Talk:Joseph Stalin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joseph Stalin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Joseph Stalin is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

This is a controversial historical topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please also consider the particular importance of using proper citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Joseph Stalin as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew,  Norwegian or Romanian language Wikipedias.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Archive 1 (as of Apr 2003)
Archive 2 (up to Jul 2003)
Archive 3 (Dec 2003 to Nov 2004)
Archive 4 (Nov 2004 to Jan 2005)
Archive 5 (Feb 2005 to Jul 2005)
Archive 6 (Jul 2005 to Aug 2005)
Archive 7 (Sep 2005 to Dec 2005)
Archive 8 (Dec 2005 to Apr 2006)
Archive 9 (May 2006 to Jul 2006)
Archive 10 (Aug 2006 to Oct 2006)
Archive 11 (Oct 2006 to Dec 2006)
Archive 12 (Oct 2006 to Dec 2006)
Archive 13 (Dec 2006)

Contents

[edit] The Joseph Stalin article talk page

[edit] Dictator vs. Despot

While I'm no expert, I do believe there is a formal definition of dictator rooted in the latin notion of a magistrate formally invested with the powers of a tyrant. If Stalin was never legally conferred these powers, then he may in fact not have been a dictator. However, I believe there is more than enough evidence from the historical record to regard him as a despot - i.e. a ruler exercising absolute power. Is the term despot or despotic ruler more acceptable? Ronnotel 18:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, but according to the dictionaries I've checked there is no modern-day requirement that the word 'dictator' refer to an absolute ruler with powers specifically conferred to him. Also, in common usage, it seems like the word 'dictator' seems far more prevalent in application to modern-day rulers - 'despot' is used almost exclusively to refer to ancient rulers. - Merzbow 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

According to that definition there would have been no dictator for 2050 years, since Caesar's death. Clearly, this is ridiculous. Str1977 (smile back) 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I already mentioned earler that Stalin was one of revolutionary leaders and Wikipedia does not generally blame revolutionary leaders as dictators. Compare for example Lenin, Kerensky or Oliver Cromwell (who had a special paragraph in the constitution preserving supreme power for him for all his life). I think all the article should be consistent. I tried to mark Cromwell as dictator but was reverted for "POV". I think there exist sources that claim he was a dictator but you hardly find one that say he wasnt.--Nixer 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Not knowing a huge amount about Cromwell, I'd have to agree he seemed like a dictator to me. I'll take a look at that article and will re-add it if necessary. - Merzbow 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So we are back again, with Nixer shouting Cromwell. If the Cromwell page is wrong, that's another issue. Secondly, why should there be an exception for leaders of so-called revolutions? Do they get immunity? Thirdly, why are you talking about "blame"? It is a description and not a blame. And again, why should revolutionary leaders be immune from blame (if it were blame)? Str1977 (smile back) 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the Cromwell page, I see this in the intro: "Cromwell is a very controversial figure in English history—a regicidal dictator to some historians (such as David Hume and Christopher Hill) and a hero of liberty to others (such as Thomas Carlyle and Samuel Rawson Gardiner.)" So there are reliable sources on both sides of the issue. This is unlike the case with Stalin - the anti-dictator side still has produced nothing. - Merzbow 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Cannot dictator be at the same time hero of liberty? Do the authors who say Cromwell was hero really argue that he was not dictator? I think there are many authors for whom Stalin is also a hero. And as I already said Marxism cannot agree Stalin to be dictator because of theoretical issues. For example, Soviet Encyclopedia defines dictatorship as unlimited by law power of a class over other classes.--Nixer 00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, Soviet sources are not reliable sources since critics were imprisoned and killed.Ultramarine 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are reliable... you cannot discard a source solely because of its origins! So let me understand you points, nothing that comes from a Soviet source is reliable right? You are wrong! And I told you before, the book you used before regarding the imprisonment is grossly exaggerating! Nixer is right, and he is exercising the use of the encyclopedia to demonstrate that Marxist couldn't conceive a dictatorship because of ideological differences, and to illustrate this example he used a marxist source which supports a view that is entertained by marxism. Don't be such a radical! Soviet sources may disagree with your views but it doesn't mean that everything they say is false... and again, last time, people were not killed if they spoke against the state! IF that were true everyone in the eastern block would have been in prison or dead. Apart from that I already provided the sources which do not claim Stalin as a dictator, you can check them in the other section of the talk page... enough said, they are Soviet Sources, but they finally proclaim a view you saw as an impossibility and prove that there are sources who don't see Stalin as a dictator. Besides, the sources you use are entirely biased, unobjective and therefore, as a consequence, completely unreliable! You are telling me the black book of communism is objective and reliable?! Of course not! It is as if you were to use an anti-Nazist book to explain Naxism in an objective manner! wrong. Kiske 22:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the views of the current research. Soviet sources are not accepted in academica as reliable since critics could be killed or imprisoned. Lots of people in the were in fact murdered or were imprisoned. You have not presented any academic sources who support your position. On the ohter hand, the Black Book of Communism was written be six leading scholars, several who were former Communists, and is the US published by Harvard University Press.Ultramarine 19:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine has made yet another baseless statement in regard to people being killed for differing views. At the same time, has cited the widely discredited "Black Book of Communism" which uses a wide variety of obsolete and unverifiable sources.[1] In East Germany, except for the aftermath of the June 1953 revolt, capital punishment was largely avoided. [2]

Alright, look, we can't let an extremely vocal minority mess up this article. According to WP:FRINGE, we should certainly mention what Soviet sources say about the subject, but mainstream history considers Stalin a dictator. TomTheHand 16:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. Google book search has 1348 results for "Stalin Soviet leader" but only 773 for "Stalin Soviet Dictator". People have still yet to put forth an adequate response to the fact that Stalin was the prime minister from 1941-53.

"Stalin Soviet Leader" gives 7 results in Google book search.[3]
Lets have a look at this Google scholar serach which is more relevant: [4]. Here are academic work with titles like "Stalin as Leader, 1937-1953. From Dictator to Despot", "Proletarian Dictator in a Peasant Land: Stalin as Ruler", and "Dictators and Disciples. From Caesar to Stalin".Ultramarine 19:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Ultramarine, you are wrong... I have provided sources that support my claims, but of course, your ideals seem not to accept anything that opposes them, so I will not waist my time explaining them to you. "Lots of people were murdered and imprisoned?" Okay I understand, if that makes you feel like you've won the battle well, then I have nothing to say except for the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and that the views of the world from behind a bullet proof glass are not really real! The idea you have of what it's like livingin a communist nation is completely distorted, but that can be understood, given that you are living in the most imperialist nation on Earth! Kiske 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What source claiming that Stalin was not a dictator? Ultramarine 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I already reached an agreement with Merzbow, but the sources I mentioned and quote that support my arguments you can find in the "suggestions" section. The sources proclaim Stalin, not as a dictator, but as a leader who served the people. Regardless of what they say, I have compromised, the introduction to the article will say dictator, but there will be another section which will read "Views of Stalin over time", which I am in the process of creating, in which the different perspectives will be exposed and explained. Kiske 10:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford English dictionary I have in front of me uses just 2 words to describe Stalin, "Russian dictator". If we were to condense this article to 2 words, well they would be it. Of course a minority of people disagree with that and some are published so the article at some point should recognise the minority view that there is a little controversy over the issue but the article should reflect the mainstream view from the outset. Lets be realistic though, many books are written specifically to be controversial. If I were to write an historic work I'd much more likely be published with a title like "Hitler: Just misunderstood", "Gengis Khan the family man" or "Einstein was a thicky" than with something mainstream hence today we see these intentionally controversial books everwhere,incuding ones that try and Stalin was a nice guy really. --LiamE 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That issue has already been worked out and we are in the process of placing it in the article. Nevertheless, your oxford history is completely erroneous just because it says that Stalin was Russian. Stalin wasn't Russian, he was born in Georgia and died in 1953, 38 years before the fall of the of the USSR, which would mean he was a soviet citizen... Oxford should say Soviet Dictator... Oxford is generalizing and using Russian and Soviet as the same words,which of course they are not... your dictionary is completely erroneous and it is away from sources such as those that we should avoid. Kiske 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so quick. The definition of "Russian" is "adjective Of Russia or more widely the former USSR. noun Native or inhabitant of Russia or the former USSR..." So yes, calling him Russian is perfectly correct. If you have a problem with that take it up with Oxford, but I doubt you'd get anywhere. --LiamE 23:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Zoola, regardless of the merits of your argument, please stay civil and avoid profanity. Ronnotel 03:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Even money our friend Zoola here is another JP sockpuppet/troll. - Merzbow 06:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Despite our troubled friend's lack of civility here, he/she does have a point. Is it mentioned on the article? I think it should be, considering it was such a large number, and Stalin's noteriety. Disinclination 19:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Factually Incorrect Claim

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

This is just simply false as is explained on the "Holodomor" page. The credibility of this entire article and Wikipedia has imploded. Tauger, Wheatcroft, Davies and others who've actually done research on the subject have concluded that the 1932 harvest was worse than that of 1931. Moreover, grain collections in 1930-33 stayed at a constant level. Bullock is also incorrect in his claim that exports of grain contributed to the famine. Bullock's claims on the subject are not valid since he did not study the subject but instead derived the work of others presumably Robert Conquest. Research by Davies and Wheatcroft concluded that collections were not excessive and that the 1932 harvest was worse than that of 1931. Bullock is also blatantly wrong about the deaths of 5 million Ukrainians as the declassified archives show that 1.5 million died. [5] [6] [7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Young man?

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

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

[edit] Jesuits?

Stalin's mother was fiercely Orthodox, there is no way she would have sent him to a Roman Catholic seminary. In fact, the story about the Jesuits being somehow responsible for Stalin is a myth, propagated by Internetters who believe in the Illuminati plot to take over the world. The mistake first appeared in Time in 1945. Have a look at this: [8]. To top it all, this article puts an Armenian Catholic (Eastern rite!) in the same school as Stalin, when that cardinal had not been born yet. Wikipedia is not the place to propagate Illuminati conspiracy theories. This reference must be eliminated forthwith.

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


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

- Mr. Communist

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

[edit] Stalin's title

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


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

- MR. Communist


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

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

[edit] Khrushchev would laugh at this sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't you take a shot at changing it? We're all editors here, and you make a good case. - Merzbow 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is semi-protected right now. You'll need to make an account and then wait four days (is that correct?) before you can edit it. If you do make the changes, please try to cite sources, as this article tends to be argument-prone. Citing sources will help to head off those disputes before they happen. --C33 19:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, is there a real need of this sentence in the first place? What it means to say is, basically, "the USSR remained a communist state, and this is bad". Everybody knows the first part of the sentence, and everybody has an opinion about the second part. What are described as the "basic principles of Stalin's rule" are actually the basic principles by which every real communist state has been ruled, there is nothing specific about Stalin, and what is specific about Stalin stretches to their limit such principles, perhaps contradicting them. Today China follows the same principles except that it can be described as a "mixed" economy. Is today China ruled by "most of the basic principles of Stalin's rule"? Seems like a dark night in which all cows look grey to me. 81.208.31.212 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I softened up the paragraph a bit by changing the wording. Not comfortable with removing it entirely (because I think it's essentially accurate now), but I won't object if somebody does because it's still unsourced. - Merzbow 23:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

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

[edit] Recent edits

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

This one is looking more like JP, the talk page comment is just like him. Need more evidence though for an RFCU. Either way, I have no problem reverting him since he's removing sourced material against consensus. - Merzbow 01:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Fox33, but it definitely looks like Jacob Peters was editing as 69.110.129.77 (same pattern of disparaging sources he disagrees with: [9], same Pro-Soviet POV: [10], same ISP/location as many of his other IP socks: [11] as recently as yesterday. --C33 02:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Physics

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

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

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

[edit] Grammar Fix

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

Cheddarbek 27 Januaray 2007

[edit] Sergei Prokofiev

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

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

[edit] Robbing banks while in exile?

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

Skogstokerier 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Stalin's name?

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

He never legally changed it. His children were all born with that surname Dzhugashvili.

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

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

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

[edit] mistaken estimate of ww russian deaths

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

[edit] This entry still perpetuates debunked lies and myths

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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


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

Down with anti-Communists. Comrade Stalin always alive!Xx236 08:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Viva la Tyranny!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/Talk%7EJoseph_Stalin_9256.html"