.) Ditto for leaders such as Kim il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il in North Korea.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

All these references ...

and the author can't even get the name right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.215.137 (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some historians" etc.

Wrong to say that Stalin's actions 'provoked' Hitler into invading. Stalin did all he could to prevent that invasion. Stevenjp (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed "Some historians believe Stalin contributed to starting World War II because of his secret agreement with Nazi Germany to carve up the nation of Poland, as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.[10][11] This led to the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland from the east later that same year, following Nazi Germany's invasion of western Poland. "
My rationale is as follows.

I am not sure the sentence started with the words "some historians" is appropriate for the intro.
Stalin, as well as all other European leaders definitely contributed to starting WWII. All historians agree about that.
Even without the secret protocol, MRP did affect the course of the world history. "Carving up" Poland (I mean, partitioning between Germany and the USSR) did not add much to that, because the only thing the secret protocol had affected was the starting position of German troops by 22 June, 1941. I know no sources that directly state that signing or not signing a secret agreement would affect a German decision to attack Poland. Therefore, making a stress on Poland in not appropriate.
The effect of MRP is a subject of a separate analysis, therefore it should be moved into more appropriate place.

As regards to sources, the reference to E. H. Carr I introduced into the article contains the opposite opinion. If someone is willing to balance it, he/she is wellcome to put his/her references there.

Nevertheless, this paragraph does not completely satisfy me, because it looks like Stalin had no relation to the outbreak of the WWII, and, on other hand, credited him for the Soviet victory in the war. Neither former or latter is true. Despite surprisingly reasonable Soviet foreign policy, Stalin's (insatisfactory) internal policy, without any doubts, created preconditions for the outbreak of WWII. The devastating Stalin pugres and strategical errors brough his country to the verge of catastrope in 1941. His strategical errors during the war made the victory much more bloody than it would be. Therefore, I would propose to rewrite this paragraph to show that the USSR won the war not due ot Stalin, but, at least partually, in spite of him. Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Sure, we can omit "Some historians believe" which was inserted by other users. The fact that some historians believe this is made explicit, and implied by inclusion of citations to prominent historians.

2) So what's the problem?

3) You're right about the undue focus on Poland. I'll add "and the Baltic states" in.

4) I agree that too much space should not be alloted to MRP and in fact most of what's been said at this talk page belongs on the talk page over there. However MRP is significant enough in Stalin's overall life that it needs to be mentioned in the lead. Furthermore, this is just two sentences and in fact the second one can be taken out. Hence it is not undue weight.

5) The above point also applies to your footnote (61) on Carr. While the reference should definitely be included such a long explanation of what Carr believed is out place here, again, belonging properly in MRP article. It also goes against the spirit of the footnote.

Finally, we're not here to asses whether Stalin had no relation to the outbreak of WWII, credit for victory, had a reasonable foreign policy, insatisfactory internal policy and so on. We're here to document views of historians (and others) on the matter. Having said that, in the relevant section it'd make perfect sense to include the opinions of any number of historians who have criticized Stalin's conduct of the war over the years.radek (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you prefer 3RR, not BRD. I prefer the latter, so I explain.

1) Ok

2) The problem is the it was MRP, not the secret protocol, that pulled a trigger of WWII. Secret protocol, taken separately, has only a marginal relation to the outbreak of WWII, if any.

3) Therefore, mentioning Poland, Estonia or other small country is hardly relevant in this paragraph.

4) I am not sure if it is correct to exaggerate a significance of MRP. It just pulled a trigger. The gun was loaded in Munich. The point is, the foreign policy of the USSR was surprisingly peaceful until 1939, so if we forget the real nature of the pre-war Stalin's regime, the events look like stupid, evil and egoistic Western countries deliberately urged the USSR to sign the agreement with Hitler. In actuality, the problem was that, due to purges and other frightening and stupid things Stalin did in 1930s most European countries were very suspicious about a)good will of Stalin; b)military capabilities of the weakened USSR. So the root of WWII grow from the internal policy of the USSR. Poland, Finland, Romania etc, are absolutely irrelevant. (In contrast to the common attitude in these countries now).

5) Fill free to shorten the footnote (and to remove unreferenced text you added after it. I think you see the place and style of that insert are not the most appropriate)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
My conclusion is, your text is not appropriate, although a couple of sentences reflecting a (very) negative Stalin's role have to be inserted there. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC) By the way, the reference 9 (Anna M. Cienciala (2004). The Coming of the War and Eastern Europe in World War II (lecture notes, University of Kansas). Retrieved 15 March 2006) is inappropriate, because it looks like being downloaded from Internet, but no URL was provide. The reference 10 is also unclear, because neither proper name of the book nor ISBN were provided. Therefore, although I do not deny a validity of the facts presented, they are neither relevant nor properly referenced.
regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I 3RRed since the text was edited in various ways and I tried to incorporate some of your suggestions. Anyways. 2) The secret protocol cannot be separated from the overall MRP pact. And again the speculation as to whether this protocol had a significant or marginal relation to the outbreak of WWII is beside the point. The point is whether there are reliable sources, historians and such, who believed that it did have a non-marginal effect. Those sources are provided. 3) An explanation of what the secret protocol contained is needed. 4) Again, this is not about mine or your opinion of the importance of these events but rather the works of notable historians. And you might want to work a bit on your metaphors (I don't mean for that to sound insulting, your phrasing just made me chuckle). Saying that one shouldn't exaggerate the significance of "pulling the trigger" when someone gets shot, doesn't quite make your point. Is this like "guns don't kill people, people who pull the trigger don't kill people, those who load the gun do!"? 5) I added specific names and the refs are coming soon. Feel free to put a cite tag in there for now if you wish. References can be fixed. It's general practice to let other editors know (so thanks for point this out) and give them some time to do it.radek (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC) radek (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

2)Why not? Before glassnost nobody knew about it. Had a discovery of it changed something considerably? Before that discovery, we were taught that the USSR launched the invasion spontaneously, to prevent Hitler from occupation of the whole Poland. Now we know Stalin had done it according to the agreement. Is the difference significant?
And two more questions that should be separated: the reliability of the sources and a correctness of its interpretation. MRP was a final step towards the war, and no sources are needed to prove that, because obvious facts need no proof. However, what you wrote is: "Stalin may have contributed to starting World War II because of his secret agreement with Nazi Germany to carve up the nation of Poland and absorb the Baltic States, as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939." I think I can read English, and my eyes tell me that it is a direct stress on the secret protocol, not MRP itself. Unfortunately, because of inappropriate referencing I couldn't read your sources, however I doubt they make such a stress.
3) No explanation of the secret protocol is needed, it is not an article about Poland, not a MRP article, it is just an introduction to the JS article. By the way, WP rules do not require references in the introduction because everything is described in details below.
4) Well, I meant a situation when a couple gentlemen loaded a gun and gave it to a maniac who started to run along the street waving with that gun. Sooner or later, one or another wrong move of some person would lead to pulling a trigger... Is that analogy better?
5) See 3).
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

2) Ummm, not exactly. It wasn't until glasnost that the secret protocol was ADMITTED to by Soviet authorities which is something different.

3) It would seem to make sense to say why MRP led (or helped to lead or whatever and whoever loaded or shot any guns) to WWII lest some future editor tries to remove the statement based on the lack of connection. As I said before, the second sentence may be omitted. References were provided after a request by some user in an revert/edit summary.

4)Yeah but no one's saying the loader is insignificant. You're saying the shooter is.

If you have a suggestion on the proper phrasing which incorporates your points, but also says what it was about MRP that contributed to WWII then please provide it.radek (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as surprising as it is, Paul may have a point :P We should not separate secret protocol from the rest of pact in lead. Wording in lead should point out that MRP is considered to have contributed to WW II, and it should point out that MRP included secret protocol about carving up Eastern-Europe (it affected enough large area to be notable enough for mentioning in lead). But it should not discuss if secret part was critical for start of war or not. Any such discussion would be pointless anyway, as we should deal with whole MRP when considering its role for starting WW II.--Staberinde (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the general intent here. I think the version as is currently does what you say it should do. Breaking it down into specifics maybe disruptive to flow and style.radek (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let us look again at this text:"Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (1939–1945). Stalin may have contributed to starting World War II because of his secret agreement with Nazi Germany to carve up the nation of Poland and absorb the Baltic States, as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. This led to the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland from the east later that same year, following Nazi Germany's invasion of western Poland. Under Stalin's leadership, after the war, the Soviet Union went on to achieve recognition as one of just two superpowers in the world. That status lasted for nearly four decades after his death until the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Stalin's rule had long-lasting effects on the features that characterized the Soviet state from the era of his rule to its collapse in 1991."
What does it tell us?
Without the bold text, the paragraph is unequivocally laudatory: Stalin is credited for the victory over Nazis and for rising the USSR as a superpower.
With this text the paragraph is laudatory too: he was a good guy, his only mistake was the invasion of Poland.
Both these versions are incorrect; in addition, the second one is Polonocentric. I would say the second one is more incorrect, because the first one may create an impression that Stalin's crimes and blunders are beyond the scope, whereas the second one implies that MRP was a) the mistake; b) the only mistake.
The effect of MRP was controversal and its results are disputable, so it is not clear if it was the mistake or not (therefore, a) is not a NPOV). MPR was far not the sole disputable action Stalin had made before WWII, so b) is also incorrect. Therefore, mentioning of carving up Poland is appropriate, however, not in that concrete article. The references do not add much to that.
To my opinion, the text in bold should be replaced with another fragment that states:
However, Stalin can hardly be credited for that because

During a pre-war period his devastating internal policy had weakened the Soviet society, thus provoking Germany to attack the USSR.
His foreing policy (especially the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) had lead to international isolation of the USSR and made German attack possible.
His strategic blunders during the first period of Great Patriotic War put the country on a verge of catastrophe.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Of course, any rewording is warmly wellcomed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine in general. How about something like

""Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (1939–1945), despite Stalin's policy mistakes before and during the war. These included a devastating internal policy which weakened the Soviet society and strategic blunders during the first period of Great Patriotic War. Additionally the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and its secret protocol, which agreed to carve up much of Eastern Europe between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, cleared the way for Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939 and the beginning of the war itself."

Only problem is that it may be a bit too long for lead. Also I omitted adjectives like 'notorious' since that can be taken as POV. In general we do not need references for stuff in the lead, but I just know someone will try to delete this based on POV or lack of citations, so we'd also need references for your first and third bullet point. These also should be wikified.radek (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. The only objection is "which agreed to carve up much of Eastern Europe between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union". Do you think (or do you know sources stating that) the probability of the WWII breakout would decrease had Hitler been alowed to occupy whole Poland? Off the top of my head, I recall Churchill stated a reverse, namely, that the occupation of Eastern Poland by the USSR was a reasonable and understandable step. In addition, the MRP article already discuss all aspects of the pact, so the reader can obtain the information in one click.
Remaining text is fine for me. Feel free to introduce it into the article.
I don't worry about the lack of citations, because everything is discussed below (and the sources are provided there).
Cheers,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Carving up of eastern europe is critical part of MRP. You cant separate it and say that it didnt contribute to war, considering that whole pact most likely would had never been signed without such spheres of influence. Also territory that was carved up is large enough to deserve mentioning even if MRP's role as starter of war is completely ignored. I am completely fine with radek's wording.--Staberinde (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany

Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts

Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78
"Contrary to historical orthodoxy, this turn in Soviet policy was not a planned or automatic consequence of the pact with Nazi Germany. There was no specific agreement or intention on 23 August to partition Poland. This assertion cannot be definitively proven but there are a number of documentary clues which support it.
Firstly, there is the fact that the first clause of the secret additional protocol to the pact concerned not Poland but Soviet-German spheres of influence in the Baltic. This was a curious textual order of priorities for two states that had just decided to carve up between them another major state. It makes much more sense to posit that there was no such agreement and to assume that what was agreed on 23 August was an eastern limit of German military expansion into Poland.
Secondly, there is a whole series of messages from Berlin to its Moscow embassy during the last week in August concerning press reports that Red Army units had been withdrawn from the Soviet-Polish border. Schulenburg was urgently in- structed to approach Molotov with a view to securing a public denial that this was the case.(DGFP, series D, vol. 7 docs. 360, 382, 383, 387, 388, 413, 414, 424) On the eve of their planned attack on Poland, Berlin was concerned to keep up the pressure on the Poles. In none of this correspondence was there any hint of a Soviet-German partition agreement concluded on 23 August. Had there been such an agreement then surely Berlin's response to these press reports and its representations in Moscow would have been much stronger?"
My conclusion is: MRP and its secret protocol can and has to be separated. Insisting on explicit mentioning MRP's secret protocol is a Polonocentric POV and, therefore, is not neutral. And, as some archive research suggest, it is simply incorrect.
I can agree with inclusion of secret protocol if someone clearly answer my question (that I asked above): can anybody present an evidence that the probability of the WWII breakout would decrease had Hitler been allowed to occupy whole Poland?
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain it in the "MRP for dummies" manner. MRP alone tells "USSR does not mind Germany to attack Poland, France or whoever else". The secret protocol states "The USSR would like to annex Eastern Poland after Germany took the Western part".
What especially dangerous did the secret protocol contain that deserved a separate mentioning?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, it's true, eastern europe was an important part of WWII and yes it's true the Molotov-Rib pact is a significant fact, but this should not be included in an intro...Why isn't the Winter War included in the into as well and how it encouraged Hitler to attack after viewing the weakness of the Red Army? Why not Why not put that Zhukov was planning a preemptive attack and that was what made Hitler invade the USSR. Those are all under debate as well as the carving up of Poland and should all be included where they belong, in a WW II section. That's why the MRP shouldn't be there

I need more feedback

Seektrue (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't even feign a neutral point of view. This article is not historical at all, it is anti-Stalinist. and even more than that, it is historically inaccurate. It is using the great leader or in this case, the great villain to simplify a movement of millions, to the shoulders of one mighty (mean) guy. Stalin was not a "super-villain". Its like blaming Hitler for what all Nazis did, Hitler was one man, he had no power to kill millions of people. The same goes for Stalin, he was part of a movement that did terrible things, but it is not accurate to blame him directly for everything that the Soviets did. I am not a supporter of Stalin, by what's the problem with reporting things the way they happened? He commanded other people to do it for him, that's the way life works, that's the lesson of history, it's not that a person holds crazy beliefs or supports insane acts of violence, it's the situation where it becomes permissible for other people, millions of people to support, permit, and enforce what a nut job says, that's the lesson of history, not the larger than life super-villain. Somebody wrote, "Stalin installed a command economy", get real, he did not act alone, that is what I call "speak n spell" history. Stalin was part of a movement that was incredibly popular, Russia was only 20 some odd years free of the tyranny of the czar, they had been attacked by 17 nations, from the South, East, & West and many soviets were paranoid. There were huge rifts within the CP about what direction would best keep the Soviet Union from returning to to Capitalism/Imperialism. Stalin was the top leader of one of many factions within the party that thought that repression was key to preserving and moving the revolution forward. I don't agree with that line, and in some ways it is more brutal, but also it makes more sense than the "Singular evil maniac theory" that is being purveyed in this article. This article begs the question, why didn't someone just stop Stalin if he was such a maniac, and the short answer is because many people agreed with him.Willdw79 (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheist?

I doubt that he was an atheist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.195.86 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you feel this to be true/false you will need to accompany a reference with it. The signs point towards atheism, however, due in part to political policy. --69.239.175.29 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.195.86 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there English sources about him being an atheist too?? Can we actually decide between him being a non-believer and him being afraid of the power of the churches??

Of course he was an atheist. Read his essay on Dialectical & Historical Materialism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjp (talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The map

It seems that the map in the article is not correct. Obviously somebody has tried to suggest, that Romania wasn't communist and part of the Eastern bloc, which is, of course, not true. The following version would be more appropriate:

141.30.216.38 (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody who can do that? 141.30.216.38 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

2nd President of the USSR

what is "President of the USSR? that position never existed until Gorbachev's time....how come it's in the box? it should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.105.25 (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's trivia but

I'm reading a history of the luxury goods company 'Dunhill by Design: A Very English Story' and there's a bit on page 156 about Stalin of all people. Apparently, this great leader of the Peoples' Republic preferred Dunhill briar pipes. This presented problems during the Blitz, apparently, so he ordered two, so he'd be sure to have a spare.

Someone had expensive tastes for the leader of a proletariat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.175.8 (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Material by Roman Brackman

Material by Roman Brackman should be removed since it comes from The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life, which advances the theory that Stalin was really a Czarist agent who infiltrated the Bolsheviks. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why

Why does the article refer to Red Army troop movements as "Stalin marched" and "Stalin attacked"? Why are decisions made by the central committee described as "Stalin decided"? This article is totally slanderous. It makes it appear as though there was no Communist Party in the Soviet Union while Stalin was the Chairperson. It makes the article very silly, sort of like a caricature of reality. Why not say, "and then Stalin started throwin bombs at the Nazis you know what im sayin... and then he was grabbin people off the block you feel me and putting them in gulags, he was like killin people and stuff". This article will always be silly and misleading until the moderators at wikipedia lose their ethnocentrism and hero-centered view of history. == -Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdw79 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But they'll never ever do that. Don't you know by now?

"Скворец"[Сталин]/Starling in Russian History

По английски "Скворец"("Starling") произносится как ['Ста:лин] [Сталин]"Сталин"

Starling - [Сталин] - Скворец

Star-ling ling-link-ling (лингофонные кабинки связи голосом) Star - Звезда

Starling - Скворец (pron. [Сталин]

Сталин - Stalin

Stalin - Сталин

"Ста" - "сто" - "100" - "hundred"

"С Талинна" "С Талина" "Сталин"

(From Tallin - From Tallinn - From Talin - Fromtalin)

"Сталь" - "Steel" - [стил]

"Сталь" - "Steel" - [стил] Steal - [стил] - стянуть, своровать, украсть, стащить

=======================

Stalin - Сталин

Starling - [Сталин] - Скворец

===================

Blackbird - Чёрный Дрозд Starling - Скворец (произносится как Сталин)

Т.е. этимология происхождения ника-псевдонима-клички-прозвища "Сталин", мог быть услышанное английское слово "Скворец" ("Starling")

Я нашла, что окончательный вариант-выбор был сделан в 1912 году. по записям.

Источник-ссылка: http://zhurnal.lib.ru/c/ckotford_i_a/starling.shtml

Winderrainer (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo Manipulated Image

The main image is a photo manipulated picture of Stalin taken by LIFE. The picture does not belong to the Ukraine. It was taken with Margaret Bourke-White in August 1941.

Original: http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?q=joseph+stalin&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djoseph%2Bstalin%26imgsz%3Dxxlarge%26hl%3Den&imgurl=22dd6db6442f1aef

Distorted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg

The picture was flipped horizontally, tilted and darkened to make him look menacing.

Also if you look of this page's history at the time of the upload of the photo there was disapproval with replacing the original image. This page was locked up for awhile because of people switching the image. It was forgotten about and now this photo manipulated image uploaded by someone who hates the man is the main image. The article should be neutral and we shouldn't have this negative image of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.90.148 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The image has been listed for deletion. Óðinn (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The disapproval was not over copyright, as I recall. It's a pity though, because it was an excellent portrait of Stalin that wasn't airbrushed for propaganda purposes.Kurzon (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Animal Farm

I did not notice any mention of George Orwell's artistic portrayal of Stalin as the character Napoleon in this article. Did I miss it somewhere? Is this omission intentional due to the incendiary nature of the depiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.128.164 (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Error

Not sure where and how to place this correctly but there is a factual error:

"Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (1939–1945)"

This should read (1941-45). Until this date, the Soviets were allied with the Nazis. kentish 28 Oct 08

No - the USSR had a Non-Aggression Pact with Germany, i.e. an agreement not to attack each other, which is not the same as an alliance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjp (talk • contribs) 14:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - it should be changed. Ignoring the issue of "alliance" or "agreement" (which is disingenuous) - Stalin made no contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during the period 1939-1941. In fact, the Soviet Union supplied raw materials to Nazi Germany and there was cooperation between both armed forces. Therefore, Stalin helped support the Nazi regime during this period. Please correct to read:

""Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during the period 1941-45 of WW2 (1939-1945).

This change should be made THEN there should be discussion about whether or not Russia made the largest (possibly) and most decisive (disagree ie Battle of Britain). For example, the US made the largest financial contribution to the defeat of the Nazis. And one could argue that the defeat of the Luftwaffe in 1940 meant that when the Nazis invaded Russia in 1941, they had to fight on two fronts. Kentish 11 Aug 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.166.182.164 (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Loss of focus

Too much of this article is general history of Soviet Russia rather than a proper biography of Stalin himself. There are entire paragraphs where he is not even mentioned, or if he is it is only incidentally, as in "this was the result of Stalin's orders". Meanwhile, the sections that actually concern his personal and political life keep getting trimmed down and moved to sub-articles. This article is about Stalin, not Stalinist Russia.Kurzon (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. What do you propose to remove?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How about the "Calculating the number of victims" section? That's a prime example of what I was talking about.Kurzon (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There's an article, History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953), that would be a good place to move all this tangential information.Kurzon (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But the text in that section is very much related to Stalin. This is not a constructive proposal. Every serious work on the guy has a discussion on this subject.radek (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically there's two problems with the proposal to moving this section to History of the SU: 1) This is one of the primary pieces of information that people come to this article for 2) The section itself is not so much about history of the SU (though of course that's related) but rather about the research that has been done into establishing the # of victims.

There may very well be some parts of this article that can be moved to HofSU27-53, but this ain't one of them.radek (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If people come to this article to get info on Stalinist Russia, it's only because they don't know where to start. There should be an expedient link to a proper history article and this should remain a biography.Kurzon (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But they're coming here to get info on Stalin (# of his victims) rather than on Soviet Russia. Hence appropriate.radek (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The newest reason given for removing a huge swathe of pertinent text: it doesn't mention anything about his life or career is just simply not adequate. It mentions the number of people who's deaths he was responsible for. This is obviously about Stalin. By the same token, should the section on the Holocaust be removed from the Hitler article [3], since "it doesn't mention anything about Hitler's life or career"? Also, please discuss things first before reverting and removing so much text.radek (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you consider everything that happened in Russia during Stalin's rule to be worthy of his biography then why don't we just dump all Russian history material 1927-1953 here? Also, this topic has been discussed before, with agreement; see above.Kurzon (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm not saying that everything that happened in Russia during Stalin's rule should be put into here - don't construct straw man. I'm saying that the number of Stalin's victims should remain in here. 2) Can you provide a link to previous discussion? Apparently the agreement wasn't complete since the (substantial, important and relevant) section was still in there before you removed it. Obviously, there is no agreement to remove it presently.radek (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To be clear: it's not that I'm objecting to the general purpose of shortening this article. I just don't think removing THIS section is the way to do it. Maybe shorten it at best, but not remove it. And cut somewhere else.radek (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think, we should separate Stalin's victims (the persons he ordered to kill) from the victims of Stalinism (the victims of the regime he created). The section in its present form is ambiguous, because it mix the formers with the latters. Nevertheless, desptie the Adolf Hitler article (a good article in my opinion) contains no such a section, I think we can leave it here. However, it should be devoted to the Stalin's victims, not to the victims of Stalinism. It connection to that, let me remind you that S. Weathcroft in his article "The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings 1930-45" (Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353) pointed out that one should distinguish "between purposive killing and deaths from criminal neglect and irresponsibility".
To my opinion, if the sources are available that give the number of persons Stalin personally ordered to execute, these numbers should be presented in this section. All other numbers and facts belong to the Victims of Stalinism article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the difference between "Stalin's victims" and "victims of Stalinism" would be people who were killed outside the SU under other Stalinist regimes (say in Albania until 1985 or Poland 1945-1956) - unless one makes an argument that a person has to personally pull the trigger in order to be responsible, which is obviously false (as with Hitler). The section's already on Stalin's victims not victims of Stalinism.radek (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No. In the biography article the term Stalin's victims means those persons who were killed by him personally, or who were executed according to his order. The victims of Stalinism are those who were killed or died as a result of the Stalin's regime's activity. In that sense, Trotsky or Bukharin were personal Stalin's enemies, and they were his victims. By contrast, Holodomor victims were the victims of Stalinism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As Mosedschurte states below, in a regime like that of Stalin there's going to be A LOT of overlap between "victims of Stalin" and "victims of Stalin's regime" (which is different then "victims of Stalinism" - if the section really was about "victims of Stalinism" I'd agree with you, but it's not).radek (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Kurzon and I, on one side, and Mosedcshurte and you, on another side, use the same arguments, but come to different conclusions. As I already pointed out, the article about a person should be separated from the article about a regime he created. This section is definitely about the victims of Stalinism, therefore, it belongs to the article about Stalinism (the peoples mentioned in this section were not killed by Stalin, and only a small portion of them were executed, exciled or imprisoned according to his personal orders). Again, I don't propose to remove the section completely, just to rename it to "Victims of Stalinism", to shrink it to few sentences and to provide a link to a daughter article. With regards to the article about Stalinism, I fully support its extension, because Stalinism is a separate phenomenon, quite different from Marxism, Communism and Socialism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

<-- Well, to restate my position - no, the section is not about "victims of Stalinism", or if it is, it is woefully inadequate missing some very large chunks. It is about "victims of Stalin" and yes, to a certain unavoidable extent "victims of Stalin's regime". A person who directs the setting up of a system of concentration camps where the death toll is very high and where Mr. X and Mrs. Y die due to the brutal treatment, even if he or she has not issued a specific order that Mr. X and Mrs. Y be killed, or killed them with his or her own hands, is still responsible for the death of Mr. X and Mrs. Y and Mr. X and Mrs. Y can and are usually referred to as "victims of this person".radek (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Well, to restate my position" Sorry for reminding you obvious things, but we are here to achieve a consensus, not to restate our positions.
Your considerations may be formally correct, but we have a more concrete problem here: we have two articles, one of them, a huge and overextended article, tells about Stalin and Stalinism (although the article is a biography article), whereas its sister, named "Stalinism" is unacceptably short, too brief and doesn't cover a topic. To my opinion, both articles would benefit if some text from the first one is moved to the second (with appropriate links).
And, by the way, I see no reason to suspect me in whitewashing Stalin: I don't propose to remove any negative facts about him, just to put them into a more appropriate place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure let's work on getting a consensus - but obviously we have different opinions and starting points. As I already indicated above I agree with the fact that this article could use some more cutting and Stalinism expanded. I just don't think this is the right section to start with. I don't believe I ever said anything about suspecting you of "whitewashing" Stalin.radek (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, in your opinion, which material should be moved to the Stalinism article first?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A few clarifications

(1) Not to demonize anyone, but this is not a new issue for Kurzon regarding moves to focus away from events during Stalin's 30 years of leadership to those mostly before that period. He earlier had also attempted to add back huge sections with massive details regarding the early childhood and early adult life of Stalin that had already been summarized here, while moving the long text pieces (with material on other issues as well) to various subarticles to attempt to get the article remotely close to Wikipedia prose text size guidelines. He also attempted it again, here. This was addressed then. The original extremely long text of such topics exists in articles here:

Realize that nearly ALL of that material used to be in this article. While still too long, the entire article has been trimmed throughout -- most or all sections. The article had ballooned to 260KB total, 142KB prose and in excess of 22,800 prose words.

(2) Someone humorously stated "All other numbers and facts belong to the Victims of Stalinism article." Notice the red link. There is no such article.

(3) Even if there were to be one, a few paragraph summary such as what is contained here on the millions of victims of Stalinism would most certainly be contained in an article on Joseph Stalin, though not nearly as extensive as any such article on the topic (just a brief few paragraph summary). What would be debatable would be the size, sources, etc. Although some brief discussion of the records is in order because of the unique historical circumstance of the Soviet Union standing for nearly 40 years after Stalin's death, I could see cutting this to a more summary form, and will do so if some desire exists for such a cut.

(4) The article in general focuses more upon Stalin's decision making, with some focus generally on his regime, rather than Soviet history as a whole. Obviously, in a unqiue tightly run dictatorship such as Stalin's (indeed, Stalin is the usual exemplary figure used to describe such rulers) there is going to be significant overlap between the two. That is unavoidable and should be neither sought nor avoided in terms of notable Stalin facts and events.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Someone humorously stated "All other numbers and facts belong to the Victims of Stalinism article." Notice the red link. There is no such article." I am glad you noticed the red link. This is an invitation for you to create such an article. I have some interesting sources on that account, so I believe I'll be able to help you in that job.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, in a unqiue tightly run dictatorship such as Stalin's (indeed, Stalin is the usual exemplary figure used to describe such rulers) there is going to be significant overlap between the two. That is unavoidable and should be neither sought nor avoided in terms of notable Stalin facts and events

It isn't unavoidable. If so many historians can write biographies in Stalin without talking about everything that happened under him, why can't we?Kurzon (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't talk about everything -- in fact, it doesn't address most things and other people in the grand scheme of Soviet history. Most of the sections focus on Stalin's decisions and the effects thereof, not Soviet history as a whole. Accordingly, most major modern historical works on Stalin -- not just on Stalin's personal or childhood life, but everything -- address most of the major topics in this article. That there exists overlap with some of Soviet history is a by product of Stalin's uniquely tight dictatorship for 30 years of that history. It's that simple.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

References in the lede

The references in the lede are not required. According to guidelines, references in the lead are not needed to support non-controversial subjects. Holodomor, population transfer and cult of personality are not more controversial than others excesses of his Stalin's do. I propose to move all references from the lede to the main article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Movement to have atheism removed from info box

Stalin's atheism does not merit being included in his info box. It didn't form a major part of his policies, nor indeed was it a major part of his life.

There is no movement to have atheism removed from the info box. Atheism is major Communist policy. That Stalin attended Seminary school and later became a Communist and Atheist is indeed an important fact about his life. The Church was violently suppressed in the Soviet Union, and Atheism was absoutely an important part of Stalin's policies and life. Even if it weren't, this is standard information included in info boxes. The info box will not be changed.--KatelynJohann (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect formulation

Section : Questionable tactics

"pursuant to a note from to Stalin from Lavrenty Beria" to, from, to, from.... which one is which ?

216.221.33.190 (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Luc D.